Disagree. If we were good, having a good year, we would seat good crowds for ACC games like NC State, Virginia, Ga Tech, Miami, FSU, VT.
Is the SEC backed into a corner relative to Texas & OU? If both are indeed going to make a move
- Thread starter Freddie.B.Cocky
- Start date
Disagree. If we were good, having a good year, we would seat good crowds for ACC games like NC State, Virginia, Ga Tech, Miami, FSU, VT.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
And say good-bye (finally) to the NCAA.
Texas has more money athletically than any school in the SEC, it's probably not even close. The SEC won't turn that away.
I'll give you all of those except Virginia and Georgia Tech. Miami and FSU would probably draw the biggest crowds even if they're still mediocre because of who they are. That being said, I still don't think it would be crowds like you see for Georgia, Florida, LSU etc.
The thought that the SEC is "backed into a corner" at any time betrays great lack of understanding on the part of those who hold it.
Last edited:
I don't know the exact amounts, but I have no doubt that the SEC money is better. I was just stating a lifelong fan's view of things as they currently stand. I'd rather watch us play an ACC schedule, with an annual non-conference match up with UGA. Kind of like we used to do back in the 80's.
Blasphemy! As I pointed out, I am a lifelong Gamecock through and through.
That's why I was happy when we joined the SEC. Seems logical. But it hasn't worked out that way, has it?
I'd rather watch us play Virginia Tech, NC State and Georgia Tech, than ATM, Auburn and Mizzu. By the way, how many wins do we have against ATM and Auburn since joining the SEC. I think it's one.
I knew I was going to ruffle the feathers of my fellow Roosters with my rejoining the ACC thoughts. And I'm sure that it'll never happen. So rest easy, my friends. I was just saying a hypothetical mulligan here might be nice. I had high hopes when we joined the SEC. I thought, give us a few years and we'll never lose to an ACC team again. But it didn't happen. And I hate seeing my beloved Gamecocks floundering on the gridiron.
That has been my thinking all along. We won one ACC title in football while we were in that conference. I fail to see the big advantage of getting back in the a she she.
Sorry, that was a bit harsh. But you should be glad we're in the SEC. It's been proven that we CAN win in this league. College football is a coach's game. We need the right coach to do it (can't think of a successful team without one). We already have the best fans in the country. It can and will happen. Most Gamecock fans ARE lifelong. You have to be born into it. You wouldn't just choose it based on our history.
The NCAA will continue with the schools outside the 5 big conferences. Sunbelt, MAC, WAC, Conference USA, etc..
If this move goes through, the revenue generated by SEC-member schools has to be approaching the revenue generated by all remaining NCAA schools.
Will the SEC really even need the NCAA at that point?
They need somebody to deal with admissions standards, scholarship limits, things of that nature. I'm not saying it has to be the NCAA.
ah yes, throw jabs at a conference we cant even beat the mid level players. we should curb stomp the likes of them all.
Do I think it is possible this season? No. Is it possible in the current setup, yes. We have played for the conference championship in the past, didn’t win but we did play for it.
Adding those two will not make it any easier.
I totally agree adding the Horns and Sooners makes it harder. I'm just not sure its doable without them. We had a hall of fame coach, great talent, owned Clemson and Florida and Georgia were not what they are now. Things have changed a lot since then and not for the better.
You'd have to do it to see it. You sho' ain't gonna see it where we're at.
Our best coaches during the period showed we could be competitive, but unfortunately, both of them were pretty well spent. And then, our leadership since Hyman has been egregious. I'm not talking about Tanner as much as I'm talking about his handlers.
Backed into a corner is not the right words. More like you have to act now or maybe you fall behind the BIG.
Well you don't hold it that's for sure. But it's more like if they didn't take Texas and OU they would fall behind BIG if those two schools were to be taken by BIG because BIG has a bigger pay out than the SEC today. Plus, OU is in the playoffs every other year or so.
Last edited:
The fact that those schools approached the league some time ago took the competition aspect out of it. The SEC had right of refusal. Still do.
The B1G can't take OU, but the PAC-12 could take both OU and OSU. The BIG would probably take UT and KU if it were available.
It's a riddle, but the answer is right there in front of you.
Nobody puts Baby in a corner!
said the best dancer lake lure had ever known
said the best dancer lake lure had ever known
If the SEC and maybe Big 10 continue to expand and form super conferences, does South Carolina continue to try to keep up with the powers? Especially with a disparity among NIL recruits a probability that will continue to enhance the top programs. Or do we just tell them to have fun, we enjoyed the good times, and we'll see you around. And maybe join a lower level conference where we can compete more favorably?
