- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:21 am to Coon
I still can't say that Frank Broyles takes credit for it all happening.
Now, had Arkansas and Carolina not been willing participants, then no, the SEC doesn't do what it did.
The Texas schools didn't go through with it. Neither did FSU or anybody else they asked.
Arkansas was one of the original four invited, and we jumped. In that sense, you can say our leadership had the guts to rip us out of the conference we had been in for 70+ years, which to that point was unheard of.
We were the first major school to ditch its long time conference affiliation and go to a better situation. In that way, yeah Arkansas blazed the trail.
Penn St was indy, as was Carolina, and FSU.
We were the first big program to break tradition.
It was a big deal to do that. To this day, I think the only teams to ditch a long term conference affiliation to move to another league alone are Utah and Colorado. And neither had been in the same league for anything like 76 years like we had been in the SWC.
Now, had Arkansas and Carolina not been willing participants, then no, the SEC doesn't do what it did.
The Texas schools didn't go through with it. Neither did FSU or anybody else they asked.
Arkansas was one of the original four invited, and we jumped. In that sense, you can say our leadership had the guts to rip us out of the conference we had been in for 70+ years, which to that point was unheard of.
We were the first major school to ditch its long time conference affiliation and go to a better situation. In that way, yeah Arkansas blazed the trail.
Penn St was indy, as was Carolina, and FSU.
We were the first big program to break tradition.
It was a big deal to do that. To this day, I think the only teams to ditch a long term conference affiliation to move to another league alone are Utah and Colorado. And neither had been in the same league for anything like 76 years like we had been in the SWC.
This post was edited on 9/13/11 at 12:23 am
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:27 am to Coon
quote:
Coon
So much fail...
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:28 am to busey
What's so hard to understand? The op asked about arky leaving with regards to Texas. Clearly he is talking about what went down in the early 90's which is when the term "superconferences" came to be from conferences expanding to generate more tv revenue and add a CCG. I dont think they were talking much about tv revenue in the 30's.
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:32 am to Coon
So? Upon the Southern Conference's inception it had 14 members and by 1923 it had 23 members. "Super conferences" are nothing new and Arkansas 20 years ago had nothing to do with what is going on today other than the simple fact that they are now an SEC member.
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:38 am to wmr
quote:
We were the first major school to ditch its long time conference affiliation and go to a better situation. In that way, yeah Arkansas blazed the trail.
I totally agree with this. If the argument were Arkansas blazing the trail for people leaving established conference ties, they might have a claim to that (although Georgia Tech left the SEC after 30 years membership).
This post was edited on 9/13/11 at 12:39 am
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:38 am to busey
That's kinda bullshite, and you know it.
Superconferences as we know them, the template, was born with SEC 2.0 in 1992.
Who was playing who in 1923 has nothing to do with it. OU and OSU used to be in the SWC, but I would never argue that it was the predecessor to the superconference.
Superconferences as we know them, the template, was born with SEC 2.0 in 1992.
Who was playing who in 1923 has nothing to do with it. OU and OSU used to be in the SWC, but I would never argue that it was the predecessor to the superconference.
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:42 am to wmr
quote:
Superconferences as we know them, the template, was born with SEC 2.0 in 1992.
Super conference = 16 teams. No one considers 12 teams to be a super conference. I don't care if they did in 1992, they stopped saying that shortly thereafter. If someone says "super conference" in 2012 they're talking about 16 teams, not 12.
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:44 am to GerryDiNardo
And I think you can go a step further and say that if Arkansas hadn't jumped, the SEC 2.0 doesn't happen for a few more years. I don't know who else they would have gotten. FSU said no. The Texas schools said no. The SEC might have expanded to 11 and then to 12 a few years later.
Arkansas not leaving might have allowed the SWC to drag on for another 5-10 years, too. I doubt the Big 12 forms in 1996 if Arkansas is still a part of the SWC. It probably would have taken a few more years.
I don't see the point in ascribing "credit" to anyone other than Roy Kramer for the advent of SEC 2.0. I think our willingness to jump made things happen 5-10 years quicker than they would have otherwise.
But it was going to happen.
We were just the team in the right place to help SEC 2.0 happen, while knocking one of the few remaining legs out from under another conference at the same time.
A&M is in a similar situation in that respect, although I think 16-team conferences might be another 5 years off.
Arkansas not leaving might have allowed the SWC to drag on for another 5-10 years, too. I doubt the Big 12 forms in 1996 if Arkansas is still a part of the SWC. It probably would have taken a few more years.
I don't see the point in ascribing "credit" to anyone other than Roy Kramer for the advent of SEC 2.0. I think our willingness to jump made things happen 5-10 years quicker than they would have otherwise.
But it was going to happen.
We were just the team in the right place to help SEC 2.0 happen, while knocking one of the few remaining legs out from under another conference at the same time.
A&M is in a similar situation in that respect, although I think 16-team conferences might be another 5 years off.
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:45 am to GerryDiNardo
I said that SEC 2.0 is the template. Without SEC 2.0, the idea of 16-team superconferences doesn't even get off the ground.
The SEC drove the idea of 12-team conferences with CCGs and now is driving the next step, which is the 16-team superconference.
The SEC drove the idea of 12-team conferences with CCGs and now is driving the next step, which is the 16-team superconference.
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:46 am to wmr
quote:
wmr
Singlehandedly restoring my faith in the Razorback fan base. Good posts.
