---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:

I understand the concern, as there is a possibility of State's team getting a boost from SEC membership, but I'm not nearly as worried as many people on IC. Kentucky, for example, isn't exactly a football powerhouse. And South Carolina barely had any noteworthy seasons for the 20 years before Steve Spurrier took over--and there aren't exactly a lot of Steve Spurriers out there. Other things would definitely have to fall into place for State to truly rise in the football ranks. Being in the SEC would make that easier on them, but SEC membership alone wouldn't tip the state in their favor, in my opinion.

---------------------------------------------

Your examples are not an apples-to-apples comparison with UNC.

First, Kentucky is a basketball first program located in a state that is depleted in football talent. They literally have to go out of state for the vast majority of top-self football recruits. The same holds true for UL, and if (when) Strong leaves they'll have a hard time replicating his success. North Carolina produces a fair share of football talent, and any team that becomes predomiant within the State will gain excellent local talent. Part of the problem for all NC universities is that the local talent is split five ways when you include ECU. None can get a leg up on the others, or when they do they can't maintain it. Any one school going into the SEC will have a built in recruiting advantage over the other four simply by associating with Bama, LSU, UGA, and Florida. Kids see those teams on TV and want to play against them, not Ohio State, Michaigan, and Wisconsin.

Second, yes Steve Spurrier has propelled USC to all new levels in recent years, and without him it's doubtful they would accomplish what they are doing now. But at the time he was hired, the SEC had not started the current MNC streak. Notice that since then, USC is doing things never seen before at South Carolina. Everything has become elevated now. Any SEC coach who recruits above average and coaches above average has a real shot at 9 or 10 wins. Franklin at Vanderbuilt is using that formula to elevate that program. Petrino at Arkansas, same deal. And similarly, whatever North Carolina school gets into the SEC will get most of the quality local North Carolina talent. And if they have a good coach, 9 or 10 wins can become the norm as it has for Spurrier's teams. NCST will be the recipient of that edge if UNC goes BIG10, and it will happen very quickly.

---------------------------------------------

Vanderbilt isn't exactly setting the NCAA on fire. Their best win this year was against NC State. They lost every game they played against a good team--plus Northwestern. Their FBS victories came over teams with a combined record of 35-63, winning percentage of 0.357. They literally played every bad team in the SEC.

And Arkansas had a nice 4-8 season this year.

The SEC is the best football conference right now, but it won't last forever. And the teams that are truly and consistently great--Alabama, LSU, Florida, and Georgia--are powerhouse programs with long traditions.

If we look at the SEC schools who actually have competition from other conferences in their state--Florida (FSU and Miami), Georgia (Georgia Tech), South Carolina (Clemson), and Texas A&M (Texas)--those other schools are doing just fine (Miami having other problems at the moment). If we take into consideration the fact that Georgia Tech has never really been up to par with Georgia, and that South Carolina wouldn't be anything right now without Spurrier, it becomes pretty clear that NC State jumping to the SEC would not mean the demise of UNC's prominence in the state, especially considering UNC's brand and flagship status. Other factors would play a larger role than conference affiliation--especially if UNC were in the Big Ten, playing teams like Ohio State and Michigan.

Would the SEC help State? Absolutely. But being in the Big Ten would help us, too, and there's just too many other things that have to happen to determine which team would be more prominent.

The concern is valid. I just don't know if it can be determinative.

---------------------------------------------

Yes, Arkansas went 4-8, but the coach left a Wisky team with 3 straight "Granddaddy of them All" Rose Bowls to go to poor little Arky. That makes a statement.

---------------------------------------------
--- buckeye4573 wrote:


Schlabach ...what a tool.

---------------------------------------------

I think we can all agree on that.

So you can truly say that if you were a blue chip recruit here in North Carolina, and your pick came down to UNC from the Big 10 or State in the SEC, you would sign with the former? For what reasons then, I'm curious?

The only outright advantage UNC has over NCSU is the academic prestige. I have every reason to believe State to the SEC would vault them over UNC in football. Not saying State would be winning SEC titles, but that program would be improve leaps and bounds.

---------------------------------------------
--- msjaskon wrote:

So you can truly say that if you were a blue chip recruit here in North Carolina, and your pick came down to UNC from the Big 10 or State in the SEC, you would sign with the former? For what reasons then, I'm curious?

The only outright advantage UNC has over NCSU is the academic prestige. I have every reason to believe State to the SEC would vault them over UNC in football. Not saying State would be winning SEC titles, but that program would be improve leaps and bounds.

---------------------------------------------

These kids are recruited for months or years by coaches who build relationships with them. The kids consider those relationships, atmosphere of the school, location, opportunity to contribute, the type of system the team runs, chance to win, etc. Yes, conference is a consideration, but it's only one. And with all bashing of NC State we do on here, I am shocked that you can't think of any reason for choosing UNC over State.

And teams cycle through success. If in 10 years, Michigan/Ohio State/Nebraska are running college football again, people will be saying, "Why wouldn't any recruit choose the Big Ten?"

not so fast your reverendness .......

all Heel2k has offered here is a lame recitation of the long discredited "Lost Cause Myth" version of Southern history -- with "myth" being the key operative term .........

the Civil War was an unmitigated disaster for everyone in the South ...... and rather than own up to their role in leading their fellow Southerners into this travesty, Jefferson Davis and other vanquished leaders of the planter class fabricated the "Lost Cause Myth" in the immediate post Civil War era .......

you've probably heard the phrase -- "rich man's war .. poor man's fight" ....... you can imagine how bitterly that notion was felt in the midst of the human and economic devastation accompanying the South's surrender in 1865 ...... thus one centerpiece of the Lost Cause Myth was to deny that secession and the Civil War were ever about slavery - ie, the greed of the Southern planter aristocracy vs. the common man in the South who didn't own slaves ....... so after the Civil War (not for the 50+ years leading up to the Civil War or in the midst of secession) - only AFTER the Civil War - Davis and others (Jubal Early .. Edw. Pollard, etc.) reinvented secession as something brought on the South by a hostile North .... the South would have gladly given up their slaves .... it was really about "state's rights" .... who could criticize a man for simply defending his "rights" as an American ? ....... in the Lost Cause Myth - the War was about the honor of all Southerners - not simply the greed/property interests of the planter aristocracy .......

"State's Rights" ? ...... ok - so the next time some Sons of the Confederate Veterans gets on his "state's rights" high horse - ask him to explain how he would square "state's rights" with the South's insistence on an aggressively enforced Fugitive Slave Act ? .... I'd love to hear someone 'splain that .......

taxes --- it was about taxes ???? ..... a long, long time ago ... too long for me to remember the precise data - I 'debated' this with a friend in a little Civil War club - Federal taxes - import duties - were something on the order of 2% or 3% of GDP in 1860 ..... are you telling me the South went to War -- killed almost a quarter of its male population quibbling over something that was less than 5% of the economy at the time ....... so they weren't 'greedy slave-owners' -- they were just brain dead colossally stupid of a first order ?

I don't intend to make you 'feel bad about [your] Southern heritage ....... just thought you might like to know in some factual sense what your Southern heritage actually is -- particularly, the myths that have become part of our heritage ........

and there's nothing wrong with myths, as long you know they're myths ........


---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Heel2K wrote:

As for your really stupid comment about the Civil War being about slavery, which is revisionist history, by the way, feel free to do a quick search on the Emancipation proclamation. It came in 1863, halfway through the war, not at the beginning. Lincoln also only freed slaves under Confederate control, meaning the 5 states under Union control with slave populations kept slaves until well after the war. Lincoln tried a preliminary proclamation earlier, but made it conditional- if the states returned to the Union, they kept their slaves. The abolition of slavery become a rally cry later in the war, not the reason behind it. The war was about what all wars are about: economics, taxes, and power. The South did things differently, and resented the North's continued control and what they felt was unfair taxation. The dates and events of history just don't jive with your version of events. Because you are a lazy intellectual.

Now, as has been said repeatedly, by myself and many others, being Southern doesn't mean being racist or wishing for a return to the good old days that apparently concern you. But the Southern identity is very real and a source of pride for many and it is ridiculous and unacceptable for you to continue coming on here specifically to berate people for simply expressing they feel a closer kinship or relationship with other traditionally Southern schools. We all recognize and celebrate the international appeal of UNC, but that appeal wouldn't go away simply by being associated with tje conference that has handily won the last seven football titles and the most recent basketball title.

You can express whatever opinion you like, but please stop trying to make people feel bad for being proud of their heritage.

---------------------------------------------

Well said, 2K, an articulate and intelligent poast which indicates thinking above and beyond the "lazy intellectualism" that characterizes typical discourse on all things Southern, including the Civil War. For those who don't understand the contemporary concept of Southernness, I'll echo a previous poaster on this thread, who suggested reading books by a former mentor of mine at UNC, John Shelton Reed. We at Carolina invented regional sociology, BTW.

