SoCon Thoughts

[soconjohn]

I like the idea of trying to get teams like William&Mary and Richmond on the schedule more often...two great programs with similar academics and both have tradition-rich football programs...I’d love to see the league office try and potentially add one if not both in the future...I think they would listen.

[FurmanATT]

There's a lot to unpack.
The transfer protocol has far-reaching consequences, not the least of which is to high school athletes because of the growing number of schools that recruit other colleges as much as high schools. It's kind of a rapidly accelerating madness. The high school kids take any offer they can get and go to school they don't really have much interest in. Then, if an opportunity arises, they bolt.
My concern is that the rapid increase in the number of schools in a conference doesn't afford enough success to go around. It's bad for fans. How much harder is it for say, South Carolina, to succeed with the SEC adding more and more longtime, traditional powers? It's all about money, and it might be OK if it was just mostly about money. Do fans want rivalries to disappear? In recent years, Kansas stopped playing Missouri, Texas with A&M, Pitt with Penn State ... all the way down to Presbyterian and Newberry. Since my Laurens County site covers PC, my perspective may be skewed because the last 15 years at PC could be a Mel Brooks movie (or, perhaps, the basis of a novel by a sportswriter who likes to write them).
I may be the last believer in the SoCon. To me, it's got an admirable, appealing mix of private and state schools, with two military schools for good measure. I believe ultimately the mix is good. Once I dreamed of a SoCon of like-minded schools: Furman, Wofford, Citadel, VMI, Samford, Mercer, William & Mary, Elon, Richmond, etc., but I now think that would be a mistake.
Furman can compete in the SoCon. It has the right amount of diversity. It's everywhere else that college athletics is going wild.
I fly in the face of public opinion a lot. -- MD

[apaladin]

Every coach has a different philosophy on how to build a program. Bell appears to be going the transfer route initially and he has made WCU relevant again.

Mercer didn’t think they were too relevant and Sammy wasn’t that impressed either. Neither was FU until the fourth quarter meltdown.

[The Jackal]

Every coach has a different philosophy on how to build a program. Bell appears to be going the transfer route initially and he has made WCU relevant again.

Mercer didn’t think they were too relevant and Sammy wasn’t that impressed either. Neither was FU until the fourth quarter meltdown.

WCU threw all over Samford. They just couldn't score in the red zone.

[gman84]

Every coach has a different philosophy on how to build a program. Bell appears to be going the transfer route initially and he has made WCU relevant again.

Mercer didn’t think they were too relevant and Sammy wasn’t that impressed either. Neither was FU until the fourth quarter meltdown.

It wasn't long ago that WCU was a scrimmage for most teams. Just ask any player.

[gofurman]

Sold out… is my take on it.
FuBear, you know admin-wise the hoops Furtman's athletic staffs go through in recruiting.
I don't see Furman as an institution adding 11-15 players yearly with eligibility ranging from a year to three years.
Samford, to me, is a head-scratcher. But probably an act of desperation by Hatcher. Clay has said as much - he said Furman would not be a rent-a-player for a-year program.

To your point, this is the norm for Chatty… my point is, why would a school like Furman and Wofford want to be at a further disadvantage competing against schools that reload year to year with football players with spotty academic accountability.

I look at Mercer differently (they have many Grad opportunities for legit transfers).

The real loser in all this is Wofford, not that I care.

Wofford has easier academics.. but they don't have grad programs - I think that is the point made by Astro?

[SU DOG]

I admit that I have some reservations about the large number of xfers that Samford has gotten. I do want to point out something that maybe hasn't been considered, however. The large Birmingham metro area has some of the best high school football in the south. Several of our transfers, although they played wherever, came back home to play their final year or two. Our new starting QB is just one example. He played HS ball at nearby Briarwood Christian. I really don't know for sure, but Samford may enjoy a slight benefit over some SoCon schools from this situation.

[FUBeAR]

I admit that I have some reservations about the large number of xfers that Samford has gotten. I do want to point out something that maybe hasn't been considered, however. The large Birmingham metro area has some of the best high school football in the south. Several of our transfers, although they played wherever, came back home to play their final year or two. Our new starting QB is just one example. He played HS ball at nearby Briarwood Christian. I really don't know for sure, but Samford may enjoy a slight benefit over some SoCon schools from this situation.

