-
Help Support TNDeer:
ADVANTAGE BAMA!!
- Thread starter baddnole
- Start date
Zulu
Well-Known Member
PalsPal":11p5430p said:Sounds like they are very smart also. They knew better than to let their true feelings show and diss the schools of their hosts
!
Yeah, I gave them I hard time for being "smart" also. They know me better than that, though. Football games are a free-fire zone at my place. There actually was plenty of trash-talking and predictions on all sides about next year's season, but they take the attitude that "I may fight with my brother, but when it comes to dealing with an outsider, we all stand together." It was probably the most fun New Years I've ever had.
Zulu quote: "but they take the attitude that 'I may fight with my brother, but when it comes to dealing with an outsider, we all stand together'."
Face it, culturally speaking, the "SEC fan" is still fighting the Civil War and it looks as though the younger generation is being encouraged to continue thinking in those terms. Despite his avatar, on this one Spur is not, and is correct on what an Alabama national championship means to the prospects for UT's football program (and the school in general for that matter, in terms of applications, financial strength, overall visibility, etc.).
I've been watching college bowl games for probably 45 years and have yet to see a conference play in one.
Face it, culturally speaking, the "SEC fan" is still fighting the Civil War and it looks as though the younger generation is being encouraged to continue thinking in those terms. Despite his avatar, on this one Spur is not, and is correct on what an Alabama national championship means to the prospects for UT's football program (and the school in general for that matter, in terms of applications, financial strength, overall visibility, etc.).
I've been watching college bowl games for probably 45 years and have yet to see a conference play in one.
Zulu
Well-Known Member
Man, OHVATN, do you really want to open that can of worms?OHVATN":3p1amdo6 said:
This is probably more suited for it's own thread in the political forum, but I partially agree with you; I think that SEC loyalty is at least partly "a Southern thing." I'm a southern boy born-and-bred, and most of my military assignments were either in the south or overseas, but after I got off active duty I spent a total of nine years in Air National Guard units in upstate New York and central Michigan, so I think I picked up a fairly decent perspective. Outside of the South, I've never seen any real regional loyalty. It seems to me that non-southerners may be loyal to their city or local area (Southern California comes to mind), but I never saw anything that I could identify as "Northeast loyalty" or "Midwestern and proud."Where we disagree is that this Southern Pride is merely an extension of the Civil War. I really enjoy early-American history, so this is near-and-dear to my heart. The northern and southern colonies were settled differently: the north primarily by "outsiders" who were looking to escape various forms of repression, while in the south settlement was more for economic reasons, led by "second sons" of prominent English families looking to expand their wealth and build their own fame. Just look at the colonies of Jamestown and Plymouth Rock; two entirely different types of people. This was readily apparent in the Continental Congress; there was a distinct "Southern Block," while the northern representatives showed more loyalty to their individual colonies. So it goes back much further than the Civil War.
It guess it makes sense then. As a Midwestern boy you're just not going to get SEC loyalty because "it's a Southern thing." That's okay, try-as-I-might I'll never understand hockey or ice fishing myself :super: .
Zulu":m0j42e82 said:Man, OHVATN, do you really want to open that can of worms?OHVATN":m0j42e82 said:
Where we disagree is that this Southern Pride is merely an extension of the Civil War. I really enjoy early-American history, so this is near-and-dear to my heart. The northern and southern colonies were settled differently: the north primarily by "outsiders" who were looking to escape various forms of repression, while in the south settlement was more for economic reasons, led by "second sons" of prominent English families looking to expand their wealth and build their own fame. Just look at the colonies of Jamestown and Plymouth Rock; two entirely different types of people. This was readily apparent in the Continental Congress; there was a distinct "Southern Block," while the northern representatives showed more loyalty to their individual colonies. So it goes back much further than the Civil War.
It guess it makes sense then. As a Midwestern boy you're just not going to get SEC loyalty because "it's a Southern thing." That's okay, try-as-I-might I'll never understand hockey or ice fishing myself :super: .
:lol:
This thread has taken a number of twists and turns.