Again, I'm not on here to bash the Big 10 or the snowy climes it inhabits, just to express preference for our brethren in the SEC. There are some fine schools in the Big 10, particularly Michigan, the alma mater of one of my favorite aunts. I don't "hate" Big 10 teams as a rule, I just prefer the SEC.

I honestly don't expect people from outside the region or even the culturally deprived and institutionally "PC" brainwashed from inside the region to comprehend the sweet, savory complexity of Southernness. To quote a Down East NC preacher buddy of mine, Southernness "is better felt than telt." I can't give you a perfect recipe for the ultimate Easten NC BBQ sauce, which divinely balances vinegar, red pepper, black pepper, salt, and maybe even sugar, but I know it when I taste it. Likewise, I don't know the exact formula for an original Krispy Kreme donut, beyond the fact that it contains some potato flour and air, but when a hot one plants itelf on my tongue I know that there is a God and that He loves me and wants me to be happy.

"Better felt than telt."

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:

I understand the concern, as there is a possibility of State's team getting a boost from SEC membership, but I'm not nearly as worried as many people on IC. Kentucky, for example, isn't exactly a football powerhouse. And South Carolina barely had any noteworthy seasons for the 20 years before Steve Spurrier took over--and there aren't exactly a lot of Steve Spurriers out there. Other things would definitely have to fall into place for State to truly rise in the football ranks. Being in the SEC would make that easier on them, but SEC membership alone wouldn't tip the state in their favor, in my opinion.

---------------------------------------------

Your examples are not an apples-to-apples comparison with UNC.

First, Kentucky is a basketball first program located in a state that is depleted in football talent. They literally have to go out of state for the vast majority of top-self football recruits. The same holds true for UL, and if (when) Strong leaves they'll have a hard time replicating his success. North Carolina produces a fair share of football talent, and any team that becomes predomiant within the State will gain excellent local talent. Part of the problem for all NC universities is that the local talent is split five ways when you include ECU. None can get a leg up on the others, or when they do they can't maintain it. Any one school going into the SEC will have a built in recruiting advantage over the other four simply by associating with Bama, LSU, UGA, and Florida. Kids see those teams on TV and want to play against them, not Ohio State, Michaigan, and Wisconsin.

Second, yes Steve Spurrier has propelled USC to all new levels in recent years, and without him it's doubtful they would accomplish what they are doing now. But at the time he was hired, the SEC had not started the current MNC streak. Notice that since then, USC is doing things never seen before at South Carolina. Everything has become elevated now. Any SEC coach who recruits above average and coaches above average has a real shot at 9 or 10 wins. Franklin at Vanderbuilt is using that formula to elevate that program. Petrino at Arkansas, same deal. And similarly, whatever North Carolina school gets into the SEC will get most of the quality local North Carolina talent. And if they have a good coach, 9 or 10 wins can become the norm as it has for Spurrier's teams. NCST will be the recipient of that edge if UNC goes BIG10, and it will happen very quickly.

---------------------------------------------

Vanderbilt isn't exactly setting the NCAA on fire. Their best win this year was against NC State. They lost every game they played against a good team--plus Northwestern. Their FBS victories came over teams with a combined record of 35-63, winning percentage of 0.357. They literally played every bad team in the SEC.

And Arkansas had a nice 4-8 season this year.

The SEC is the best football conference right now, but it won't last forever. And the teams that are truly and consistently great--Alabama, LSU, Florida, and Georgia--are powerhouse programs with long traditions.

If we look at the SEC schools who actually have competition from other conferences in their state--Florida (FSU and Miami), Georgia (Georgia Tech), South Carolina (Clemson), and Texas A&M (Texas)--those other schools are doing just fine (Miami having other problems at the moment). If we take into consideration the fact that Georgia Tech has never really been up to par with Georgia, and that South Carolina wouldn't be anything right now without Spurrier, it becomes pretty clear that NC State jumping to the SEC would not mean the demise of UNC's prominence in the state, especially considering UNC's brand and flagship status. Other factors would play a larger role than conference affiliation--especially if UNC were in the Big Ten, playing teams like Ohio State and Michigan.

Would the SEC help State? Absolutely. But being in the Big Ten would help us, too, and there's just too many other things that have to happen to determine which team would be more prominent.

The concern is valid. I just don't know if it can be determinative.

---------------------------------------------

Yes, Arkansas went 4-8, but the coach left a Wisky team with 3 straight "Granddaddy of them All" Rose Bowls to go to poor little Arky. That makes a statement.

---------------------------------------------

Brett liked his bars and co-eds a little too much in Madison. He was given a very stern warning and it ruffled his panties. He had to get out while the getting was good. He was on a very short leash.

Why is this idiotic thread still here? Carolina isn't going anywhere. Not the Big Slow. Not the Stupid Eastern Conference. Not the NBA. Not the NFL. Give it a rest.

---------------------------------------------
--- jttgames wrote:

Why is this idiotic thread still here? Carolina isn't going anywhere. Not the Big Slow. Not the Stupid Eastern Conference. Not the NBA. Not the NFL. Give it a rest.

---------------------------------------------

We poor UNC fans, who care about football, thank you for taking the time to leave the basketball board and enlighten your barbaric football loving brethren.

it's something to talk about...

---------------------------------------------
--- jttgames wrote:

Why is this idiotic thread still here? Carolina isn't going anywhere. Not the Big Slow. Not the Stupid Eastern Conference. Not the NBA. Not the NFL. Give it a rest.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:

I understand the concern, as there is a possibility of State's team getting a boost from SEC membership, but I'm not nearly as worried as many people on IC. Kentucky, for example, isn't exactly a football powerhouse. And South Carolina barely had any noteworthy seasons for the 20 years before Steve Spurrier took over--and there aren't exactly a lot of Steve Spurriers out there. Other things would definitely have to fall into place for State to truly rise in the football ranks. Being in the SEC would make that easier on them, but SEC membership alone wouldn't tip the state in their favor, in my opinion.

---------------------------------------------

Your examples are not an apples-to-apples comparison with UNC.

First, Kentucky is a basketball first program located in a state that is depleted in football talent. They literally have to go out of state for the vast majority of top-self football recruits. The same holds true for UL, and if (when) Strong leaves they'll have a hard time replicating his success. North Carolina produces a fair share of football talent, and any team that becomes predomiant within the State will gain excellent local talent. Part of the problem for all NC universities is that the local talent is split five ways when you include ECU. None can get a leg up on the others, or when they do they can't maintain it. Any one school going into the SEC will have a built in recruiting advantage over the other four simply by associating with Bama, LSU, UGA, and Florida. Kids see those teams on TV and want to play against them, not Ohio State, Michaigan, and Wisconsin.

Second, yes Steve Spurrier has propelled USC to all new levels in recent years, and without him it's doubtful they would accomplish what they are doing now. But at the time he was hired, the SEC had not started the current MNC streak. Notice that since then, USC is doing things never seen before at South Carolina. Everything has become elevated now. Any SEC coach who recruits above average and coaches above average has a real shot at 9 or 10 wins. Franklin at Vanderbuilt is using that formula to elevate that program. Petrino at Arkansas, same deal. And similarly, whatever North Carolina school gets into the SEC will get most of the quality local North Carolina talent. And if they have a good coach, 9 or 10 wins can become the norm as it has for Spurrier's teams. NCST will be the recipient of that edge if UNC goes BIG10, and it will happen very quickly.

---------------------------------------------

Vanderbilt isn't exactly setting the NCAA on fire. Their best win this year was against NC State. They lost every game they played against a good team--plus Northwestern. Their FBS victories came over teams with a combined record of 35-63, winning percentage of 0.357. They literally played every bad team in the SEC.

And Arkansas had a nice 4-8 season this year.

The SEC is the best football conference right now, but it won't last forever. And the teams that are truly and consistently great--Alabama, LSU, Florida, and Georgia--are powerhouse programs with long traditions.

If we look at the SEC schools who actually have competition from other conferences in their state--Florida (FSU and Miami), Georgia (Georgia Tech), South Carolina (Clemson), and Texas A&M (Texas)--those other schools are doing just fine (Miami having other problems at the moment). If we take into consideration the fact that Georgia Tech has never really been up to par with Georgia, and that South Carolina wouldn't be anything right now without Spurrier, it becomes pretty clear that NC State jumping to the SEC would not mean the demise of UNC's prominence in the state, especially considering UNC's brand and flagship status. Other factors would play a larger role than conference affiliation--especially if UNC were in the Big Ten, playing teams like Ohio State and Michigan.

Would the SEC help State? Absolutely. But being in the Big Ten would help us, too, and there's just too many other things that have to happen to determine which team would be more prominent.

The concern is valid. I just don't know if it can be determinative.

---------------------------------------------
I don't know who is paying you to try to put lipstick on a pig but I have to give you credit for effort. Your supposed analysis is without any basis in any objective evaluation of the pros and cons of the SEC versus the rustbelt conference. Your position has the validity of someone arguing that a Yugo and a Porsche are equal because they are both red and are cars. You can only arrive at your position because you are being paid or because you have a vested interest in assisting NCSU become the most important university in NC.

