• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Southern Conference invites 3 new members

MrTitleist

Moderator
Staff member
The SoCon invited three new members today, East Tennessee State, VMI, and Mercer. Mercer will be playing scholarship football starting in 2014, when they and the rest of the invited teams join the conference.
 
EverettGriz said:
Ugh.

The watering down continues...

I suppose you consider or considered the addition of North Dak St, Eastern Washington, Cal-Davis, North Dakota, South Dak St, South Dak, Southern Utah, etc. to be "watering down" too?
 
PlayerRep said:
EverettGriz said:
Ugh.

The watering down continues...

I suppose you consider or considered the addition of North Dak St, Eastern Washington, Cal-Davis, North Dakota, South Dak St, South Dak, Southern Utah, etc. to be "watering down" too?


Some of them, yes.

And Mercer isn't ANY of those programs.
 
EverettGriz said:
And Mercer isn't ANY of those programs.

And to think it was just 02 Sept 2010 that Georgia State played it's first ever football game as a FCS-Independent against Shorter Hawks (I didn't make that up...really) winning 41-7 before a crowd of 30,237 in the Georgia Dome. Now, after three years and a 10 - 23 record they're joining the Sun Belt Conference, effective 2014?..as FBS with some fellow Conf. members such as Western Kentucky and Troy State. Maybe Mercer has delusions of grandeur as well?
 
WyomingGrizFan said:
EverettGriz said:
And Mercer isn't ANY of those programs.

And to think it was just 02 Sept 2010 that Georgia State played it's first ever football game as a FCS-Independent against Shorter Hawks (I didn't make that up...really) winning 41-7 before a crowd of 30,237 in the Georgia Dome. Now, after three years and a 10 - 23 record they're joining the Sun Belt Conference, effective 2014?..as FBS with some fellow Conf. members such as Western Kentucky and Troy State. Maybe Mercer has delusions of grandeur as well?

I don't know that I'd necessarily call it that. Mercer is an exceptional (although relatively small) institution who's just getting football back on campus following a 70-year hiatus. They've hired a good coach (Bobby Lamb, formerly of Furman and "go for 2, Bobby!" fame) and have very, very good programs in other sports. Believe it or not, there are sports other than football. They received an at-large bid to the College World Series (lost in the regional) and made it to the second round of the NIT in basketball.

It'll take them a couple of years to get football on the right track, but I don't equate them in any way to Georgia State (who was as full of themselves and "where they belong" from the beginning, much the same as UNC Charlotte is here).
 
PlayerRep said:
EverettGriz said:
Ugh.

The watering down continues...
I suppose you consider or considered the addition of North Dak St, Eastern Washington, Cal-Davis, North Dakota, South Dak St, South Dak, Southern Utah, etc. to be "watering down" too?
NDSU is the exception to FCS not unlike Boise St. is to FBS (which really gives you heartburn should someone point out how moving up can be successful). EWU has been FCS for 30 years; nice example. What have the others done that is so notable? Why not include UNC in your defensive comment?
 
kemajic said:
PlayerRep said:
EverettGriz said:
Ugh.

The watering down continues...
I suppose you consider or considered the addition of North Dak St, Eastern Washington, Cal-Davis, North Dakota, South Dak St, South Dak, Southern Utah, etc. to be "watering down" too?
NDSU is the exception to FCS not unlike Boise St. is to FBS (which really gives you heartburn should someone point out how moving up can be successful). EWU has been FCS for 30 years; nice example. What have the others done that is so notable? Why not include UNC in your defensive comment?

Damn man, your hatred for UNC is almost obsessive. Just about every post of yours is slamming UNC in some aspect. Get off of it. Try something new.

So EWU has been in the Big Sky for 30 years. However, If UNC struggles like they do in fan support and facilities like they have in 30 years, I will agree with you Kem that UNC should have stayed D2.
 
Damn, BSB. I'll give you credit: You are immediately on top of even the slightest disparagement of UNC. :lol:
 
Don't beat the dead horse - run it over with the tractor. Grind it up and feed it to the dogs and then boil the damn bones. How many times can we have the move up, move down, move all around argument. I say welcome to the new FCS members. After all, that is the division we currently play in. God forbid we stay in the present instead of letting all those big visions of grandeur dance in our heads. I guess since we have dominated FCS recently with all those National Championships it is ok to hack on teams coming into FCS. Give me a f'ing break.
 
kemajic said:
PlayerRep said:
EverettGriz said:
Ugh.