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:46 am to busey
Actually I was trying to see what happen with Arkansas and Texas. When did the Schism begin? When did the need to "I'm getting the f--k outta here" occurred? Why for what reason? Was it about money then also or was it about something else? How was Arkansas treated badly? Most importantly. I can barely make out what is being said in the video but I get the gist that it's suppose to mock Arkansas during a Texas v. Ark game. Did you guys beat them at least?
I am not even too worry about super conference I just wanted to know where did the bad blood came from.
I am not old enough to remember an SEC without Arkansas in it and to me it seem they are have always been here to find out they once belong in the same Conference as Texas was surprising. To see TAMU want to joint seems kind of off. Like they wouldn't fit in with the uniqueness of what the SEC is all about but then again maybe this was what adding Arkansas felt like back then too.
I am not even too worry about super conference I just wanted to know where did the bad blood came from.
I am not old enough to remember an SEC without Arkansas in it and to me it seem they are have always been here to find out they once belong in the same Conference as Texas was surprising. To see TAMU want to joint seems kind of off. Like they wouldn't fit in with the uniqueness of what the SEC is all about but then again maybe this was what adding Arkansas felt like back then too.
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:46 am to wmr
quote:
I think 16-team conferences might be another 5 years off.
I think you're right if OU doesn't jump to the PAC-12, wrong if they do.
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:48 am to wmr
It's beside the fact that Arkansas was not revolutionary. They just helped the SEC to 12 teams. Your AD was not a prophet or genius. They wanted out of the dying SWC and nothing more.
This post was edited on 9/13/11 at 12:52 am
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:49 am to busey
quote:
busey
Question for Arkansas older fanbase.
Dude...
quote:
We started the this entire super conference talk 20 years ago.
I have no dog in this fight, but your quote sure makes it seem like you're trying to imply that Arkansas somehow triggered what is now going on regarding conference expansion.
Read it how you like everyone does.
What happened 20 years ago is not the sole driving force for today, come on guys.
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:51 am to Duzz
quote:
Actually I was trying to see what happen with Arkansas and Texas. When did the Schism begin? When did the need to "I'm getting the f--k outta here" occurred? Why for what reason? Was it about money then also or was it about something else? How was Arkansas treated badly?
I think you are seeing it through today's situation. The point is that it was a different situation.
There wasn't a single event. There wasn't really anything going on except for declining revenues in the SWC due to Texans switching their allegiances to NFL teams.
It was a gradual thing that happened over a couple of decades.
There wasn't a particular bitch we had with Texas. Don't get me wrong, they are Texas, and we knew they'd frick us over at some point.
If anything, it was a combination of seeing that the days of the SWC were numbered, and also knowing better than to trust Texas to look out for us.
There was not a singular event, apart from Roy Kramer announcing that the SEC was looking, and Frank Broyles having the foresight and cajones to know that it was the right move.
We got a LOT of grief from the SWC about leaving. We were treated like absolute shite for our last two seasons in the conferences. I was a kid and went to some away games, so I can attest to that.
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:51 am to wmr
I'm not old, but from what I understand/have heard from older alums about the SWC, what we are doing now is pretty similar to what Arkansas did in the early 90's- bolting a fricked, unstable conference for the exact opposite. Unless I'm mistaken, the SEC set the modern quota at 12 and a CCG (which every conference with a pulse just got to this year) with the help of Arkansas and SC.
I would say Arkansas played a very significant role in the "superconference" evolution, as did SC and as we and OU/OK State likely will. Without the first moves by the SEC and Arkansas/SC, who knows what conferences would look like now. I don't consider the Penn State thing all that significant because the Big 10 still remained a conference without divisions or a championship game. It was basically just a slightly larger version of the old status quo conferences.
What I don't know is if Arkansas played the role we are currently playing now, where they instigated expansion and became the 11th team and SC was brought in as 12 to even it out, or both were brought in together. I'm sure y'all know more about that than me.
I would say Arkansas played a very significant role in the "superconference" evolution, as did SC and as we and OU/OK State likely will. Without the first moves by the SEC and Arkansas/SC, who knows what conferences would look like now. I don't consider the Penn State thing all that significant because the Big 10 still remained a conference without divisions or a championship game. It was basically just a slightly larger version of the old status quo conferences.
What I don't know is if Arkansas played the role we are currently playing now, where they instigated expansion and became the 11th team and SC was brought in as 12 to even it out, or both were brought in together. I'm sure y'all know more about that than me.
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:51 am to Coon
quote:
Coon
Question for Arkansas older fanbase.
Y'all (non-arky) fans do realize that "superconferences" are what we have today by 20 years ago standards. The Arkansas guys are nOT talking about today's expansions but stuff back then. Back in the early 90's when the first expansion took place, there was talk about superconferences and Arkansas may very well have initiated that via broyles.
Thank you.
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:53 am to busey
quote:
They wanted out of the dying SWC and nothing more.
Just the fact that we were willing to jump when no one else did was pretty ballsy at the time. I believe that Carolina was a stop-gap when FSU and the Texas teams fell through.
All it took to revolutionize the college landscape was a team willing to jump. We jumped. The rest is history.
Posted on 9/13/11 at 12:54 am to WoodlandsAg07
The original plan was for the SEC to add up to four teams. We jumped. Texas and A&M did not.
We joined a few months before Carolina, and I think most people at the time thought Carolina was a next choice after FSU decided to stay put.
We joined a few months before Carolina, and I think most people at the time thought Carolina was a next choice after FSU decided to stay put.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News