The general public in NC could not care less about the academic ratings of the teams against whom we compete. They only care about our success and the glamour associated that success. They want to bathe in the reflected glory (especially the non-alumni supporters). The schools at the top of the B1G already can't compete nationally in sports. As time passes, the gap will transition to academics.

As the conservatives in the NC legislature continue their all out assault on Carolina's economics we will be forced to seek funding from outside sources. Absent the intervention of Bill Gates we will have to have other non-alumni support. The citizens of NC are our best prospects. A strong NCSU entrenchment in the SEC playing UGA, Baja Carolina, UGA, FLA, Vandy, UK, TENN and ALA will eliminate us as the most important school in the state. Dean Smith called athletics the "front porch" of the university. In the rustbelt we would be joined on the porch by schools that mean nothing to NC's citizens.

The academic status on Carolina over the next 100 years will to a large degree be dependent on the funding we can secure from non-alumni. Our overwhelmingly female student body is as devastating for our future alumni economic support as the anti-education forces in the legislature. The only way to reach the "Walmart" donors which so many disparage is through athletic success and football is the key. A move to the B1G will kill Carolina immediately for athletics and will foster our continued academic slide. When every male child in the state dreams of playing for the aggies against SEC schools Carolina will forever be doomed to second class status. The days of Carolina being able to grow and improve through traditional sources are over. The SEC has nailed the future of economic(academic) growth for public universities.

---------------------------------------------
--- expatriateheel wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



Vanderbilt isn't exactly setting the NCAA on fire. Their best win this year was against NC State. They lost every game they played against a good team--plus Northwestern. Their FBS victories came over teams with a combined record of 35-63, winning percentage of 0.357. They literally played every bad team in the SEC.

And Arkansas had a nice 4-8 season this year.

The SEC is the best football conference right now, but it won't last forever. And the teams that are truly and consistently great--Alabama, LSU, Florida, and Georgia--are powerhouse programs with long traditions.

If we look at the SEC schools who actually have competition from other conferences in their state--Florida (FSU and Miami), Georgia (Georgia Tech), South Carolina (Clemson), and Texas A&M (Texas)--those other schools are doing just fine (Miami having other problems at the moment). If we take into consideration the fact that Georgia Tech has never really been up to par with Georgia, and that South Carolina wouldn't be anything right now without Spurrier, it becomes pretty clear that NC State jumping to the SEC would not mean the demise of UNC's prominence in the state, especially considering UNC's brand and flagship status. Other factors would play a larger role than conference affiliation--especially if UNC were in the Big Ten, playing teams like Ohio State and Michigan.

Would the SEC help State? Absolutely. But being in the Big Ten would help us, too, and there's just too many other things that have to happen to determine which team would be more prominent.

The concern is valid. I just don't know if it can be determinative.

---------------------------------------------
I don't know who is paying you to try to put lipstick on a pig but I have to give you credit for effort. Your supposed analysis is without any basis in any objective evaluation of the pros and cons of the SEC versus the rustbelt conference. Your position has the validity of someone arguing that a Yugo and a Porsche are equal because they are both red and are cars. You can only arrive at your position because you are being paid or because you have a vested interest in assisting NCSU become the most important university in NC.

The general public in NC could not care less about the academic ratings of the teams against whom we compete. They only care about our success and the glamour associated that success. They want to bathe in the reflected glory (especially the non-alumni supporters). The schools at the top of the B1G already can't compete nationally in sports. As time passes, the gap will transition to academics.

As the conservatives in the NC legislature continue their all out assault on Carolina's economics we will be forced to seek funding from outside sources. Absent the intervention of Bill Gates we will have to have non-alumni support. The citizens of NC are our best prospects. A strong NCSU entrenchment in the SEC playing UGA, Baja Carolina, UGA, FLA, Vandy, UK, TENN and ALA will eliminate us as the most important school in the state. Dean Smith called athletics the "front porch" of the university. In the rustbelt we would be joined on the porch by schools that mean nothing to NC's citizens.

The academic status on Carolina over the next 100 years will to a large degree be dependent on the funding we can secure from non-alumni. Our overwhelmingly female student body is as devastating for our future alumni economic support as the anti-education forces in the legislature. The only way to reach the "Walmart" donors which so many disparage is through athletic success and football is the key. A move to the B1G will kill Carolina immediately for athletics and will foster our continued academic slide. When ever male child in the state dreams of playing for the aggies against SEC schools Carolina will forever be doomed to second class status. The days of Carolina being able to grow and improve through traditional sources are over. The SEC has nailed the future of economic(academic) growth for public universities.

---------------------------------------------

That was awesome.

2009 is that guy insane?
He's prob a snob that bashes state's academic profile, but when choosing conferences it doesnt matter....hahaa

As for sports, uh the B10 is the best conference according to the directors cup, so what the #%#% is he saying?

This is a guy with no facts, just repeats the pro SEC media. Since the guy is a democrat or liberal or whatever you want to call yourself expatriate.....you love those pro media sides and buy everything they sell you, dont ya?

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- expatriateheel wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



Vanderbilt isn't exactly setting the NCAA on fire. Their best win this year was against NC State. They lost every game they played against a good team--plus Northwestern. Their FBS victories came over teams with a combined record of 35-63, winning percentage of 0.357. They literally played every bad team in the SEC.

And Arkansas had a nice 4-8 season this year.

The SEC is the best football conference right now, but it won't last forever. And the teams that are truly and consistently great--Alabama, LSU, Florida, and Georgia--are powerhouse programs with long traditions.

If we look at the SEC schools who actually have competition from other conferences in their state--Florida (FSU and Miami), Georgia (Georgia Tech), South Carolina (Clemson), and Texas A&M (Texas)--those other schools are doing just fine (Miami having other problems at the moment). If we take into consideration the fact that Georgia Tech has never really been up to par with Georgia, and that South Carolina wouldn't be anything right now without Spurrier, it becomes pretty clear that NC State jumping to the SEC would not mean the demise of UNC's prominence in the state, especially considering UNC's brand and flagship status. Other factors would play a larger role than conference affiliation--especially if UNC were in the Big Ten, playing teams like Ohio State and Michigan.

Would the SEC help State? Absolutely. But being in the Big Ten would help us, too, and there's just too many other things that have to happen to determine which team would be more prominent.

The concern is valid. I just don't know if it can be determinative.

---------------------------------------------
I don't know who is paying you to try to put lipstick on a pig but I have to give you credit for effort. Your supposed analysis is without any basis in any objective evaluation of the pros and cons of the SEC versus the rustbelt conference. Your position has the validity of someone arguing that a Yugo and a Porsche are equal because they are both red and are cars. You can only arrive at your position because you are being paid or because you have a vested interest in assisting NCSU become the most important university in NC.

The general public in NC could not care less about the academic ratings of the teams against whom we compete. They only care about our success and the glamour associated that success. They want to bathe in the reflected glory (especially the non-alumni supporters). The schools at the top of the B1G already can't compete nationally in sports. As time passes, the gap will transition to academics.

As the conservatives in the NC legislature continue their all out assault on Carolina's economics we will be forced to seek funding from outside sources. Absent the intervention of Bill Gates we will have to have non-alumni support. The citizens of NC are our best prospects. A strong NCSU entrenchment in the SEC playing UGA, Baja Carolina, UGA, FLA, Vandy, UK, TENN and ALA will eliminate us as the most important school in the state. Dean Smith called athletics the "front porch" of the university. In the rustbelt we would be joined on the porch by schools that mean nothing to NC's citizens.

The academic status on Carolina over the next 100 years will to a large degree be dependent on the funding we can secure from non-alumni. Our overwhelmingly female student body is as devastating for our future alumni economic support as the anti-education forces in the legislature. The only way to reach the "Walmart" donors which so many disparage is through athletic success and football is the key. A move to the B1G will kill Carolina immediately for athletics and will foster our continued academic slide. When ever male child in the state dreams of playing for the aggies against SEC schools Carolina will forever be doomed to second class status. The days of Carolina being able to grow and improve through traditional sources are over. The SEC has nailed the future of economic(academic) growth for public universities.

---------------------------------------------

That was awesome.

---------------------------------------------

4573, outside the foot print the B1G is not respected at all athletically. Other that Michigan, NW and Wisc your school's academics are nothing special either. In desperation your conference dreamed up a scam to try to extort cable subscribers. Technology will soon doom that farcical business model. With a failed business model, devastating demographics, horrible weather, dead economies and very ethnocentristic populations the B1G cannot succeed in modern America. Does Stalingrad mean anything to you?

---------------------------------------------
--- buckeye4573 wrote:

2009 is that guy insane?
He's prob a snob that bashes state's academic profile, but when choosing conferences it doesnt matter....hahaa

As for sports, uh the B10 is the best conference according to the directors cup, so what the #%#% is he saying?