The watering down continues...
I suppose you consider or considered the addition of North Dak St, Eastern Washington, Cal-Davis, North Dakota, South Dak St, South Dak, Southern Utah, etc. to be "watering down" too?
NDSU is the exception to FCS not unlike Boise St. is to FBS (which really gives you heartburn should someone point out how moving up can be successful). EWU has been FCS for 30 years; nice example. What have the others done that is so notable? Why not include UNC in your defensive comment?

EWU came from D-II and NAIA, and joined the Big Sky in 1987. The question wasn't how long they've been in FCS; it's where they came from and have far they've come, i.e. a national championship. Boise St's success doesn't give me heartburn. I think it's great that they've done so well. They're an exception. They were well-funded from early on, kept after it, and had some luck. It's people like you who ignore all of the unsuccessful and languishing teams that have moved up, by pointing out Boise St and maybe a few others. People like you who ignore the cost of moving up, and who refuse to look at reality. Now that gives me heartburn.
 
PlayerRep said:
kemajic said:
PlayerRep said:
EverettGriz said:
Ugh.

The watering down continues...
I suppose you consider or considered the addition of North Dak St, Eastern Washington, Cal-Davis, North Dakota, South Dak St, South Dak, Southern Utah, etc. to be "watering down" too?
NDSU is the exception to FCS not unlike Boise St. is to FBS (which really gives you heartburn should someone point out how moving up can be successful). EWU has been FCS for 30 years; nice example. What have the others done that is so notable? Why not include UNC in your defensive comment?
EWU came from D-II and NAIA, and joined the Big Sky in 1987. The question wasn't how long they've been in FCS; it's where they came from and have far they've come, i.e. a national championship. Boise St's success doesn't give me heartburn. I think it's great that they've done so well. They're an exception. They were well-funded from early on, kept after it, and had some luck. It's people like you who ignore all of the unsuccessful and languishing teams that have moved up, by pointing out Boise St and maybe a few others. People like you who ignore the cost of moving up, and who refuse to look at reality. Now that gives me heartburn.
Oh, you mean much like the teams now coming into FCS that will be "unsuccessful and languishing?" Which is the point of this discussion - the watering down of FCS. Not your diversion to turn this argument into an FCS to FBS move-up attack.

Find an example of where I've pointed "out Boise St. and maybe a few others." To use some of your own favorite words, quit making stuff up. I noted BSU here as an FBS exception to match your pointing out NDSU, an FCS exception.

Regarding EWU, we're talking about recent weak additions to FCS, not an addition 30 years ago. And sticking to facts, EWU was in the BSC 6 years before having a winning season and was 47-60 for their first 10 years in the conference. It took them 25 years to get nationally competitive in FCS.
 
griz4life said:
I wonder why Valdosta didn't eye a move to the socon?

I don't have links, but I remember a talk(not here) about VSU a few months back. It was said that VSU is not looking to go DI, and the SoCon made it clear that they do not want DII schools.

*edit* Ok, so I found an old article that says pretty much the same thing...
http://valdostadailytimes.com/sports/x1633466141/VSU-No-move-to-Division-I-in-future" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
PlayerRep said:
kemajic said:
PlayerRep said:
EverettGriz said:
Ugh.

The watering down continues...
I suppose you consider or considered the addition of North Dak St, Eastern Washington, Cal-Davis, North Dakota, South Dak St, South Dak, Southern Utah, etc. to be "watering down" too?
NDSU is the exception to FCS not unlike Boise St. is to FBS (which really gives you heartburn should someone point out how moving up can be successful). EWU has been FCS for 30 years; nice example. What have the others done that is so notable? Why not include UNC in your defensive comment?

EWU came from D-II and NAIA, and joined the Big Sky in 1987. The question wasn't how long they've been in FCS; it's where they came from and have far they've come, i.e. a national championship. Boise St's success doesn't give me heartburn. I think it's great that they've done so well. They're an exception. They were well-funded from early on, kept after it, and had some luck., by It's people like you who ignore all of the unsuccessful and languishing teams that have moved uppointing out Boise St and maybe a few others. People like you who ignore the cost of moving up, and who refuse to look at reality. Now that gives me heartburn.

;) Hey, Mr PR, you want to talk about unsuccessful programs moving up? Here's a question you may find uncomfortable answering. Of the current BSC membership number, however successful or unsuccessful, how many of them didn't move up from DII or elsewhere - but actually moved down not just once, but twice :?: The answer: ONLY ONE. The University of Montana...and BTW, MSU moved up from the old DII Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference when the BSC was formed.