I agree with you Zulu, both your historical perspective and how that still influences our regional "differences" in the 21st Century. I've always considered the Civil War the second American Revolution. Cavaliers settled Virginia (after they lost the Glorious Revolution), debtors settled Georgia. But also Germans and Scots Irish in NC. Scots Irish brought by the British to settle the Appalachian frontier and fight the French and Indians. Most of the mid and deep south was settled by those Scots Irish and the descendants of those Cavaliers. British religious minorities colonized the northern colonies. Have you ever read "The Cousins' Wars"? Add in the late 19th Century/early 20th Century European migrations, the impoverishment inflicted on the South after the Civil War by Reconstruction, etc. and we have these regional characteristics. I have read theories that the "SEC pride" began decades ago in an era long before the economic growth in the South that we have seen really just since the late 1970s. My brother is 10 years older than me and I remember visiting him in college in TN in the early 70s and it was a different world then. But you are correct, there is nothing like the "southern thing" anywhere else in this country.
Getting back to why I think Spur is correct. Perhaps if Alabama wasn't so dominant I might agree that it makes no difference to UT. Yes, one could argue that since 2000 Auburn, Florida, and LSU have won national championships, but those years are growing more and more stale. Since 2009, with the exception of one Auburn title, it's all Alabama. I remember you mentioning on another post about the academic improvements at the University of Alabama. I would submit that it would have been much more difficult for those to occur without the recognition engendered by the success of the football program. I'm not talking just CBS and ESPN tv money, bowl money, etc. For example, I graduated from a small private liberal arts college in Ohio. Long ago when I attended, it had a solid endowment, but was a 4 year only school with 900 students, 98% from Ohio and 2% from New Jersey. A few years after I graduated, it started winning D3 football national championships right and left. Broke Oklahoma's record for consecutive wins and then broke its own record. As a result of that national exposure, the endowment skyrocketed, enrollment more than tripled, the student body hails from 23 states and a number of foreign countries, the physical plant has grown and improved, it became a university, and the quality of students are far better than I ever was and I probably would not be accepted today. Thus, I would submit that Alabama's success is not only a challenge to recruit against if you are UT's football coach, but it also might negatively impact UT as a university. It's hard to measure such a negative impact. Far easier to measure the positive impact on Alabama from the football program, but resources are not infinite. Just a thought.
Vermin93
Well-Known Member
OHVATN":1kv1v2d6 said:
Michigan State blew it for the Union....worse than Bull Run. Low Tide!!!
[youtube]p5mmFPyDK_8[/youtube]
Zulu
Well-Known Member
Vermin93":3fncps3b said:
The South has risen again! And her name is the SEC
[youtube]5OKdbc0DYpM[/youtube]
gator-n-buck
Well-Known Member
Bama will win it all..... 
Zulu
Well-Known Member
OHVATN":34nfsuok said:
No I haven't, but I'll add it to my list. It looks like it's worth a read.
OHVATN":34nfsuok said:
Uh oh, it looks like we're (close to) agreeing again
oke: . There is no doubt that Alabama's success has had a negative affect on other schools competing for the same recruits. Derrick Henry is case-in-point: He grew up a lifelong Gator fan, but when asked why he chose Alabama over Florida, his answer was simply "Winning championships."On the other side, however, we have Texas A&M. Among their many reasons for joining the SEC, they listed the boost to recruiting they would receive by being part of the conference. It looks like it's paid off for them in spades: higher ranked recruiting classes, a significant increase in alumni giving, and an overall increase in the prestige of the football program. So, if UT follows the A&M model, it's logical to think that, while their recruiting may suffer vs Alabama, it's probably boosted against schools like Va. Tech, UNC or Penn State.
The question then, I guess, is do the advantages of being in the SEC with a strong Alabama outweigh the disadvantages? I honestly don't know. It's probably something a big-brained grad student could base a thesis on. Until that happens it gives us something (else) to argue about. :super:
OHVATN":2f94pgh1 said:
It's a pretty simple concept and I'm surprised so many have trouble with it. Yes, all the good recruits can't go to alabama, and some stay home, go to a school for their own reasons, etc., but recruiting against a team that plays for or wins the NC every year is a problem for every other conference/area school.
Vermin93
Well-Known Member
mtn cur":1tbeint7 said:
Sold their souls to the devil to be good at college football. In short, win at any cost. Also, demographics, warm weather and lots of hot women.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-sec-football-should-be-embarrassed/
baddnole
Well-Known Member
Vermin93":20gh1ikv said:
Another reason is the money from ESPN. You can only spend so much on players. 30 million will help buy better coaches also. New stadium,new weight room ,players lounge,leaves much to recruit with. Check out Ole Miss. :tu:
baddnole
Well-Known Member
Come on cur. Even in Florida they teach the kids to read. Please show where I said the SEC buys players. LOLOL :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: . Must be a guilty feeling you have. Also show any proof FSU ever bought a player. Speculation is only good in the Stock Market :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:mtn cur":1dpo05gx said:
