If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
The logo indicates it is B1G. No one has any f'ing clue what it means. Just like no one has any idea what our divisions are named or which one they are in. Ask Delany-he has all the answers in that empty head of his somewhere.
Whoops, looks like the question was already answered up thread.
Last edited by Jamie H; January 3, 2012, 07:27 PM.
"SEC is helped a lot by not having nearly as many NFL teams in its region; B10 has the Bears, Vikings, Packers, Steelers, Eagles, Browns, Bengals, Colts & Lions. The money being spent by fans on these teams hurts their college competition.'
That doesn't make any sense at all. SEC territory has Miami,Tampa Bay. Jacksonville, Atlanta, Tennessee and New Orleans and Charlotte that's just outside SEC territory. Besides, pro fans are not necessarily college fans and vice versa. My guess is you can't point to any statistics that supports such a theory.
NFL teams might hurt commuter-school universities in major metro areas(Houston, Cincinnati), but I doubt you'd find an AD or coach at a major state school that would argue the local NFL team is some sort of hindrance to his program.
Most the teams you've listed have a very short history in the NFL, which allowed their college team to gain a lot of traction. B10 country has lengthy history of NFL franchises.
Don't only look at the NFL but look at ALL pro sports. The entire Southeast did not have a single, major professional sports team until the Braves moved to Atlanta after the 1965 season. By the end of the 60's the NFL had put franchises in Atlanta, New Orleans, and Miami and the Hawks had moved from St. Louis to Atlanta. Tampa Bay came along in the late 70's.
Except for the Dolphins, none of these franchises had any sort of sustained success before the 1990's. The Hawks had a couple good teams in the late 80's but never even made it to the Eastern Finals and have never had a loyal or established fanbase.
Most pro franchises in the South have either existed for only 20 years or have a history of mediocre to abysmal performance. I think that made college teams much more likely to win out in the battle for sports dollars. Otherwise I'm not sure how you explain why Southerners (or folks in Oklahoma or Nebraska) are so much more passionate about college sports than people in Boston & New York.
Five states in the SEC's home region still don't have a single pro team: Arkansas, Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, and South Carolina. Pro teams in North Carolina and Tennessee are all less than 20 years old. Louisiana's only long-term pro team was an NFL punchline for decades; same goes the Buccos & Tampa Bay.
Lately I've been meaning to look up election fraud on a state-by-state basis. Louisiana and Florida would certainly be expected near or at the top of that leaderboard.
In all seriousness, and in a different context, I have been thinking about this. Do you think it is a more telling trait when it's essentially a single city and perhaps a family vis-a-vis a widespread thing across many counties or parishes? I think so, but interested in opinions on that.
Tweet
Comment