From: v262xxve@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Timothy C Pitts)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: More Miami vs. the SEC (was Re: SEC shoots itself in the foot)
Date: 14 Nov 92 01:31:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <409@rd1.interlan.com>, tonyf@rm1.interlan.com (Tony Fernandez) writes...
#Big East.  It was a matter of bad timing, if the SEC had asked earlier,
#Miami would have probably accepted.  However, by the time the SEC started
#to show some interest it was too late.  

I think this is untrue.  I don't think Miami was interested in the slightest
in joining the SEC.  There have been considerable differences between Miami
and the SEC for more years than most readers on this net have been alive.
Miami for decades wanted nothing more than to be a member of the SEC.  In 
the 50s the SEC refused because some of the schools were afraid Miami might 
integrate and they had rules against playing teams with blacks (or at least
had some serious reservations).  Of course, it turned out that Miami was
one of the last schools to integrate, but that was the excuse (pardon me if
this is the wrong school) that the Georgia Tech president used.  Overtures
by the Miami administration were made until the late 60s/early 70s to no
avail:  the SEC simply was not interested.  After the Dolphins came to 
South Florida, Hurricane football plummetted as fans were hard to come by.
When Miami made its resurgence in the late 70s/early 80s, somehow the SEC
teams were unwilling to continue scheduling the same Miami team they had
happily put on the schedule in the 50s and 60s.  Of course, LSU allowed 
Miami the pleasure of gracing the field in Death Valley in 1988, but they 
wouldn't repay the favor by visiting the Orange Bowl.  Given the treatment 
Miami has received from the SEC, I would say it would have been stupid to 
accept membership if the SEC had even been willing to extend it (which I 
am unconvinced they ever would have).  I should note that Miami is not the 
only school to get this sort of treatment from the SEC:  FSU had as many 
problems over the same period, hence a similar result.

On the topic of whether SEC teams have refused to play Miami I have the
following suggestions.  I think it is clear that there are several SEC 
schools who have distinctly *rejected* Miami offers for home-and-home 
series.  The first and foremost is Florida (I don't think reasons need
to be listed).  Georgia hasn't played a non-conference game outside Georgia
or South Carolina in nearly thirty years why would it choose Miami as the
school for which to break that streak, I also suggest that recent 
tennis and basketball home-and-homes with UGA point to the fact that there
has been discussion between the ADs and that there is no home-and-home 
football series forthcoming is evidence that Georgia is uninterested.
Jason claims that Auburn has offered to play, but only if both games are
at Auburn.  South Carolina has previously refused to ever schedule Miami
again.  That Miami played at LSU and there was no game at the Orange Bowl
seems to speak for itself.  

Of 12 current SEC schools, only Arkansas, South Carolina, (who were not 
then members of the SEC) and Florida have been willing to visit the Orange 
Bowl since Miami won its first NC (and whether Florida was really willing 
or just contractually obligated is still at issue ;-).  That Miami has played
a home-and-home series that was agreed to after Miami's first NC with at 
least one team from every other major conference suggests that the SEC is 
either too arrogant or too chicken to play Miami.  I suggest the following 
classification:

1.  Arrogant or chicken schools that will play Miami only at home:  
     LSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn

2.  Schools that refuse to schedule Miami period:  
     South Carolina

3.  Schools that have scheduled Miami recently and probably would again:
     Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Arkansas

4.  As yet unclassified:  
     Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky

It would be my guess that Miami has approached at least Alabama and Tennessee
in that last group and they more appropriately belong in group 1, but I
have no (even circumstantial) evidence except to say that the ADs probably
talked at the respective Sugar Bowls.

___

Timothy C. Pitts             
Canada US Trade Center
Department of Geography
University at Buffalo        
V262XXVE@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college