This is a guy with no facts, just repeats the pro SEC media. Since the guy is a democrat or liberal or whatever you want to call yourself expatriate.....you love those pro media sides and buy everything they sell you, dont ya?

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- expatriateheel wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



Vanderbilt isn't exactly setting the NCAA on fire. Their best win this year was against NC State. They lost every game they played against a good team--plus Northwestern. Their FBS victories came over teams with a combined record of 35-63, winning percentage of 0.357. They literally played every bad team in the SEC.

And Arkansas had a nice 4-8 season this year.

The SEC is the best football conference right now, but it won't last forever. And the teams that are truly and consistently great--Alabama, LSU, Florida, and Georgia--are powerhouse programs with long traditions.

If we look at the SEC schools who actually have competition from other conferences in their state--Florida (FSU and Miami), Georgia (Georgia Tech), South Carolina (Clemson), and Texas A&M (Texas)--those other schools are doing just fine (Miami having other problems at the moment). If we take into consideration the fact that Georgia Tech has never really been up to par with Georgia, and that South Carolina wouldn't be anything right now without Spurrier, it becomes pretty clear that NC State jumping to the SEC would not mean the demise of UNC's prominence in the state, especially considering UNC's brand and flagship status. Other factors would play a larger role than conference affiliation--especially if UNC were in the Big Ten, playing teams like Ohio State and Michigan.

Would the SEC help State? Absolutely. But being in the Big Ten would help us, too, and there's just too many other things that have to happen to determine which team would be more prominent.

The concern is valid. I just don't know if it can be determinative.

---------------------------------------------
I don't know who is paying you to try to put lipstick on a pig but I have to give you credit for effort. Your supposed analysis is without any basis in any objective evaluation of the pros and cons of the SEC versus the rustbelt conference. Your position has the validity of someone arguing that a Yugo and a Porsche are equal because they are both red and are cars. You can only arrive at your position because you are being paid or because you have a vested interest in assisting NCSU become the most important university in NC.

The general public in NC could not care less about the academic ratings of the teams against whom we compete. They only care about our success and the glamour associated that success. They want to bathe in the reflected glory (especially the non-alumni supporters). The schools at the top of the B1G already can't compete nationally in sports. As time passes, the gap will transition to academics.

As the conservatives in the NC legislature continue their all out assault on Carolina's economics we will be forced to seek funding from outside sources. Absent the intervention of Bill Gates we will have to have non-alumni support. The citizens of NC are our best prospects. A strong NCSU entrenchment in the SEC playing UGA, Baja Carolina, UGA, FLA, Vandy, UK, TENN and ALA will eliminate us as the most important school in the state. Dean Smith called athletics the "front porch" of the university. In the rustbelt we would be joined on the porch by schools that mean nothing to NC's citizens.

The academic status on Carolina over the next 100 years will to a large degree be dependent on the funding we can secure from non-alumni. Our overwhelmingly female student body is as devastating for our future alumni economic support as the anti-education forces in the legislature. The only way to reach the "Walmart" donors which so many disparage is through athletic success and football is the key. A move to the B1G will kill Carolina immediately for athletics and will foster our continued academic slide. When ever male child in the state dreams of playing for the aggies against SEC schools Carolina will forever be doomed to second class status. The days of Carolina being able to grow and improve through traditional sources are over. The SEC has nailed the future of economic(academic) growth for public universities.

---------------------------------------------

That was awesome.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Yes. That's why I have missed one home game in 22years. Removed Warning

---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

not so fast your reverendness .......

all Heel2k has offered here is a lame recitation of the long discredited "Lost Cause Myth" version of Southern history -- with "myth" being the key operative term .........

the Civil War was an unmitigated disaster for everyone in the South ...... and rather than own up to their role in leading their fellow Southerners into this travesty, Jefferson Davis and other vanquished leaders of the planter class fabricated the "Lost Cause Myth" in the immediate post Civil War era .......

you've probably heard the phrase -- "rich man's war .. poor man's fight" ....... you can imagine how bitterly that notion was felt in the midst of the human and economic devastation accompanying the South's surrender in 1865 ...... thus one centerpiece of the Lost Cause Myth was to deny that secession and the Civil War were ever about slavery - ie, the greed of the Southern planter aristocracy vs. the common man in the South who didn't own slaves ....... so after the Civil War (not for the 50+ years leading up to the Civil War or in the midst of secession) - only AFTER the Civil War - Davis and others (Jubal Early .. Edw. Pollard, etc.) reinvented secession as something brought on the South by a hostile North .... the South would have gladly given up their slaves .... it was really about "state's rights" .... who could criticize a man for simply defending his "rights" as an American ? ....... in the Lost Cause Myth - the War was about the honor of all Southerners - not simply the greed/property interests of the planter aristocracy .......

"State's Rights" ? ...... ok - so the next time some Sons of the Confederate Veterans gets on his "state's rights" high horse - ask him to explain how he would square "state's rights" with the South's insistence on an aggressively enforced Fugitive Slave Act ? .... I'd love to hear someone 'splain that .......

taxes --- it was about taxes ???? ..... a long, long time ago ... too long for me to remember the precise data - I 'debated' this with a friend in a little Civil War club - Federal taxes - import duties - were something on the order of 2% or 3% of GDP in 1860 ..... are you telling me the South went to War -- killed almost a quarter of its male population quibbling over something that was less than 5% of the economy at the time ....... so they weren't 'greedy slave-owners' -- they were just brain dead colossally stupid of a first order ?

I don't intend to make you 'feel bad about [your] Southern heritage ....... just thought you might like to know in some factual sense what your Southern heritage actually is -- particularly, the myths that have become part of our heritage ........

and there's nothing wrong with myths, as long you know they're myths ........


---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Heel2K wrote:

As for your really stupid comment about the Civil War being about slavery, which is revisionist history, by the way, feel free to do a quick search on the Emancipation proclamation. It came in 1863, halfway through the war, not at the beginning. Lincoln also only freed slaves under Confederate control, meaning the 5 states under Union control with slave populations kept slaves until well after the war. Lincoln tried a preliminary proclamation earlier, but made it conditional- if the states returned to the Union, they kept their slaves. The abolition of slavery become a rally cry later in the war, not the reason behind it. The war was about what all wars are about: economics, taxes, and power. The South did things differently, and resented the North's continued control and what they felt was unfair taxation. The dates and events of history just don't jive with your version of events. Because you are a lazy intellectual.

Now, as has been said repeatedly, by myself and many others, being Southern doesn't mean being racist or wishing for a return to the good old days that apparently concern you. But the Southern identity is very real and a source of pride for many and it is ridiculous and unacceptable for you to continue coming on here specifically to berate people for simply expressing they feel a closer kinship or relationship with other traditionally Southern schools. We all recognize and celebrate the international appeal of UNC, but that appeal wouldn't go away simply by being associated with tje conference that has handily won the last seven football titles and the most recent basketball title.

You can express whatever opinion you like, but please stop trying to make people feel bad for being proud of their heritage.

---------------------------------------------

Well said, 2K, an articulate and intelligent poast which indicates thinking above and beyond the "lazy intellectualism" that characterizes typical discourse on all things Southern, including the Civil War. For those who don't understand the contemporary concept of Southernness, I'll echo a previous poaster on this thread, who suggested reading books by a former mentor of mine at UNC, John Shelton Reed. We at Carolina invented regional sociology, BTW.

Again, I'm not on here to bash the Big 10 or the snowy climes it inhabits, just to express preference for our brethren in the SEC. There are some fine schools in the Big 10, particularly Michigan, the alma mater of one of my favorite aunts. I don't "hate" Big 10 teams as a rule, I just prefer the SEC.

I honestly don't expect people from outside the region or even the culturally deprived and institutionally "PC" brainwashed from inside the region to comprehend the sweet, savory complexity of Southernness. To quote a Down East NC preacher buddy of mine, Southernness "is better felt than telt." I can't give you a perfect recipe for the ultimate Easten NC BBQ sauce, which divinely balances vinegar, red pepper, black pepper, salt, and maybe even sugar, but I know it when I taste it. Likewise, I don't know the exact formula for an original Krispy Kreme donut, beyond the fact that it contains some potato flour and air, but when a hot one plants itelf on my tongue I know that there is a God and that He loves me and wants me to be happy.

"Better felt than telt."

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Bethel, no wonder your ancestors hid behind the mighty NC 49th! I'm quite aware of the factors leading up to the split, some of which were cultural, some financial, and some of them just because of people groups who have such an independent streak they'd secede from heaven if they were ever part of it (see Baja Carolina). Slavery was unquestionably A factor, but not THE only factor as often portrayed.

Taxes? We talkin' 'bout taxes? It is a fact that the cotton exports of the South greatly outweighed the industrial exports of the North. Southerners, tariffed to death, felt like the D.C. license plate slogan long before cars were invented: taxation without representation.