SEC seems to be suffering from small-man syndrome. They’re the biggest dog in town. They should take a more elitist approach.
The SEC is already in the Captain's chair in broadcasting revenue - when the contract is renewed in 2024, the disparity in the SEC's favor will only grow substantially. Right now the SEC is also in the driver's seat with TX and Oklahoma.
In terms of TV region, Oklahoma brings.....nothing to the table. It would be Texas, but the SEC already gets a great cut of that TX pie with A&M. Adding Texas would just brand the entire state SEC Country, and diminish the other TX schools' market share. But as long as A&M continues to be a top-25 program and TX continues to founder, the SEC is a major player in that region.
There can be NO downplaying the positive impact of being in the SEC for South Carolina. Mostly from a revenue-sharing viewpoint. Remember the shape the entire athletic department was in - not just football, but pretty much ALL other sport programs - from its time as an independent. They weren't much better when we were in the ACC, but that was at a time before TELEVISION became the monster for collegiate sports that it became.
I still say that THE BIGGEST REASON for USC's sports mediocrity was it's poor facilities for generations. Poor revenue generation. All programs hire great coaching staffs and poor coaching staffs, they have great in-state recruiting and poor in-state recruiting. They are all tied in together, but what helps the most in getting the positive successes kick-started is being able to attract ANY top talent to your athletic programs, and having facilities that can look most others in the eye is the best start the department can take.
The top talent mostly gives ACC programs 2nd and 3rd looks, with the exception of Clemson and Florida State when it comes to their heavy in-state FL talent-base. They mostly throughout the years leaves those regions and go play for SEC/Big12/B1G programs. The ACC will ALWAYS be 2nd level to the SEC in revenue generation when it comes to CFB. Wanting to go back to the ACC is like wanting to turn your back on Mother's Milk for goat's milk. It's genetics-level stupidity.....
In terms of TV region, Oklahoma brings.....nothing to the table. It would be Texas, but the SEC already gets a great cut of that TX pie with A&M. Adding Texas would just brand the entire state SEC Country, and diminish the other TX schools' market share. But as long as A&M continues to be a top-25 program and TX continues to founder, the SEC is a major player in that region.
There can be NO downplaying the positive impact of being in the SEC for South Carolina. Mostly from a revenue-sharing viewpoint. Remember the shape the entire athletic department was in - not just football, but pretty much ALL other sport programs - from its time as an independent. They weren't much better when we were in the ACC, but that was at a time before TELEVISION became the monster for collegiate sports that it became.
I still say that THE BIGGEST REASON for USC's sports mediocrity was it's poor facilities for generations. Poor revenue generation. All programs hire great coaching staffs and poor coaching staffs, they have great in-state recruiting and poor in-state recruiting. They are all tied in together, but what helps the most in getting the positive successes kick-started is being able to attract ANY top talent to your athletic programs, and having facilities that can look most others in the eye is the best start the department can take.
The top talent mostly gives ACC programs 2nd and 3rd looks, with the exception of Clemson and Florida State when it comes to their heavy in-state FL talent-base. They mostly throughout the years leaves those regions and go play for SEC/Big12/B1G programs. The ACC will ALWAYS be 2nd level to the SEC in revenue generation when it comes to CFB. Wanting to go back to the ACC is like wanting to turn your back on Mother's Milk for goat's milk. It's genetics-level stupidity.....
Agree with everything, except the conlusion last paragraph. There is a different way of looking at the possibilities a membership in the ACC would provide.
We always have a top 5 difficulty level schedule. It's not like we'll play every team in one season. I say bring on the new teams and change it up with the pods. I find the Missouri, Kentucky, Vanderbilt games to be boring every year- even when we used to beat them. I would be excited to have something new. College football is getting ready to blow things up and our conference is being pro-active. I'm glad we're not on the outside looking in.
Last edited:
Backed into a corner was the wrong term used by me. But, what I meant was does it nudge the SEC to maybe take UT and OU before someone else does. However, supposedly UT and OU approached the SEC so the term "backed into a corner" does not really apply.
Last edited:
Are you sure about that? How about a theoretical "next best" conference? Consisting of, for example, South Carolina, Purdue, Kansas, Maryland, NC State, Kentucky, Michigan State, Utah, Virginia Tech, TCU, Arkansas, and Central Florida? Nobody will be competing for a national championship, but the games would be interesting and competitive. Won't be any delusions of waltzing into Ohio State or Alabama and knocking them off.
We have waltzed into Alabama and knocked them off. And I wasn't delusional since we beat them the year before at our place. And I remember beating OSU 2 years in a row. I guess I'm just a Gamecock fanatic.
Last edited:
Similar threads