Try again...
 
kemajic said:
PlayerRep said:
kemajic said:
PlayerRep said:
I suppose you consider or considered the addition of North Dak St, Eastern Washington, Cal-Davis, North Dakota, South Dak St, South Dak, Southern Utah, etc. to be "watering down" too?
NDSU is the exception to FCS not unlike Boise St. is to FBS (which really gives you heartburn should someone point out how moving up can be successful). EWU has been FCS for 30 years; nice example. What have the others done that is so notable? Why not include UNC in your defensive comment?
EWU came from D-II and NAIA, and joined the Big Sky in 1987. The question wasn't how long they've been in FCS; it's where they came from and have far they've come, i.e. a national championship. Boise St's success doesn't give me heartburn. I think it's great that they've done so well. They're an exception. They were well-funded from early on, kept after it, and had some luck. It's people like you who ignore all of the unsuccessful and languishing teams that have moved up, by pointing out Boise St and maybe a few others. People like you who ignore the cost of moving up, and who refuse to look at reality. Now that gives me heartburn.
Oh, you mean much like the teams now coming into FCS that will be "unsuccessful and languishing?" Which is the point of this discussion - the watering down of FCS. Not your diversion to turn this argument into an FCS to FBS move-up attack.

Find an example of where I've pointed "out Boise St. and maybe a few others." To use some of your own favorite words, quit making stuff up. I noted BSU here as an FBS exception to match your pointing out NDSU, an FCS exception.

Regarding EWU, we're talking about recent weak additions to FCS, not an addition 30 years ago. And sticking to facts, EWU was in the BSC 6 years before having a winning season and was 47-60 for their first 10 years in the conference. It took them 25 years to get nationally competitive in FCS.

Yes, one factor to consider is why would a successful program move up to be unsuccessful and languish in FBS, which is what I think has happened to most teams that moved up in recent history.

No, I don't think teams moving up to FCS will necessarily be unsuccessful and languish, because, historically, more teams moving up to FCS have been successful than have FCS teams moving up to FBS. Moving up, per see, doesn't cause teams to be successful and languish; it depends on which division teams are moving to, how much money and commitment they have to move up, and other factors. Being successful at the FBS level is much more difficult, in part because the money disparity is so incredible disparate and large.

Good teams moving up from FCS, may or may not cause watering down of FCS. It depends on who moves up, and who replaces them. FCS teams moving up creates more room and opportunity for teams in FCS or moving up to FCS.

You have consistently, over the years, pointed to Boise St and a few others as being examples of how UM could be successful if it moved up. Please don't back away from the multitude of support and reasons for moving up, that you have made.

I certainly wasn't talking about "recent" weak additions to FCS. This is the post I was responding to (when I asked if Everett considered certain teams as the watering down of FCS); neither Everett's or my post said anything about recent weak additions to anything:

"EverettGriz wrote:Ugh.

The watering down continues..."

Jeez, you are almost as bad as Punch, in avoiding the topic at hand, responding to mystery statements that no one made, and backing away from what you have previously said.
 
Silvertip said:
PlayerRep said:
kemajic said:
PlayerRep said:
I suppose you consider or considered the addition of North Dak St, Eastern Washington, Cal-Davis, North Dakota, South Dak St, South Dak, Southern Utah, etc. to be "watering down" too?
NDSU is the exception to FCS not unlike Boise St. is to FBS (which really gives you heartburn should someone point out how moving up can be successful). EWU has been FCS for 30 years; nice example. What have the others done that is so notable? Why not include UNC in your defensive comment?

EWU came from D-II and NAIA, and joined the Big Sky in 1987. The question wasn't how long they've been in FCS; it's where they came from and have far they've come, i.e. a national championship. Boise St's success doesn't give me heartburn. I think it's great that they've done so well. They're an exception. They were well-funded from early on, kept after it, and had some luck., by It's people like you who ignore all of the unsuccessful and languishing teams that have moved uppointing out Boise St and maybe a few others. People like you who ignore the cost of moving up, and who refuse to look at reality. Now that gives me heartburn.

;) Hey, Mr PR, you want to talk about unsuccessful programs moving up? Here's a question you may find uncomfortable answering. Of the current BSC membership number, however successful or unsuccessful, how many of them didn't move up from DII or elsewhere - but actually moved down not just once, but twice :?: The answer: ONLY ONE. The University of Montana...and BTW, MSU moved up from the old DII Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference when the BSC was formed.