I don't hold to some overly romanticized notion of what the South was or is. Human history is the history of sin, and we're certainly culpable for our part of it. I cannot change the past, but I can work to make today better (and as a result, tomorrow) through promoting and practicing Christ's ideal of loving God and loving ALL people. That's why this old foothillbilly descendant of Confederate soldiers will be sharing the dais next Monday with congressmen, civic leaders, and pastors of some of the largest African-American churches in NC as I speak on the celebrated birthday of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for the umpteenth year in a row. "Go, and sin no more," Christ said.

My point? Our ancestors weren't perfect, and slavery was an incredibly evil institution, but to demonize ALL white Southerners because 20% of them owned slaves is ludicrous. Likewise, while I decry rather than deny those past evils, I refuse to wallow in them as if they were a sty of eternal guilt, engaging in an unfruitful orgy of self-hatred, as is unfortunately common. I am not ashamed of who I am or where I am from, any more than I am ashamed of the gospel.

I had made a point of trying not to stir up the Civil War conversation on this thread any more, but people won't let it die. I'd rather talk about the financial, geographical, and sociocultural reasons why the SEC is a better fit for us than the B1G.

Pardon me as I exit this conversation to go to work, to continue loving and teaching a very diverse group of students in an economically depressed region of the state I love.

---------------------------------------------
--- expatriateheel wrote:

4573, outside the foot print the B1G is not respected at all athletically. Other that Michigan, NW and Wisc your school's academics are nothing special either. In desperation your conference dreamed up a scam to try to extort cable subscribers. Technology will soon doom that farcical business model. With a failed business model, devastating demographics, horrible weather, dead economies and very ethnocentristic populations the B1G cannot succeed in modern America. Does Stalingrad mean anything to you?

---------------------------------------------
--- buckeye4573 wrote:

2009 is that guy insane?
He's prob a snob that bashes state's academic profile, but when choosing conferences it doesnt matter....hahaa

As for sports, uh the B10 is the best conference according to the directors cup, so what the #%#% is he saying?

This is a guy with no facts, just repeats the pro SEC media. Since the guy is a democrat or liberal or whatever you want to call yourself expatriate.....you love those pro media sides and buy everything they sell you, dont ya?

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- expatriateheel wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



Vanderbilt isn't exactly setting the NCAA on fire. Their best win this year was against NC State. They lost every game they played against a good team--plus Northwestern. Their FBS victories came over teams with a combined record of 35-63, winning percentage of 0.357. They literally played every bad team in the SEC.

And Arkansas had a nice 4-8 season this year.

The SEC is the best football conference right now, but it won't last forever. And the teams that are truly and consistently great--Alabama, LSU, Florida, and Georgia--are powerhouse programs with long traditions.

If we look at the SEC schools who actually have competition from other conferences in their state--Florida (FSU and Miami), Georgia (Georgia Tech), South Carolina (Clemson), and Texas A&M (Texas)--those other schools are doing just fine (Miami having other problems at the moment). If we take into consideration the fact that Georgia Tech has never really been up to par with Georgia, and that South Carolina wouldn't be anything right now without Spurrier, it becomes pretty clear that NC State jumping to the SEC would not mean the demise of UNC's prominence in the state, especially considering UNC's brand and flagship status. Other factors would play a larger role than conference affiliation--especially if UNC were in the Big Ten, playing teams like Ohio State and Michigan.

Would the SEC help State? Absolutely. But being in the Big Ten would help us, too, and there's just too many other things that have to happen to determine which team would be more prominent.

The concern is valid. I just don't know if it can be determinative.

---------------------------------------------
I don't know who is paying you to try to put lipstick on a pig but I have to give you credit for effort. Your supposed analysis is without any basis in any objective evaluation of the pros and cons of the SEC versus the rustbelt conference. Your position has the validity of someone arguing that a Yugo and a Porsche are equal because they are both red and are cars. You can only arrive at your position because you are being paid or because you have a vested interest in assisting NCSU become the most important university in NC.

The general public in NC could not care less about the academic ratings of the teams against whom we compete. They only care about our success and the glamour associated that success. They want to bathe in the reflected glory (especially the non-alumni supporters). The schools at the top of the B1G already can't compete nationally in sports. As time passes, the gap will transition to academics.

As the conservatives in the NC legislature continue their all out assault on Carolina's economics we will be forced to seek funding from outside sources. Absent the intervention of Bill Gates we will have to have non-alumni support. The citizens of NC are our best prospects. A strong NCSU entrenchment in the SEC playing UGA, Baja Carolina, UGA, FLA, Vandy, UK, TENN and ALA will eliminate us as the most important school in the state. Dean Smith called athletics the "front porch" of the university. In the rustbelt we would be joined on the porch by schools that mean nothing to NC's citizens.

The academic status on Carolina over the next 100 years will to a large degree be dependent on the funding we can secure from non-alumni. Our overwhelmingly female student body is as devastating for our future alumni economic support as the anti-education forces in the legislature. The only way to reach the "Walmart" donors which so many disparage is through athletic success and football is the key. A move to the B1G will kill Carolina immediately for athletics and will foster our continued academic slide. When ever male child in the state dreams of playing for the aggies against SEC schools Carolina will forever be doomed to second class status. The days of Carolina being able to grow and improve through traditional sources are over. The SEC has nailed the future of economic(academic) growth for public universities.

---------------------------------------------

That was awesome.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Wait, are lots of Germans going to die in the B1G footprint? 'Cause lots of Germans died in Stalingrad...

I wasn't 'demonizing' anybody ...... it is simply an irrefutable fact supported by the entire arc of history during the first 60 years of the 19th century that the conflict between the North and South over the issue of slavery was at the heart of events leading to secession and the Civil War ...... you are correct that there were other issues over which the North and the South disagreed (import duties, internal improvements), but there is absolutely no question that the whole slavery issue was far away the most important factor and the only issue for which it ultimately took a civil war to resolve ....... (I would add as a footnote though - that the political dynamics which led to the war in the first place can certainly be different from the personal motives of individual soldiers who joined the Confederate or Union armies) ........

don't take my word for it -- read the South Carolina and Mississippi and other state secession resolutions - they tell you very plainly why they're seceding in their own words as it's happening ....... read Lincoln's First Inaugural Address - delivered in the midst of the secession crisis ...... on what basis did he plead with Virginia, NC, Kentucky, etc. to remain in the Union ? -- he'll lower their taxes somehow ? - of course not ....... here's in fact what Lincoln promised the South: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." ........ you think Lincoln was somehow confused about the issue at hand ?

this whole notion of minimizing the role of the slavery issue in the events leading up to the Civil War was not something anyone at the time would have acknowledged before or during the secession crisis and the start of the War ...... but was in fact an idea that was fabricated AFTER the Civil War by the vanquished leaders of the South as basically CYA propaganda designed to provide some palatable excuse or justification for their role in leading their fellow Southerners into the disaster that the Civil War became for the South .....

this reinvention of the Southern motives for secession from protecting their slave based agricultural system (ie, a selfish motive to protect the property of the planter class) into something either more noble - ("state's rights") - or simply benign - (import taxes/internal improvements) - is one part of a whole mythology built around the Civil War designed to somehow enoble those involved and assuage the pride of the defeated South ...... this reimagined history is know as the "Lost Cause Myth" ..... and it includes other elements such as the deification of Lee and the notion that they never had a chance, but fought bravely on, etc., etc. .....

Removed.



and having actually attended both UNC and Univ. of Michigan -- I would say from personal experience that the two schools are much more alike than they are different .... Michigan is like Chapel Hill with two Franklin Streets and three Woolen Gym complexes ....... I would join most people on here in assuming UNC might fit better in the SEC in terms of sports conference than the Big 10 but I'm not sure the cultural difference are as great as some imagine ....... I would think my experience as a Michigan student was more similar to Chapel Hill than going to Davidson or Elon or UNC Wilmington would be compared to Chapel Hill ........


----------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:


Bethel, no wonder your ancestors hid behind the mighty NC 49th! I'm quite aware of the factors leading up to the split, some of which were cultural, some financial, and some of them just because of people groups who have such an independent streak they'd secede from heaven if they were ever part of it (see Baja Carolina). Slavery was unquestionably A factor, but not THE only factor as often portrayed.

Taxes? We talkin' 'bout taxes? It is a fact that the cotton exports of the South greatly outweighed the industrial exports of the North. Southerners, tariffed to death, felt like the D.C. license plate slogan long before cars were invented: taxation without representation.

I don't hold to some overly romanticized notion of what the South was or is. Human history is the history of sin, and we're certainly culpable for our part of it. I cannot change the past, but I can work to make today better (and as a result, tomorrow) through promoting and practicing Christ's ideal of loving God and loving ALL people. That's why this old foothillbilly descendant of Confederate soldiers will be sharing the dais next Monday with congressmen, civic leaders, and pastors of some of the largest African-American churches in NC as I speak on the celebrated birthday of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for the umpteenth year in a row. "Go, and sin no more," Christ said.

