From: mcconnel@b11.b11.ingr.com (Guy McConnell)
Subject: Re: SEC East shoots itself in the foot
Reply-To: mcconnel@b11.b11.ingr.com (Guy McConnell)
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:14:03 GMT

In article <Bx7wB0.14G@encore.com> jfrederi@encore.com (Justin Frederich) writes:
>mcconnel@b11.b11.ingr.com (Guy McConnell) writes:
>
>>In article <Bx6.Erw@encore.com> jfrederi@encore.com (Justin Frederich) writes:
>>>
>>>There is a BIG difference in scheduling a team and playing one in a Bowl.
>>>The fact we played Alabama in the Sugar Bowl has nothing to do with
>>>the Tide refusing to play Miami during the regular season. 
>>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>    And y'all wonder why Miami fans got the nickname "blowhards"? 
>>The closest thing to a chance to play each other that I can recall
>>is when Miami was shopping for a conference.  They elected to go to
>>one they felt they could dominate instead of coming to the SEC and
>>take the greater risk of being beaten on any given week.
>
>Guy - I was attempting to explain what I meant in my original post on
>teams scheduling a home and home series with Miami. If two teams meet
>in a bowl , it happens because of a lot of other circumstances , the
>least of which is because the two teams wanted to play each other.

    No, this was another attempt to justify your blanket statement
that all SEC teams are scared to play Miami.

>You can call it whining , blowing , or whatever else makes you feel
>better but if you look back this whole thread started because an

    I call 'em like I see 'em, regardless of how it makes me feel.

>Alabama fan (maybe you) was blowing on about the Canes candy-ass schedule
              ^^^^^^^^^
    Not me.

>and the fact they played a 1AA team. I was answering his attack and I
>do not feel that is justification for a label of blowhard.

    What you guys don't seem to understand is that, if every team in
the nation is not bowing down and begging to play Miami in the
Orange bowl, it doen't mean that they are scared to play them. 
That's a two-way street - Miami could also intiate a request like
that.  Since they haven't, are they scared to play all the teams
they have not tried to schedule?  I think not.

>My fondest wish was that Miami (and Florida State) would go to the SEC.
>I would much rather see us play the Gaters, Tide, Vols, Bulldogs etc.
>But the SEC never invited the Miami team. This is a fact and I hope
>we don't have to go over that whole thing again.

    No need to.  But, did Miami want to come to the SEC?  The fact
that you would like to see them there does not mean that they wanted
to come.  Who courts who in the conference enlargements?  Another
two-way street I'd guess.

>>If there is any solid evidence that "Alabame refused to play Miami during
>>the regular season" I'd be quite interested in hearing it and it would
>>certainly be news (and surprising at that) to me.  So, we are back
>>to having the chance for a meeting this year in Miami's court. 
>>Alabama is locked into the Sugar (if they win the conference) and
>>Miami is welcome to come on down again.
>
>As I said before, the Sugar has to do the inviting. If they invite ND
>again as they did last year, then Miami would not have a thing to say
>about it. Why can't you Alabama fans understand this and quit bitching
>about "the Miami team chickening out and staying in the Orange Bowl".

    True, the Sugar does the inviting.  The blowhards keep saying
thinks like "If the SEC champ gets the Sugar Bowl to invite a ND
like they did last year..."  when the truth of it is that Notre Dame
had already been extended the invitation last year before we even
knew who the SEC champ was.  The truth is, for Alabama to have a
shot at a national title this year they will 1) have to remain
unbeaten and 2) need to play Miami in the Sugar bowl (provided that
Miami doesn't get beat and can somehow get the #1 slot back).  You
would be foolish to insinuate that Alabama wouldn't want that
chance.  And still no evidice, as I asked for, to substantiate
Alabama's "refusing to play Miami in the regular season".

>Also, why do you say there's a chance for meeting in Miami's court ?
>The Sugar Bowl belongs to the SEC and it would certainly be like a 
>home game for whichever SEC team plays there.

    It is in Miami's court because they'd have to accept an
invitation to play there.  As you said, the SEC champ will be there.
 Now, should Florida win the SEC championship (or anyone in the SEC
East for that matter) that would certainly take some of the luster
off of the Sugar Bowl in Miami's eyes.  If Alabama loses one or more
games, that too would serve to make it less attractive.  They would
not have to come.  But, should Alabama remain unbeaten, the only way
they can play Miami is if they accept an invitation to come to the
Sugar Bowl (provided it is offered).  Unless, of course, Notre Dame
has already locked it up again.  Miami doesn't *have* to come.  So,
who's court would *you* say it is in?

>The 'regular season' argument came about before the Big East or any
>other Conference talk came into the picture. Miami had simply asked all
>the SEC (and ACC) members to play a home and home series with them.

    Excuse me.  *All* of the teams from each conference?!  Oh, I
see, you'd play year-round, in the Orange Bowl of course, because of
the climate.  Yeah, that's the ticket.  Can you not see how
absolutely ridiculous this assertion is?

>The only response was from Auburn (as I put in another post) but they
>said Miami would have to play both games at Auburn. (Arrogance ???)

    Well, if it was, you shoud certainly recognize it.  Still, it
was a chance to play Auburn.

>>>would have been a lot better this year for Miami and Alabama to play
>>>than Miami vs Florida A&M or Alabama vs Southern Miss (or La Tech
>>or Tulane).                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^
>
>>    For the record, Southern Miss ain't no Florida A&M.  They are a
>>IA school whose consistent record of playing major teams, most of
>>them on the road, makes them a very dangerous opponent for *anyone*
>>in the country.  La. Tech's defense is one of the best in the nation
>>also (or it was when Alabama played them) and they too will give
>>many "greater" teams a scare.  I agree that Tulane and Florida A&M
>>would probably be a good game.
>
>So are you saying that Alabama vs Southern Miss is a better game to see
>than Alabama vs Miami ???  Or Alabama vs La Tech.
>I disagree .

    Nope, not at all what I'm saying.  You took what you obviously
thought of as Alabama's weakest opponents and compared them to
Miami's.  I was indicating that there is no comparison.  Yes,
Alabama and Miami would have been, and still could be, a better
game.

>snip snip (personal attack and signature deleted)

    You attacked me personally and then cut it out?  Why?  You can't
be insinuating that I attacked you, can you?

--
Guy McConnell  guy@mspe5.b11.ingr.com