Try again...

Hey Mr. Tip, what relevance does that have to the discussion? Why do so many of you have to create the straw man, and attack it, instead of sticking to the discussion at hand?
 
PlayerRep said:
kemajic said:
PlayerRep said:
kemajic said:
NDSU is the exception to FCS not unlike Boise St. is to FBS (which really gives you heartburn should someone point out how moving up can be successful). EWU has been FCS for 30 years; nice example. What have the others done that is so notable? Why not include UNC in your defensive comment?
EWU came from D-II and NAIA, and joined the Big Sky in 1987. The question wasn't how long they've been in FCS; it's where they came from and have far they've come, i.e. a national championship. Boise St's success doesn't give me heartburn. I think it's great that they've done so well. They're an exception. They were well-funded from early on, kept after it, and had some luck. It's people like you who ignore all of the unsuccessful and languishing teams that have moved up, by pointing out Boise St and maybe a few others. People like you who ignore the cost of moving up, and who refuse to look at reality. Now that gives me heartburn.
Oh, you mean much like the teams now coming into FCS that will be "unsuccessful and languishing?" Which is the point of this discussion - the watering down of FCS. Not your diversion to turn this argument into an FCS to FBS move-up attack.

Find an example of where I've pointed "out Boise St. and maybe a few others." To use some of your own favorite words, quit making stuff up. I noted BSU here as an FBS exception to match your pointing out NDSU, an FCS exception.

Regarding EWU, we're talking about recent weak additions to FCS, not an addition 30 years ago. And sticking to facts, EWU was in the BSC 6 years before having a winning season and was 47-60 for their first 10 years in the conference. It took them 25 years to get nationally competitive in FCS.

Yes, one factor to consider is why would a successful program move up to be unsuccessful and languish in FBS, which is what I think has happened to most teams that moved up in recent history.

No, I don't think teams moving up to FCS will necessarily be unsuccessful and languish, because, historically, more teams moving up to FCS have been successful than have FCS teams moving up to FBS. Moving up, per see, doesn't cause teams to be successful and languish; it depends on which division teams are moving to, how much money and commitment they have to move up, and other factors. Being successful at the FBS level is much more difficult, in part because the money disparity is so incredible disparate and large.

Good teams moving up from FCS, may or may not cause watering down of FCS. It depends on who moves up, and who replaces them. FCS teams moving up creates more room and opportunity for teams in FCS or moving up to FCS.

You have consistently, over the years, pointed to Boise St and a few others as being examples of how UM could be successful if it moved up. Please don't back away from the multitude of support and reasons for moving up, that you have made.

I certainly wasn't talking about "recent" weak additions to FCS. This is the post I was responding to (when I asked if Everett considered certain teams as the watering down of FCS); neither Everett's or my post said anything about recent weak additions to anything:

"EverettGriz wrote:Ugh.

The watering down continues..."

Jeez, you are almost as bad as Punch, in avoiding the topic at hand, responding to mystery statements that no one made, and backing away from what you have previously said.
Only a lawyer could even think of twisting the facts to the extreme you do. You are the culprit that derailed the thread. It involved watering down FCS with strong programs leaving and its weak additions (not even top DII programs). It was you that defensively introduced cherry-picked examples to include the exception, NDSU, and EWU, who made the move to FCS 30 years ago. You have not provided a single plausible argument that FCS is not being watered down by the best teams moving up and adding weak (not the top) DII replacements.

You can't find an example, certainly not one in the last several years, where I "pointed to Boise St and a few others as being examples of how UM could be successful if it moved up," so you continue to make things up. I have never equated UM to BSU; I clearly indicated BSU as an exception (like NDSU) to counter your offering NDSU as an example of DII move up. My criticism of the BSC's vector, it's leadership and UM admin. has been consistent. I also consistently dispute overblown claims of how relevant FCS is today. Similarly I dispute overblown claims about how irrelevant non-BCS FBS is today. That is far different than promoting UM moving up, which I gave up on many years ago when UM passed on its opportunities. They no longer exist; the admin. does not want to grow the program; they only want the harvest. Small College it will be for UM. Points I have made many times. These positions so threaten your agenda that you resort to distorting the argument to something you have a chance of attacking - moving up. Not hard to tell where they taught you that technique. Not so effective here.
 
kemajic said:
PlayerRep said:
kemajic said:
PlayerRep said:
EWU came from D-II and NAIA, and joined the Big Sky in 1987. The question wasn't how long they've been in FCS; it's where they came from and have far they've come, i.e. a national championship. Boise St's success doesn't give me heartburn. I think it's great that they've done so well. They're an exception. They were well-funded from early on, kept after it, and had some luck. It's people like you who ignore all of the unsuccessful and languishing teams that have moved up, by pointing out Boise St and maybe a few others. People like you who ignore the cost of moving up, and who refuse to look at reality. Now that gives me heartburn.
Oh, you mean much like the teams now coming into FCS that will be "unsuccessful and languishing?" Which is the point of this discussion - the watering down of FCS. Not your diversion to turn this argument into an FCS to FBS move-up attack.