Nope - same thing Chatt peeps have always said about their transfers.

And B’Ham holds no advantage over GA HS Football - half of ATL metro is within an hour of Macon - Fred Payton, QB - ATL kid/Xfer ‘home’ from CCU, Dev Harper, WR/RS - ATL kid/Xfer ‘home’ from G-W, Parker Wroble, WR - ATL kid/Xfer ‘home’ from AF …. there’s more.

So - Chatt, Mercer, and Samford kinda in the same high cotton on that front.

[Affirm]

Every coach has a different philosophy on how to build a program. Bell appears to be going the transfer route initially and he has made WCU relevant again.

Mercer didn’t think they were too relevant and Sammy wasn’t that impressed either. Neither was FU until the fourth quarter meltdown.

I hit 'like" deliberately. But at the same time, I do think he has made WCU relevant at least right now.

[Affirm]

There's a lot to unpack.
The transfer protocol has far-reaching consequences, not the least of which is to high school athletes because of the growing number of schools that recruit other colleges as much as high schools. It's kind of a rapidly accelerating madness. The high school kids take any offer they can get and go to school they don't really have much interest in. Then, if an opportunity arises, they bolt.
My concern is that the rapid increase in the number of schools in a conference doesn't afford enough success to go around. It's bad for fans. How much harder is it for say, South Carolina, to succeed with the SEC adding more and more longtime, traditional powers? It's all about money, and it might be OK if it was just mostly about money. Do fans want rivalries to disappear? In recent years, Kansas stopped playing Missouri, Texas with A&M, Pitt with Penn State ... all the way down to Presbyterian and Newberry. Since my Laurens County site covers PC, my perspective may be skewed because the last 15 years at PC could be a Mel Brooks movie (or, perhaps, the basis of a novel by a sportswriter who likes to write them).
I may be the last believer in the SoCon. To me, it's got an admirable, appealing mix of private and state schools, with two military schools for good measure. I believe ultimately the mix is good. Once I dreamed of a SoCon of like-minded schools: Furman, Wofford, Citadel, VMI, Samford, Mercer, William & Mary, Elon, Richmond, etc., but I now think that would be a mistake.
Furman can compete in the SoCon. It has the right amount of diversity. It's everywhere else that college athletics is going wild.
I fly in the face of public opinion a lot. -- MD

Unless Furman is one of the schools that gets picked off by an FBS or by another, better FCS conference (I do NOT see either of those scenarios happening), the big question is "what about the SoCon after the SoCon loses any of its current members to an FBS or to another FCS conference?" We can love the present SoCon (usually what is written on UFFP does not go to the extent you do talking about the positives of the current SoCon ["admirable, appealing mix of private and state schools, with two military schools for good measure"; "has the right amount of diversity"; (is not like) "everywhere else that college athletics is going wild"]), but is that love enough to just keep status quo? Is it a mistake to at least think about whether something could be done to strengthen the current SoCon such as by seeking to add good schools? Is it best to just wait until something happens? Maybe it is.

[The Jackal]

There's a lot to unpack.
The transfer protocol has far-reaching consequences, not the least of which is to high school athletes because of the growing number of schools that recruit other colleges as much as high schools. It's kind of a rapidly accelerating madness. The high school kids take any offer they can get and go to school they don't really have much interest in. Then, if an opportunity arises, they bolt.
My concern is that the rapid increase in the number of schools in a conference doesn't afford enough success to go around. It's bad for fans. How much harder is it for say, South Carolina, to succeed with the SEC adding more and more longtime, traditional powers? It's all about money, and it might be OK if it was just mostly about money. Do fans want rivalries to disappear? In recent years, Kansas stopped playing Missouri, Texas with A&M, Pitt with Penn State ... all the way down to Presbyterian and Newberry. Since my Laurens County site covers PC, my perspective may be skewed because the last 15 years at PC could be a Mel Brooks movie (or, perhaps, the basis of a novel by a sportswriter who likes to write them).
I may be the last believer in the SoCon. To me, it's got an admirable, appealing mix of private and state schools, with two military schools for good measure. I believe ultimately the mix is good. Once I dreamed of a SoCon of like-minded schools: Furman, Wofford, Citadel, VMI, Samford, Mercer, William & Mary, Elon, Richmond, etc., but I now think that would be a mistake.
Furman can compete in the SoCon. It has the right amount of diversity. It's everywhere else that college athletics is going wild.
I fly in the face of public opinion a lot. -- MD