My point? Our ancestors weren't perfect, and slavery was an incredibly evil institution, but to demonize ALL white Southerners because 20% of them owned slaves is ludicrous. Likewise, while I decry rather than deny those past evils, I refuse to wallow in them as if they were a sty of eternal guilt, engaging in an unfruitful orgy of self-hatred, as is unfortunately common. I am not ashamed of who I am or where I am from, any more than I am ashamed of the gospel.

I had made a point of trying not to stir up the Civil War conversation on this thread any more, but people won't let it die. I'd rather talk about the financial, geographical, and sociocultural reasons why the SEC is a better fit for us than the B1G.

Pardon me as I exit this conversation to go to work, to continue loving and teaching a very diverse group of students in an economically depressed region of the state I love.

---------------------------------------------

I'm pretty sure his post was satire.

---------------------------------------------
--- buckeye4573 wrote:

2009 is that guy insane?
He's prob a snob that bashes state's academic profile, but when choosing conferences it doesnt matter....hahaa

As for sports, uh the B10 is the best conference according to the directors cup, so what the #%#% is he saying?

This is a guy with no facts, just repeats the pro SEC media. Since the guy is a democrat or liberal or whatever you want to call yourself expatriate.....you love those pro media sides and buy everything they sell you, dont ya?

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- expatriateheel wrote:



I don't know who is paying you to try to put lipstick on a pig but I have to give you credit for effort. Your supposed analysis is without any basis in any objective evaluation of the pros and cons of the SEC versus the rustbelt conference. Your position has the validity of someone arguing that a Yugo and a Porsche are equal because they are both red and are cars. You can only arrive at your position because you are being paid or because you have a vested interest in assisting NCSU become the most important university in NC.

The general public in NC could not care less about the academic ratings of the teams against whom we compete. They only care about our success and the glamour associated that success. They want to bathe in the reflected glory (especially the non-alumni supporters). The schools at the top of the B1G already can't compete nationally in sports. As time passes, the gap will transition to academics.

As the conservatives in the NC legislature continue their all out assault on Carolina's economics we will be forced to seek funding from outside sources. Absent the intervention of Bill Gates we will have to have non-alumni support. The citizens of NC are our best prospects. A strong NCSU entrenchment in the SEC playing UGA, Baja Carolina, UGA, FLA, Vandy, UK, TENN and ALA will eliminate us as the most important school in the state. Dean Smith called athletics the "front porch" of the university. In the rustbelt we would be joined on the porch by schools that mean nothing to NC's citizens.

The academic status on Carolina over the next 100 years will to a large degree be dependent on the funding we can secure from non-alumni. Our overwhelmingly female student body is as devastating for our future alumni economic support as the anti-education forces in the legislature. The only way to reach the "Walmart" donors which so many disparage is through athletic success and football is the key. A move to the B1G will kill Carolina immediately for athletics and will foster our continued academic slide. When ever male child in the state dreams of playing for the aggies against SEC schools Carolina will forever be doomed to second class status. The days of Carolina being able to grow and improve through traditional sources are over. The SEC has nailed the future of economic(academic) growth for public universities.

---------------------------------------------

That was awesome.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Yeah, I thought so. Especially the parts in the last paragraph.
This has been an interesting conversation to follow. Ftr, I would prefer UNC stay in a southern conference. And I'm from NY and followed OSU football until my last year of high school.

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:

I'm pretty sure his post was satire.

---------------------------------------------
--- buckeye4573 wrote:

2009 is that guy insane?
He's prob a snob that bashes state's academic profile, but when choosing conferences it doesnt matter....hahaa

As for sports, uh the B10 is the best conference according to the directors cup, so what the #%#% is he saying?

This is a guy with no facts, just repeats the pro SEC media. Since the guy is a democrat or liberal or whatever you want to call yourself expatriate.....you love those pro media sides and buy everything they sell you, dont ya?

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- expatriateheel wrote:

Our overwhelmingly female student body is as devastating for our future alumni economic support as the anti-education forces in the legislature. The only way to reach the "Walmart" donors which so many disparage is through athletic success and football is the key. A move to the B1G will kill Carolina immediately for athletics and will foster our continued academic slide. When ever male child in the state dreams of playing for the aggies against SEC schools Carolina will forever be doomed to second class status. The days of Carolina being able to grow and improve through traditional sources are over. The SEC has nailed the future of economic(academic) growth for public universities.

---------------------------------------------

That was awesome.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

There are rumors of the Big 12 offering 6 ACC schools, leaving UNC and UVa to SEC

---------------------------------------------
--- rippy74 wrote:

There are rumors of the Big 12 offering 6 ACC schools, leaving UNC and UVa to SEC

---------------------------------------------

I heard these rumors, but I don't think there's much to them. The premise is to block Big Ten expansion into the South by scooping up the Southern schools first, along with the SEC. But how many Southern schools would actually take the Big 12 over the ACC, SEC, or Big Ten? I say zero.

In order for the Big 12 to move first, I would think it would have to grab schools that would be afraid of being left out if the ACC crumbles. Miami? Maybe. Wake? BC? Syracuse? I can't think of any others, and the last two aren't even Southern schools.


Edit: This could be collusion by the SEC and the Big 12, as some have implied. The SEC may want to knock the ACC loose so that UNC feels compelled to move, to remove the ACC from the equation and finally choose between the SEC and the Big Ten. I have serious doubts that the Big 12 would be successful, though.

I'm not sure that expansion is a great idea, but I think it's coming.

The Big 12 can't stay at 10 forever. It's not going to get a waiver for a conference championship game, and it's going to want that game for the money, exposure, playoff positioning, and to determine who's going to play in the new Big 12/SEC Champions Bowl. They're going to have to take 2 more, even if Texas doesn't really want to.

Where are they going to get those 2? Not from the SEC or the B1G--the money and security is too good. Ditto for the Pac-12, plus the geography.

That means that there are few schools that are realistic options: Boise State, UNLV, Cincinnati, BYU and the ACC schools. The first four don't add enough to make it financially worth while, especially not compared to options like FSU, Clemson, Miami, et al. Looking at those schools makes sense for the Big 12.

I think the B1G could move preemptively as well. They basically set up a test case with UMD to see what getting ACC schools would cost.

The SEC won't move first, but if some of the ACC schools jump and it starts a dash for the lifeboats, I think the SEC will take at least 2 schools to round out to 16. I know most of you hope the ACC stays together and can't say that I blame you. But if things start to fall apart in ACC country, I hope you end up in the SEC. I think we're a rising group of universities with plenty to offer both on and off the field.

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:

I heard these rumors, but I don't think there's much to them. The premise is to block Big Ten expansion into the South by scooping up the Southern schools first, along with the SEC. But how many Southern schools would actually take the Big 12 over the ACC, SEC, or Big Ten? I say zero.

In order for the Big 12 to move first, I would think it would have to grab schools that would be afraid of being left out if the ACC crumbles. Miami? Maybe. Wake? BC? Syracuse? I can't think of any others, and the last two aren't even Southern schools.


Edit: This could be collusion by the SEC and the Big 12. The SEC may want to knock the ACC loose so that UNC feels compelled to move, to remove the ACC from the equation and finally choose between the SEC and the Big Ten. I have serious doubts that the Big 12 would be successful, though.

---------------------------------------------

I agree with your premise Carolina2009. Presumably, if the BIG12 wanted 6 universities, they would have to get one or two just to establish uncertainty among the other targets. And Miami is the choice that would make alot of (ie the most) sense.

---------------------------------------------
--- NaturalStateReb wrote:

The SEC won't move first, but if some of the ACC schools jump and it starts a dash for the lifeboats, I think the SEC will take at least 2 schools to round out to 16. I know most of you hope the ACC stays together and can't say that I blame you. But if things start to fall apart in ACC country, I hope you end up in the SEC. I think we're a rising group of universities with plenty to offer both on and off the field.

---------------------------------------------

The SEC would only move first if it could get UNC and one of Duke/UVa/Va Tech.



---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:



I agree with your premise Carolina2009. Presumably, if the BIG12 wanted 6 universities, they would have to get one or two just to establish uncertainty among the other targets. And Miami is the choice that would make alot of (ie the most) sense.

---------------------------------------------

If the Big 12 could get Miami, or Miami and one more (Wake?), it might be enough to get the ball rolling. Neither one of those additions keeps the Big Ten out of the South, though, if that's the end goal. Keeping the Big Ten out of the South means convincing UNC, UVa, Duke, and Ga Tech (and maybe even FSU) not to go.

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:

If the Big 12 could get Miami, or Miami and one more (Wake?), it might be enough to get the ball rolling. Neither one of those additions keeps the Big Ten out of the South, though, if that's the end goal. Keeping the Big Ten out of the South means convincing UNC, UVa, Duke, and Ga Tech (and maybe even FSU) not to go.

---------------------------------------------

If keeping the BIG10 out of the South is the goal, that would entail UVA, UNC, GT, Duke, and possibly FSU going into either SEC or BIG12.

