Interesting stats on OOC travel distance

[SoCalTrjn]

Discovered this through AUTigers.com

Pac-10 Leads OOC Distance Traveled

http://thewizardofodds.blogspot.com/200 ... ravel.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Look at the SEC, and in particular, Georgia. Only 358 TOTAL OOC miles traveled...IN TEN YEARS!!! That's like one trip and back from Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo.

Three SEC teams traveled less than 1,000 miles in that time...Georgia, Florida and Kentucky.

USC on the other hand, traveled more than 23,000 miles.

Notre Dame lead but they play 5 or 6 OOC road games a year

[indyfrisco]

It is interesting stats. However, one thing to keep in mind, and I AM NOT defending the SEC, is the point you made in a different thread about the number of teams West of Texas worth a shit. The West teams have a hard time getting a quality opponent not in their conference within a decent travel distance. Kind of forces you to travel further. Whereas in the South and Southeast, you have quality OOC opponents in your back yard practically.

So, I see you working. And this the first time you ever brought anything to this argument other than "we rule because we travel" takes. Good thing you have a nice source to copy to use for your argument.

[PSUFAN]

Georgia and USC are not close to one another, but they share one thing - they both seem to have side door access to the ESPN Champagne Room, where they tuck dollars into Chris Berman's garter, and ask Stuart Scott if he can "pop that eye out for a minute".

[Left Seater]

Uh, scratch that source as "nice" or even valid. That number for Georgia didn't make any sense to me as I know they play Georgia Tech every year. Therefore every other year the Dogs travel to ATL for the game. Mapquest shows the one way distance of 71 miles. Therefore the round trip distance is 142 miles. Multiply that by 5 trips over the last decade and they are already at 710 miles. Further I know they played at least once maybe twice at Clemson over that time frame which is prolly about another 150 miles round trip. So within 2 minutes we have invalidated this site's data. Also don't forget that in even numbered years Georgia only has three conference home games or 5 conference travel games.

Further to Indy's point it isn't Georgia's fault that they have a natural rival from another conference less than an hour away. Same for the Gator's and FSU. South Carolina and Clemson, and on and on. Sucks for $C and their travel budget that they can't get a quality OCC opponent without crossing into the central time zone.

Distance traveled for OCC games means nothing. Hell, for years RICE traveled 3.5 miles to UH for a OCC road game, over the course of a decade that is all of 35 miles round trip. What does that prove?

[King Crimson]

Distance traveled for OCC games means nothing. Hell, for years RICE traveled 3.5 miles to UH for a OCC road game, over the course of a decade that is all of 35 miles round trip. What does that prove?

i sort of share your skepticism.

beyond a very small analytic, i don't see the usefulness of these stats as a measure of anything. how big is your state and what is the relatively proximate population density to the degree that there will be universities near or far that aren't in your existing conference arrangement. that's mostly what i see here....not any sweeping *qualitative* conclusions about which conference has the cajones to go play at somebody else's stadium.

[RumpleForeskin]

Lets not forget the how much more sparse it is west of the Mississippi before you hit the west coast.

[SoCalTrjn]

It goes back to the ONLY reason certain conferences have so many high ranked teams is because the lack of collective travel within those conferences.
Show me one school with a better record on the road than they have at home
The farther a team travels the greater the risk of them not playing up to their potential, bowl games being the one exception due to the fact they normally arrive a week or more prior to the game. With greater travel distance comes time and climate changes, both of those can factor in to performance . You have the kids go to school all week then hop on a plane on Thursday night or Friday morning and fly 3 time zones away and they're not going to perform as well come saturday morning, thats a fact.