Find an example of where I've pointed "out Boise St. and maybe a few others." To use some of your own favorite words, quit making stuff up. I noted BSU here as an FBS exception to match your pointing out NDSU, an FCS exception.

Regarding EWU, we're talking about recent weak additions to FCS, not an addition 30 years ago. And sticking to facts, EWU was in the BSC 6 years before having a winning season and was 47-60 for their first 10 years in the conference. It took them 25 years to get nationally competitive in FCS.

Yes, one factor to consider is why would a successful program move up to be unsuccessful and languish in FBS, which is what I think has happened to most teams that moved up in recent history.

No, I don't think teams moving up to FCS will necessarily be unsuccessful and languish, because, historically, more teams moving up to FCS have been successful than have FCS teams moving up to FBS. Moving up, per see, doesn't cause teams to be successful and languish; it depends on which division teams are moving to, how much money and commitment they have to move up, and other factors. Being successful at the FBS level is much more difficult, in part because the money disparity is so incredible disparate and large.

Good teams moving up from FCS, may or may not cause watering down of FCS. It depends on who moves up, and who replaces them. FCS teams moving up creates more room and opportunity for teams in FCS or moving up to FCS.

You have consistently, over the years, pointed to Boise St and a few others as being examples of how UM could be successful if it moved up. Please don't back away from the multitude of support and reasons for moving up, that you have made.

I certainly wasn't talking about "recent" weak additions to FCS. This is the post I was responding to (when I asked if Everett considered certain teams as the watering down of FCS); neither Everett's or my post said anything about recent weak additions to anything:

"EverettGriz wrote:Ugh.

The watering down continues..."

Jeez, you are almost as bad as Punch, in avoiding the topic at hand, responding to mystery statements that no one made, and backing away from what you have previously said.
Only a lawyer could even think of twisting the facts to the extreme you do. You are the culprit that derailed the thread. It involved watering down FCS with strong programs leaving and its weak additions (not even top DII programs). It was you that defensively introduced cherry-picked examples to include the exception, NDSU, and EWU, who made the move to FCS 30 years ago. You have not provided a single plausible argument that FCS is not being watered down by the best teams moving up and adding weak (not the top) DII replacements.

You can't find an example, certainly not one in the last several years, where I "pointed to Boise St and a few others as being examples of how UM could be successful if it moved up," so you continue to make things up. I have never equated UM to BSU; I clearly indicated BSU as an exception (like NDSU) to counter your offering NDSU as an example of DII move up. My criticism of the BSC's vector, it's leadership and UM admin. has been consistent. I also consistently dispute overblown claims of how relevant FCS is today. Similarly I dispute overblown claims about how irrelevant non-BCS FBS is today. That is far different than promoting UM moving up, which I gave up on many years ago when UM passed on its opportunities. They no longer exist; the admin. does not want to grow the program; they only want the harvest. Small College it will be for UM. Points I have made many times. These positions so threaten your agenda that you resort to distorting the argument to something you have a chance of attacking - moving up. Not hard to tell where they taught you that technique. Not so effective here.

I've noticed that when you can't understand an argument/statement or don't like how the argument/statement has trumped your view, then you resort to saying that it was twisting the facts. Try just Jeez, in this thread, I haven't been involved in making any argument on whether FCS was being or would be watered down. I just asked one poster if he thought adding certain new teams to FCS had constituted watering down. Then, before he answered, you had to jump in spewing nonsense and trying to make arguments against things I had said or addressed. I really don't know why a simple question like that would set you off.

You clearly don't understand how good FCS has been for years, and how cool the playoff system is. Things may change, but to say FCS hasn't been relevant is just plain silly, in my view. I actually don't have an agenda on moving up or not, but you clearly do and have had for many year. For you, it's been move up at all costs, and ignore the facts.

Feel free to describe my supposed agenda on moving up, or not, and why I have that agenda.
 
Back
Top