Personally I don't see that happening, 6 teams to BIG12 (VT, Clemson, FSU, Miami, NCST/Duke, GT) and 2 to SEC (UNC and UVA/Duke). There's no way that gets pulled off. If anyone does leave the ACC, the BIG10 will make it's mark with at least two of those premium universities. Furthermore, they will want ND enough to be willing to go beyond 16.

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- rippy74 wrote:

There are rumors of the Big 12 offering 6 ACC schools, leaving UNC and UVa to SEC

---------------------------------------------

I heard these rumors, but I don't think there's much to them. The premise is to block Big Ten expansion into the South by scooping up the Southern schools first, along with the SEC. But how many Southern schools would actually take the Big 12 over the ACC, SEC, or Big Ten? I say zero.

In order for the Big 12 to move first, I would think it would have to grab schools that would be afraid of being left out if the ACC crumbles. Miami? Maybe. Wake? BC? Syracuse? I can't think of any others, and the last two aren't even Southern schools.


Edit: This could be collusion by the SEC and the Big 12, as some have implied. The SEC may want to knock the ACC loose so that UNC feels compelled to move, to remove the ACC from the equation and finally choose between the SEC and the Big Ten. I have serious doubts that the Big 12 would be successful, though.

---------------------------------------------

To answer your first question, the scuzzier ACC schools. Not Carolina or UVA, but the "less thans." State, for example...

I don't hate WVU, in fact, as a foothillbilly I wanted them in the ACC, academics be danged. But their struggles with NCeSt would be legendary...

---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:

If the Big 12 could get Miami, or Miami and one more (Wake?), it might be enough to get the ball rolling. Neither one of those additions keeps the Big Ten out of the South, though, if that's the end goal. Keeping the Big Ten out of the South means convincing UNC, UVa, Duke, and Ga Tech (and maybe even FSU) not to go.

---------------------------------------------

If keeping the BIG10 out of the South is the goal, that would entail UVA, UNC, GT, Duke, and possibly FSU going into either SEC or BIG12.

Personally I don't see that happening, 6 teams to BIG12 (VT, Clemson, FSU, Miami, NCST/Duke, GT) and 2 to SEC (UNC and UVA/Duke). There's no way that gets pulled off. If anyone does leave the ACC, the BIG10 will make it's mark with at least two of those premium universities. Furthermore, they will want ND enough to be willing to go beyond 16.

---------------------------------------------

You obviously have a high opinion of the B1G.

---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:

You obviously have a high opinion of the B1G.

---------------------------------------------

My whole life I've been a fan of "Southern" sports. That has made into a fan of SEC football and ACC basketball.

The problem as I see it, is that decision makers are invariably high-minded academic types who will always put academic standards first. Generally that's a good thing, but when selecting an athletic conference I think it's a bad thing. Vanderbilt is not a shlub university because it's in the SEC. NCST is not a top institution because it's in the ACC. Universities rise or fall academically because of what they do to make themselves rise or fall, not by who their teams play in conference.

I'm still convinced that the decision makers want the BIG10. I think they want them at GT, UVA, and probably UNC. I don't necessarily blame them. If I was an academic who didn't care about athletics, the BIG10 would be my choice due to academic pride. That is what I think this will all boil down to, academic pride. The BIG10 offers it, and the SEC doesn't.

---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

I wasn't 'demonizing' anybody ...... it is simply an irrefutable fact supported by the entire arc of history during the first 60 years of the 19th century that the conflict between the North and South over the issue of slavery was at the heart of events leading to secession and the Civil War ...... you are correct that there were other issues over which the North and the South disagreed (import duties, internal improvements), but there is absolutely no question that the whole slavery issue was far away the most important factor and the only issue for which it ultimately took a civil war to resolve ....... (I would add as a footnote though - that the political dynamics which led to the war in the first place can certainly be different from the personal motives of individual soldiers who joined the Confederate or Union armies) ........

don't take my word for it -- read the South Carolina and Mississippi and other state secession resolutions - they tell you very plainly why they're seceding in their own words as it's happening ....... read Lincoln's First Inaugural Address - delivered in the midst of the secession crisis ...... on what basis did he plead with Virginia, NC, Kentucky, etc. to remain in the Union ? -- he'll lower their taxes somehow ? - of course not ....... here's in fact what Lincoln promised the South: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." ........ you think Lincoln was somehow confused about the issue at hand ?

this whole notion of minimizing the role of the slavery issue in the events leading up to the Civil War was not something anyone at the time would have acknowledged before or during the secession crisis and the start of the War ...... but was in fact an idea that was fabricated AFTER the Civil War by the vanquished leaders of the South as basically CYA propaganda designed to provide some palatable excuse or justification for their role in leading their fellow Southerners into the disaster that the Civil War became for the South .....

this reinvention of the Southern motives for secession from protecting their slave based agricultural system (ie, a selfish motive to protect the property of the planter class) into something either more noble - ("state's rights") - or simply benign - (import taxes/internal improvements) - is one part of a whole mythology built around the Civil War designed to somehow enoble those involved and assuage the pride of the defeated South ...... this reimagined history is know as the "Lost Cause Myth" ..... and it includes other elements such as the deification of Lee and the notion that they never had a chance, but fought bravely on, etc., etc. .....

Removed.



and having actually attended both UNC and Univ. of Michigan -- I would say from personal experience that the two schools are much more alike than they are different .... Michigan is like Chapel Hill with two Franklin Streets and three Woolen Gym complexes ....... I would join most people on here in assuming UNC might fit better in the SEC in terms of sports conference than the Big 10 but I'm not sure the cultural difference are as great as some imagine ....... I would think my experience as a Michigan student was more similar to Chapel Hill than going to Davidson or Elon or UNC Wilmington would be compared to Chapel Hill ........


----------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:


Bethel, no wonder your ancestors hid behind the mighty NC 49th! I'm quite aware of the factors leading up to the split, some of which were cultural, some financial, and some of them just because of people groups who have such an independent streak they'd secede from heaven if they were ever part of it (see Baja Carolina). Slavery was unquestionably A factor, but not THE only factor as often portrayed.

Taxes? We talkin' 'bout taxes? It is a fact that the cotton exports of the South greatly outweighed the industrial exports of the North. Southerners, tariffed to death, felt like the D.C. license plate slogan long before cars were invented: taxation without representation.

I don't hold to some overly romanticized notion of what the South was or is. Human history is the history of sin, and we're certainly culpable for our part of it. I cannot change the past, but I can work to make today better (and as a result, tomorrow) through promoting and practicing Christ's ideal of loving God and loving ALL people. That's why this old foothillbilly descendant of Confederate soldiers will be sharing the dais next Monday with congressmen, civic leaders, and pastors of some of the largest African-American churches in NC as I speak on the celebrated birthday of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for the umpteenth year in a row. "Go, and sin no more," Christ said.

My point? Our ancestors weren't perfect, and slavery was an incredibly evil institution, but to demonize ALL white Southerners because 20% of them owned slaves is ludicrous. Likewise, while I decry rather than deny those past evils, I refuse to wallow in them as if they were a sty of eternal guilt, engaging in an unfruitful orgy of self-hatred, as is unfortunately common. I am not ashamed of who I am or where I am from, any more than I am ashamed of the gospel.

I had made a point of trying not to stir up the Civil War conversation on this thread any more, but people won't let it die. I'd rather talk about the financial, geographical, and sociocultural reasons why the SEC is a better fit for us than the B1G.

Pardon me as I exit this conversation to go to work, to continue loving and teaching a very diverse group of students in an economically depressed region of the state I love.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Bethel, Bethel, Bethel...

I'm reminded of the title of a book in my 6,000+ volume library, "First At Big Bethel, Furthest at Gettysburg, Last At Appomattox." Perhaps you've read it?

I speak from informed pride, not ignorance. You have good roots at Lenoir-Rhyne, which I greatly respect considering the fact that my parents were both L-R alumni, and I have no doubt that you are "good people," but we can agree to disagree here. I've also read extensively about the South, from 1584 to 2013, and unoffically majored in the study of her at Carolina. I took every regional course offered at UNC at the time. And I've also read outside the parameters of a politically correct liberal arts education. Yet I am still unashamed to be who and what I am. I don't have the stats in front of me, but historians who are much more gifted than either of us still differ on these details.

You personally may not have demonized the South, but I assure you that countless others have, as it is commonplace in higher ed to do so, and widely accepted as well. When I raised my son, I wanted him to have a balanced perspective, because historiography ALWAYS favors those who win the wars: the winners invariably write the history books. I choose not to live with the condemnation of generations past; I am only guilty of my sins, not the manifold sins of others, and to assume otherwise is to minimize the sacrifice of The One Who Bore My Sins and exalt myself. When I literally wash the feet of African-Americans and "people from the wrong side of Mason-Dixon," I do so out of genuine Christian love and humility, not guilt.

Yet I still get goosebumps when I hear Dixie. So, shoot me...

---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:

But how many Southern schools would actually take the Big 12 over the ACC, SEC, or Big Ten? I say zero.