Id like to see the NCAA step in and make the OOC schedules of all Division 1 teams, remove the 1aa and lower teams from the schedules and give everyone a balanced schedule with equal amounts of home and road games and a great deal of travel for everyone. Then and ONLY then will we see if the schools from the South East are as good as their myopic fans think they are

[Laxplayer]

[quote]With greater travel distance comes time and climate changesReally. What's the difference in climate that Condom U is going to have to face when they play Virginia and what's the climate change Ohio State is going to have to change when come to So. Cal. It's going to be fucking hot no matter where you play in August and Sept., both of those can factor in to performance Maybe the time change but not as much as you think, if you think at all. You have the kids go to school all week then hop on a plane on Thursday night or Friday morning and fly 3 time zones away and they're not going to perform as well come saturday morning, thats a fact.[/quote]Well most schools have kids go to class. After reading the Daily News and seeing the cumulative GPA of the SUC football team I wonder if these mental midgets even know where classes occur. Realistically how many OOC games are three time zones away?
I'm trying to understand your bit of logic here. So let's say that schools can only recruit in their own state....(Your statement) now let's have them only schedule OOC games in their state because it has such an impact on the Pac-10. Ok, here are some possibilities for $C's OOC schedule for the next few years.
USD, CP-SLO, UOP, Occidental, Harvey Mudd, Sac State, Sonoma State, COC, Glendale.

[Left Seater]

Blah, blah, blah. Since U$C doesn't have local opponents the rest of the country should be punished. Nice! So if you want equal travel how do you make that happen? A school in the middle of the country will usually have much less than one on the West coast no matter how many road games they have. Further some schools play 9 conf games, others 8 and others 7. So for those playing 9 conference games to they then have to play more regular season games to get the same OCC travel games?

Why are you complaining? What with ND on your schedule along with Fresno, Hawaii, etc you have had your share of cakewalks.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Schmick...just eject, dude. You're getting worked from head to toe.

I think people just want to see more BCS teams playing other BCS teams. Let's just start with that. You're really nitpicking by complaining about the amount of miles teams travel. All teams are going to schedule in a manner that suits their own interests and agendas. Period. SC is no exception. If USC had a competing BCS conference within its region, you can be damn sure they'd take advantage of playing those schools just like all the schools in the central and eastern time zones do. Besides, I'd think you'd be partial to the fact that SC is one of the very few teams flying across the country consistently to play big time opponents. For one, they almost always win. Two, this aspect makes them unique, and most certainly goes over well with pollsters; which gives SC a distinct advantage. If everybody else was emulating USC in this regard, they'd blend in and lose that advantage.

National, widespread scheduling practices shouldn't be overhauled to suit one team or one conference. As Lefty pointed out, it's not the fault of the SEC, Big 12, Big Ten, etc., that the WAC and Mountain West are the only, uh, "formidable" opponents in your region. Maybe $C can share some of its recruits with the WAC and Mountain West...you know, beef up the conferences a little bit so they'll have decent competition in their region.

[Laxplayer]

Fuck that MGO...just have all the schools relocate to So. Cal so $UC fan doesn't have to travel. Then move all the high schools out here so $UC can just recruit California and play schools in California.
See, problem solved. You can thank me later.

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

Uh, scratch that source as "nice" or even valid. That number for Georgia didn't make any sense to me as I know they play Georgia Tech every year. Therefore every other year the Dogs travel to ATL for the game. Mapquest shows the one way distance of 71 miles. Therefore the round trip distance is 142 miles. Multiply that by 5 trips over the last decade and they are already at 710 miles. Further I know they played at least once maybe twice at Clemson over that time frame which is prolly about another 150 miles round trip. So within 2 minutes we have invalidated this site's data. Also don't forget that in even numbered years Georgia only has three conference home games or 5 conference travel games.

From the original site (http://www.mapgameday.com/travels/school/Georgia/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) that provided the data for the link that SoCal posted:

Mileages are calculated from the home team stadium to the away team stadium, and are direct distances (as the crow flies)

Obviously, the mileage was only calculated one way, so if you want to double Georgia's mileage, then you have to double everyone else's too, and the imbalance stays the same.

I think a lot of you guys are letting your hatred for our beloved board bitch and the school he represents cloud your judgment here. In this particular case, I think he makes a valid point (albeit a point that he has already made ad nauseum). The incestuous nature of the SEC and Southeastern schools in general is pretty pathetic. We can nitpick about exact mileage, but the fact that Georgia's game at ASU this year will be their first trip outside the South in 43 years should raise some eyebrows.