Unless Furman is one of the schools that gets picked off by an FBS or by another, better FCS conference (I do NOT see either of those scenarios happening), the big question is "what about the SoCon after the SoCon loses any of its current members to an FBS or to another FCS conference?" We can love the present SoCon (usually what is written on UFFP does not go to the extent you do talking about the positives of the current SoCon ["admirable, appealing mix of private and state schools, with two military schools for good measure"; "has the right amount of diversity"; (is not like) "everywhere else that college athletics is going wild"]), but is that love enough to just keep status quo? Is it a mistake to at least think about whether something could be done to strengthen the current SoCon such as by seeking to add good schools? Is it best to just wait until something happens? Maybe it is.

I don't frequently (ever?) agree with you, but this is my concern.

Most of the conferences that have done the "stand together" thing have hit hard times. The ones that are succeeding are the ones aggressively planning for the future. As long as these FBS conferences continue to expand to 12, 14, or 16 teams, then lower level FBS schools will continue to look to maintain relevance by poaching FCS schools.

While we may be happy with the current mix, what happens if other conferences are aggressively planning for the future by poaching SoCon schools? Would we be any better prepared than we were 10 years ago when we lost GSU, App, Davidson, and CofC?

Incidentally, it wasn't that long ago that the SoCon was a 12 team conference. We had 12 conference members as late as 2013.

[Affirm]

There's a lot to unpack.
The transfer protocol has far-reaching consequences, not the least of which is to high school athletes because of the growing number of schools that recruit other colleges as much as high schools. It's kind of a rapidly accelerating madness. The high school kids take any offer they can get and go to school they don't really have much interest in. Then, if an opportunity arises, they bolt.
My concern is that the rapid increase in the number of schools in a conference doesn't afford enough success to go around. It's bad for fans. How much harder is it for say, South Carolina, to succeed with the SEC adding more and more longtime, traditional powers? It's all about money, and it might be OK if it was just mostly about money. Do fans want rivalries to disappear? In recent years, Kansas stopped playing Missouri, Texas with A&M, Pitt with Penn State ... all the way down to Presbyterian and Newberry. Since my Laurens County site covers PC, my perspective may be skewed because the last 15 years at PC could be a Mel Brooks movie (or, perhaps, the basis of a novel by a sportswriter who likes to write them).
I may be the last believer in the SoCon. To me, it's got an admirable, appealing mix of private and state schools, with two military schools for good measure. I believe ultimately the mix is good. Once I dreamed of a SoCon of like-minded schools: Furman, Wofford, Citadel, VMI, Samford, Mercer, William & Mary, Elon, Richmond, etc., but I now think that would be a mistake.
Furman can compete in the SoCon. It has the right amount of diversity. It's everywhere else that college athletics is going wild.
I fly in the face of public opinion a lot. -- MD

Unless Furman is one of the schools that gets picked off by an FBS or by another, better FCS conference (I do NOT see either of those scenarios happening), the big question is "what about the SoCon after the SoCon loses any of its current members to an FBS or to another FCS conference?" We can love the present SoCon (usually what is written on UFFP does not go to the extent you do talking about the positives of the current SoCon ["admirable, appealing mix of private and state schools, with two military schools for good measure"; "has the right amount of diversity"; (is not like) "everywhere else that college athletics is going wild"]), but is that love enough to just keep status quo? Is it a mistake to at least think about whether something could be done to strengthen the current SoCon such as by seeking to add good schools? Is it best to just wait until something happens? Maybe it is.

I don't frequently (ever?) agree with you, but this is my concern.

Most of the conferences that have done the "stand together" thing have hit hard times. The ones that are succeeding are the ones aggressively planning for the future. As long as these FBS conferences continue to expand to 12, 14, or 16 teams, then lower level FBS schools will continue to look to maintain relevance by poaching FCS schools.