---------------------------------------------

To answer your first question, the scuzzier ACC schools. Not Carolina or UVA, but the "less thans." State, for example...

I don't hate WVU, in fact, as a foothillbilly I wanted them in the ACC, academics be danged. But their struggles with NCeSt would be legendary...

---------------------------------------------

If UNC decides to go the Big Ten, the NC State would almost certainly get an invitation from the SEC. If NC State knows this, there's no chance they go to the Big 12 before seeing what UNC does.

---------------------------------------------
--- rippy74 wrote:

There are rumors of the Big 12 offering 6 ACC schools, leaving UNC and UVa to SEC

---------------------------------------------

As long as DeLoss Dodds wants the Big 12 to have 10 teams, it will have 10 teams. Let there be no doubt about that.

---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:

You obviously have a high opinion of the B1G.

---------------------------------------------

My whole life I've been a fan of "Southern" sports. That has made into a fan of SEC football and ACC basketball.

The problem as I see it, is that decision makers are invariably high-minded academic types who will always put academic standards first. Generally that's a good thing, but when selecting an athletic conference I think it's a bad thing. Vanderbilt is not a shlub university because it's in the SEC. NCST is not a top institution because it's in the ACC. Universities rise or fall academically because of what they do to make themselves rise or fall, not by who their teams play in conference.

I'm still convinced that the decision makers want the BIG10. I think they want them at GT, UVA, and probably UNC. I don't necessarily blame them. If I was an academic who didn't care about athletics, the BIG10 would be my choice due to academic pride. That is what I think this will all boil down to, academic pride. The BIG10 offers it, and the SEC doesn't.

---------------------------------------------

The Big Ten has a number of avdantages that would pique the interest of several ACC schools. Academics. There's a lot of research money. The Big Ten will likely have the best t.v. deals. Compared to the ACC, it's still a football upgrade. Good basketball. An all-sports conference. Bigger, more diverse footprint.

And perhaps most importantly, it might be willing to take 4 or 5 core ACC schools in addition to Maryland--keeping the band together.

---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:

You obviously have a high opinion of the B1G.

---------------------------------------------

My whole life I've been a fan of "Southern" sports. That has made into a fan of SEC football and ACC basketball.

The problem as I see it, is that decision makers are invariably high-minded academic types who will always put academic standards first. Generally that's a good thing, but when selecting an athletic conference I think it's a bad thing. Vanderbilt is not a shlub university because it's in the SEC. NCST is not a top institution because it's in the ACC. Universities rise or fall academically because of what they do to make themselves rise or fall, not by who their teams play in conference.

I'm still convinced that the decision makers want the BIG10. I think they want them at GT, UVA, and probably UNC. I don't necessarily blame them. If I was an academic who didn't care about athletics, the BIG10 would be my choice due to academic pride. That is what I think this will all boil down to, academic pride. The BIG10 offers it, and the SEC doesn't.

---------------------------------------------

If you are right, welcome to the "de-emphasized" UNC football of the 50's and early 60's, following the scandal at, of all places, William and Mary about 1950. Maybe GT, UVA, and Carolina want that. I'd be so disappointed.

---------------------------------------------
--- NaturalStateReb wrote:

I'm not sure that expansion is a great idea, but I think it's coming.

The Big 12 can't stay at 10 forever. It's not going to get a waiver for a conference championship game, and it's going to want that game for the money, exposure, playoff positioning, and to determine who's going to play in the new Big 12/SEC Champions Bowl. They're going to have to take 2 more, even if Texas doesn't really want to.

Where are they going to get those 2? Not from the SEC or the B1G--the money and security is too good. Ditto for the Pac-12, plus the geography.

That means that there are few schools that are realistic options: Boise State, UNLV, Cincinnati, BYU and the ACC schools. The first four don't add enough to make it financially worth while, especially not compared to options like FSU, Clemson, Miami, et al. Looking at those schools makes sense for the Big 12.

I think the B1G could move preemptively as well. They basically set up a test case with UMD to see what getting ACC schools would cost.

The SEC won't move first, but if some of the ACC schools jump and it starts a dash for the lifeboats, I think the SEC will take at least 2 schools to round out to 16. I know most of you hope the ACC stays together and can't say that I blame you. But if things start to fall apart in ACC country, I hope you end up in the SEC. I think we're a rising group of universities with plenty to offer both on and off the field.

---------------------------------------------

Reb, I want the ACC to survive and thrive. I truly believe that it will.

But, if it all does go sideways, I hope we end up in the SEC as well.

The key to all of this is who moves first. The SEC and B1G have the most power. The schools not already in either (or the PAC) with at least some real value are:

ND, Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, UNC, UVA, VTech, NCSU, Duke, Clemson, GTech, Kansas.

The other schools in the ACC and B12 (and other leagues) could be considered if the SEC and B1G mandate larger leagues.

Destabilizing the ACC or the B12 is the next piece of the puzzle.

Realistically, the SEC and B1G will set the magic number, with the PAC hoping to pick up a few value schools, and the B12/ACC/BE leftovers forming the last conference. The question is what number do the B1G and SEC go to?

---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- rippy74 wrote:

There are rumors of the Big 12 offering 6 ACC schools, leaving UNC and UVa to SEC

---------------------------------------------

As long as DeLoss Dodds wants the Big 12 to have 10 teams, it will have 10 teams. Let their be no doubt about that.

---------------------------------------------

There's talk that if some conferences move to 16 or 20 teams, they may have 4 divisions and add a conference semifinal round. The Big 12 would be left too far behind if it stayed at 10.

---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- NaturalStateReb wrote:

I'm not sure that expansion is a great idea, but I think it's coming.

The Big 12 can't stay at 10 forever. It's not going to get a waiver for a conference championship game, and it's going to want that game for the money, exposure, playoff positioning, and to determine who's going to play in the new Big 12/SEC Champions Bowl. They're going to have to take 2 more, even if Texas doesn't really want to.

Where are they going to get those 2? Not from the SEC or the B1G--the money and security is too good. Ditto for the Pac-12, plus the geography.

That means that there are few schools that are realistic options: Boise State, UNLV, Cincinnati, BYU and the ACC schools. The first four don't add enough to make it financially worth while, especially not compared to options like FSU, Clemson, Miami, et al. Looking at those schools makes sense for the Big 12.

I think the B1G could move preemptively as well. They basically set up a test case with UMD to see what getting ACC schools would cost.

The SEC won't move first, but if some of the ACC schools jump and it starts a dash for the lifeboats, I think the SEC will take at least 2 schools to round out to 16. I know most of you hope the ACC stays together and can't say that I blame you. But if things start to fall apart in ACC country, I hope you end up in the SEC. I think we're a rising group of universities with plenty to offer both on and off the field.

---------------------------------------------

Reb, I want the ACC to survive and thrive. I truly believe that it will.

But, if it all does go sideways, I hope we end up in the SEC as well.

---------------------------------------------

I get no kick from champagne (or Champaign-Urbana). And the thought of East Lansing in the late fall, winter, early spring, or heck anytime, does nothing for me.

For what it's worth, the big rumor now is that Miami has decided that it's in their interest to move out of the ACC. We'll see if that's true or not.

The BIG12 has a meeting on January 29th with conference expansion as an agenda item. If this Miami rumor has any legs, something will happen not too far down the road from that meeting.

---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:


I get no kick from champagne (or Champaign-Urbana). And the thought of East Lansing in the late fall, winter, early spring, or heck anytime, does nothing for me.

---------------------------------------------

I think the ACC schools share this concern, which is why there is so much talk of the Big Ten going to 20 teams. If the Big Ten gets another 4 or 5 ACC schools from the South, that means only 2 (maybe 3) games per year up North at worst.

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:

You obviously have a high opinion of the B1G.

---------------------------------------------

My whole life I've been a fan of "Southern" sports. That has made into a fan of SEC football and ACC basketball.

The problem as I see it, is that decision makers are invariably high-minded academic types who will always put academic standards first. Generally that's a good thing, but when selecting an athletic conference I think it's a bad thing. Vanderbilt is not a shlub university because it's in the SEC. NCST is not a top institution because it's in the ACC. Universities rise or fall academically because of what they do to make themselves rise or fall, not by who their teams play in conference.

I'm still convinced that the decision makers want the BIG10. I think they want them at GT, UVA, and probably UNC. I don't necessarily blame them. If I was an academic who didn't care about athletics, the BIG10 would be my choice due to academic pride. That is what I think this will all boil down to, academic pride. The BIG10 offers it, and the SEC doesn't.

---------------------------------------------

The Big Ten has a number of avdantages that would pique the interest of several ACC schools. Academics. There's a lot of research money. The Big Ten will likely have the best t.v. deals. Compared to the ACC, it's still a football upgrade. Good basketball. An all-sports conference. Bigger, more diverse footprint.

And perhaps most importantly, it might be willing to take 4 or 5 core ACC schools in addition to Maryland--keeping the band together.

---------------------------------------------

Never having to play Maryland ever again is reason enough to not want Carolina to be in the Big 10.