Further to Indy's point it isn't Georgia's fault that they have a natural rival from another conference less than an hour away. Same for the Gator's and FSU. South Carolina and Clemson, and on and on. Sucks for $C and their travel budget that they can't get a quality OCC opponent without crossing into the central time zone.

Distance traveled for OCC games means nothing. Hell, for years RICE traveled 3.5 miles to UH for a OCC road game, over the course of a decade that is all of 35 miles round trip. What does that prove?

Nobody's saying you can't play your in-state or cross-town rival every year. Just hop on a fucking plane every now and then and play some real competition for your other OOC games instead of a consistent diet of home games against FCS schools and mid-majors.

While I don't necessarily think it's worthy of a new thread every two weeks, I wholeheartedly agree with SoCal's argument that the NCAA should establish some kind of mandates to ensure that all schools (or at the very least all BCS conference schools) play a balanced home/away schedule and stop playing FCS schools altogether.

[Left Seater]

So with this balanced schedule are you doing away with the neutral site games? The schedule will never be balanced if you allow someone to play neutral site games. Further, how do you divide up the Notre Dames of last season?

I can agree with not allowing the D-1AA schools but that is it. Anything else is crazy.

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

So with this balanced schedule are you doing away with the neutral site games? The schedule will never be balanced if you allow someone to play neutral site games. Further, how do you divide up the Notre Dames of last season?

I can agree with not allowing the D-1AA schools but that is it. Anything else is crazy.

It doesn't necessarily need to be a perfect 6/6 split. I could live with 6 home/5 away/1 neutral. But when SEC teams consistently play 8 home games a year, and often their entire OOC schedules at home, and when the majority of their road games are less than a day's drive away, it seems like a pretty obvious advantage over a team like USC, who (love 'em or hate 'em) play a balanced schedule with at least one solid OOC opponent year in and year out.

I actually got into a debate on another board about this. Everyone was all up in arms about the BCS rejecting a +1 game and frothing at the mouth about how a playoff will solve every problem in CFB. I suggested that the NCAA might have more pressing issues to address, like the ridiculously imbalanced schedules. That thread resulted in my doing a little research. Here's a team-by-team breakdown of how often SEC teams have left the South since 2000.

Tennessee
2005 @ Notre Dame L 41-14
2007 @ Cal L 45-31

Florida
none

Georgia
none

Kentucky
2003 @ Indiana W 34-17
2005 @ Indiana L 38-14

South Carolina
2002 @ Virginia L 34-21 (I guess we'll count VA as outside the South)

Vanderbilt
2003 @ TCU L 30-14
2004 @ Navy L 29-26
2006 @ Michigan L 27-7

Arkansas
2003 @ Texas W 38-28
2005 @ USC L 70-17

Alabama
2000 @ UCLA L 35-24
2002 @ Oklahoma L 37-27

Auburn
2001 @ Syracuse L 31-14
2002 @ USC L 24-17

LSU
2002 @ Va Tech L 26-8
2003 @ Arizona W 59-13
2005 @ ASU W 35-31 (moved to Tempe because of Hurricane Katrina)

Mississippi
2002 @ Texas Tech L 42-28
2004 @ Wyoming L 37-32
2006 @ Missouri L 34-7

Mississippi St.
2000 @ BYU W 44-28
2002 @ Oregon L 36-13
2003 @ Houston L 42-35
2007 @ West Virginia L 38-13

Source: cfbdatawarehouse.com

So out of approximately 288 OOC games, 24 were actually played outside the South. Of those 24, 12 were played by perennial SEC scrubs Vandy, Kentucky, Ole Miss & MSU. So that's a whopping 12 non-Southern OOC road games combined by the 8 "powerhouse" SEC teams over the past 8 seasons. Even when SEC teams do schedule the rare quality OOC opponent, it's usually another team from the South.