While we may be happy with the current mix, what happens if other conferences are aggressively planning for the future by poaching SoCon schools? Would we be any better prepared than we were 10 years ago when we lost GSU, App, Davidson, and CofC?

Incidentally, it wasn't that long ago that the SoCon was a 12 team conference. We had 12 conference members as late as 2013.

Well-stated. I do agree with you.
FurmanATT's commentary was well-stated also, of course.
Unlike FurmanATT, "well-stated" does not very often apply to my posts.
But like FurmanATT (much more than FurmanATT), I fly in the face of "public opinion" (on this board) a lot.

[soconjohn]

As much as I love tradition, I hate only getting one team in the playoffs more...I love the fact that the SoCon has stuck by their member schools...But if a team like New Hampshire gets in the postseason over a Furman or Samford because they don't play Delaware or W&M in the CAA because too many teams...That's not fair to the SoCon...We need to add teams to maximize our playoff possibilities...It's getting ridiculous how our league is viewed nationally.

[AstroDin]

^^ kudos to Furman for scheduling home and home with W&M.
More SoCon teams must match up with the CAA over scheduling OVC teams if we want to knock out the CAA getting 4-5 teams in the playoffs.

[tim]

There's a lot to unpack.
The transfer protocol has far-reaching consequences, not the least of which is to high school athletes because of the growing number of schools that recruit other colleges as much as high schools. It's kind of a rapidly accelerating madness. The high school kids take any offer they can get and go to school they don't really have much interest in. Then, if an opportunity arises, they bolt.
My concern is that the rapid increase in the number of schools in a conference doesn't afford enough success to go around. It's bad for fans. How much harder is it for say, South Carolina, to succeed with the SEC adding more and more longtime, traditional powers? It's all about money, and it might be OK if it was just mostly about money. Do fans want rivalries to disappear? In recent years, Kansas stopped playing Missouri, Texas with A&M, Pitt with Penn State ... all the way down to Presbyterian and Newberry. Since my Laurens County site covers PC, my perspective may be skewed because the last 15 years at PC could be a Mel Brooks movie (or, perhaps, the basis of a novel by a sportswriter who likes to write them).
I may be the last believer in the SoCon. To me, it's got an admirable, appealing mix of private and state schools, with two military schools for good measure. I believe ultimately the mix is good. Once I dreamed of a SoCon of like-minded schools: Furman, Wofford, Citadel, VMI, Samford, Mercer, William & Mary, Elon, Richmond, etc., but I now think that would be a mistake.
Furman can compete in the SoCon. It has the right amount of diversity. It's everywhere else that college athletics is going wild.
I fly in the face of public opinion a lot. -- MD

Unless Furman is one of the schools that gets picked off by an FBS or by another, better FCS conference (I do NOT see either of those scenarios happening), the big question is "what about the SoCon after the SoCon loses any of its current members to an FBS or to another FCS conference?" We can love the present SoCon (usually what is written on UFFP does not go to the extent you do talking about the positives of the current SoCon ["admirable, appealing mix of private and state schools, with two military schools for good measure"; "has the right amount of diversity"; (is not like) "everywhere else that college athletics is going wild"]), but is that love enough to just keep status quo? Is it a mistake to at least think about whether something could be done to strengthen the current SoCon such as by seeking to add good schools? Is it best to just wait until something happens? Maybe it is.

I don't frequently (ever?) agree with you, but this is my concern.

Most of the conferences that have done the "stand together" thing have hit hard times. The ones that are succeeding are the ones aggressively planning for the future. As long as these FBS conferences continue to expand to 12, 14, or 16 teams, then lower level FBS schools will continue to look to maintain relevance by poaching FCS schools.

While we may be happy with the current mix, what happens if other conferences are aggressively planning for the future by poaching SoCon schools? Would we be any better prepared than we were 10 years ago when we lost GSU, App, Davidson, and CofC?

Incidentally, it wasn't that long ago that the SoCon was a 12 team conference. We had 12 conference members as late as 2013.

Doesn't the SOCON charge pretty exorbitant fees for leaving now, or has that become irrelevant to the current landscape?