Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009 ... base88376/

I think it's total bullshit and I agree with the last line.

The institutions themselves have no say in where the Confederate flag flies in Columbia."

Well, if there hasn't been a protest yet, there will be one now. If I were the ACC, the SoCon, the NCAA or any other collegiate organization, I'd tell the NAACP to screw off. They can boycott and protest all they want, it's not going to get the flag down and it isn't going to change one person's mind.

SoCon has 5 NC schools, 4SC schools, one Tenn, one Ga and one Al. I really can't imagine the SoCon stopping championships in the state of SC.

OL FU wrote:SoCon has 5 NC schools, 4SC schools, one Tenn, one Ga and one Al. I really can't imagine the SoCon stopping championships in the state of SC.

So there are 8 out of state schools compared to 4 in state schools. Hmmmmmmmm.

MarkCCU wrote:

OL FU wrote:SoCon has 5 NC schools, 4SC schools, one Tenn, one Ga and one Al. I really can't imagine the SoCon stopping championships in the state of SC.

So there are 8 out of state schools compared to 4 in state schools. Hmmmmmmmm.

The ACC has one South Carolina school. Two of the four South Carolina's schools are the oldest continuing members of the SoCon. Ain't gonna happen.

OL FU wrote:

MarkCCU wrote:
So there are 8 out of state schools compared to 4 in state schools. Hmmmmmmmm.

The ACC has one South Carolina school. Two of the four South Carolina's schools are the oldest continuing members of the SoCon. Ain't gonna happen.

So you're saying that seniority is more important?

MarkCCU wrote:

OL FU wrote:
The ACC has one South Carolina school. Two of the four South Carolina's schools are the oldest continuing members of the SoCon. Ain't gonna happen.

So you're saying that seniority is more important?

I am saying it counts for a lot (mainly because of the stability those schools provide to the conference) but more importantly one third of the schools in the conference are in the state as opposed to 1/12 ( or whatever the number is) in the ACC. The only way it happens is if one of the South Carolina schools decides to support the boycott. Now there is some possibility in that happening. My guess is that Furman's administration might lean toward supporting the flag's removal, but I doubt seriously they would put the interest of their alums ahead of that leaning. So you have four votes supporting holding the championships in South Carolina. I might be wrong but I would be surprised if you couldn't find three other schools in the conference that wouldn't stick with the South Carolina schools. I suppose it would depend on how much pressure and whether the pressure they were receiving was actually harming them but I think the liklihood would be strong that the majority of the conference would stick with the South Carolina schools especially when you consider that the NCAA does allow NCAA sponsored or scantioned events in the state, such as FCS playoff games.

OL FU wrote:

MarkCCU wrote:

So you're saying that seniority is more important?

I am saying it counts for a lot (mainly because of the stability those schools provide to the conference) but more importantly one third of the schools in the conference are in the state as opposed to 1/12 ( or whatever the number is) in the ACC. The only way it happens is if one of the South Carolina schools decides to support the boycott. Now there is some possibility in that happening. My guess is that Furman's administration might lean toward supporting the flag's removal, but I doubt seriously they would put the interest of their alums ahead of that leaning. So you have four votes supporting holding the championships in South Carolina. I might be wrong but I would be surprised if you couldn't find three other schools in the conference that wouldn't stick with the South Carolina schools. I suppose it would depend on how much pressure and whether the pressure they were receiving was actually harming them but I think the liklihood would be strong that the majority of the conference would stick with the South Carolina schools especially when you consider that the NCAA does allow NCAA sponsored or scantioned events in the state, such as FCS playoff games.

Good post. It took some baiting but I got the opinion out of you. There's the response I was looking for! Thanks OL FU!

MarkCCU wrote:

OL FU wrote:
I am saying it counts for a lot (mainly because of the stability those schools provide to the conference) but more importantly one third of the schools in the conference are in the state as opposed to 1/12 ( or whatever the number is) in the ACC. The only way it happens is if one of the South Carolina schools decides to support the boycott. Now there is some possibility in that happening. My guess is that Furman's administration might lean toward supporting the flag's removal, but I doubt seriously they would put the interest of their alums ahead of that leaning. So you have four votes supporting holding the championships in South Carolina. I might be wrong but I would be surprised if you couldn't find three other schools in the conference that wouldn't stick with the South Carolina schools. I suppose it would depend on how much pressure and whether the pressure they were receiving was actually harming them but I think the liklihood would be strong that the majority of the conference would stick with the South Carolina schools especially when you consider that the NCAA does allow NCAA sponsored or scantioned events in the state, such as FCS playoff games.

Good post. It took some baiting but I got the opinion out of you. There's the response I was looking for! Thanks OL FU!

I realized I wrote one thing backwards. I said "but I doubt seriously they would put the interest of their alums ahead of that leaning". I meant that they wouldn't put the interest of their alums behind that leaning.

I just love when the P&C puts up an article about either the SOCon or The Citadel. All the cofc frat boys jump into the comments section with their snarky comments without fear of getting their a$$es kicked.

CID1990 wrote:I just love when the P&C puts up an article about either the SOCon or The Citadel. All the cofc frat boys jump into the comments section with their snarky comments without fear of getting their a$$es kicked.

At least the P&C hides the comments so you don't have to read them. The Gville Snooze doesn't do that and everytime I read a Furman article on-line I see the same 12 year old Clemson kids comments about how puny Furman is

CID1990 wrote:I just love when the P&C puts up an article about either the SOCon or The Citadel. All the cofc frat boys jump into the comments section with their snarky comments without fear of getting their a$$es kicked.

I wonder who the ElCid commenter is and where he went to school...

I remember when the "boycott" began and the NAACP set up at rest areas at the state line. Given the attendance of black bike week in Myrtle Beach since then, I'd say the NAACP's boycott has been less than successful.

ASUG8 wrote:I remember when the "boycott" began and the NAACP set up at rest areas at the state line. Given the attendance of black bike week in Myrtle Beach since then, I'd say the NAACP's boycott has been less than successful.

Aside from events like these, their "boycotT" hasn't done much.

It seems to me this article was not about the NAACP specifically, but mostly about the NCAA ban on predertimined championships. Unless I missed something in the article, I didn't see where the SOCON was breaking any laws or NCAA rules. Much ado about nothing, if you ask me. Some beat writer needed a quick article.

HIU 93 wrote:It seems to me this article was not about the NAACP specifically, but mostly about the NCAA ban on predertimined championships. Unless I missed something in the article, I didn't see where the SOCON was breaking any laws or NCAA rules. Much ado about nothing, if you ask me. Some beat writer needed a quick article.

Agreed.

HIU 93 wrote:It seems to me this article was not about the NAACP specifically, but mostly about the NCAA ban on predertimined championships. Unless I missed something in the article, I didn't see where the SOCON was breaking any laws or NCAA rules. Much ado about nothing, if you ask me. Some beat writer needed a quick article.

Exactly, they aren't breaking any rules or laws so why punish the athletes?