***KC, you'll note that Vandy is one of the least-worst offenders ;)

[buckeye_in_sc]

Gosh Sam...firing the bullets already...

Miami is in the Southeast...sayin...we beat them I think...

1-2 in the big one...of course the 0-9


ah hell...all I care about is trouncing USC...

[Left Seater]

So teams should travel outside of their region just for the sake of travel?

RICE should end its 10 year series with Texas since they are quite close and in the same region? Further they shouldn't schedule Baylor and Texas Tech since they are in the same state and therefore not far enough away? Come on this makes no sense. Again if U$C had closer decent schools don't you think they would play them? $C happens to have a rival 2/3 of the way across the country. That isn't Auburns fault.

You really want the NCAA to get involved in scheduling?

[SoCalTrjn]

yeah, I do want to see the NCAA involved in scheduling. Every School should play OOC games on the road vs teams of equal or greater strength and any team that refuses to play 6 road games should lose their bowl eligibility. If teams have a tradition of neutral site games every year, then every other year they will have to play 6 road games.

washington state went to Auburn and played them in september when Auburn would have the greatest home climate advantage due to their humidity, Auburn should have had the balls to play at Washington State in November the next year to give the Cougars the same advantage.

[Left Seater]

washington state went to Auburn and played them in september when Auburn would have the greatest home climate advantage due to their humidity, Auburn should have had the balls to play at Washington State in November the next year to give the Cougars the same advantage.

So now it is beyond just traveling you want to make everything the same. So Auburn should interrupt the conference season to play a non-conference game in Nov because it might be colder then and an advantage to WSU. This is crazy. So if ND continues to struggle maybe U$C should be forced to drop them since it weakens their SOC. Come on you can't really be serious about some of this stuff.

[buckeye_in_sc]

I want Bama in C Bus in November so those fuckers freeze their balls off...something about getting revenge on a coupla bowl games... :D ain't that right Sam?


I think Lax had it best...move all the teams to southern cali...

boy Board Bitch for 2008 locked up before fall camp...WOW...

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

Lefty,
When Rice & Texas play, the Horns actually have the decency to come trounce you guys in your own crib every once in a while. When SEC teams play regional mid-majors (Memphis, MTSU, UCF, UAB, Troy, etc.), they're always one-off home games. That's not right. These aren't cherished rivalries that need to be protected. They're blatant attempts at front-loading your schedule with a bunch of easy home wins.

Is SoCal an idiot for suggesting that Auburn should have to play at Wazzou in November? Absolutely, but that's what we've come to expect from him. I'm just saying they should have to play at Wazzou if the Cougs go down there. I don't really care when it is.

Like I said, I'd be OK with counting one neutral site game as an away game, even if the team(s) involved still played 6 home games every year. What needs to be changed is the 8 home/4 away horseshit that SEC teams pull year in and year out.

So to answer your question, yes, I really do want the NCAA (or some other governing body) involved with scheduling.

[Left Seater]

Two different topics here. One has to do with a balanced schedule and completely another with travel distance.

Talking about travel distance is crap. Colorado, CSU, and Air Force are all very close. CU shouldn't be barred from playing them as often as they want because they aren't far enough away.

Balanced schedules are completely another thing. If you want truely balanced schedules then you will have to go to an NFL type schedule where the best teams from one conference play the best from another conference and schedules are done a few months before the season starts.

In the RICE example with Texas yes, they do play here mostly on a 2 for 1 basis, but that is because of their huge alumni base in Houston. That contract has been great for RICE and in fact has allowed them to travel to some other games they might not have been able to otherwise. RICE football is a money loser. If we want to take some cash to help our program and it gives Texas a 2 to 1 home game advantage why not? Why punish us for making a decision ourselves? Same for the Troy's, UAB's, MTSU, etc.

Look no further than Florida State. They were in the shoes of these schools a few decades ago. They went out on one game contracts and didn't get the return visit. They did however, go out and beat those schools and that allowed their program to grow to what it is. Is that bad?

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

I don't think the distance argument is entirely crap. Obviously, teams in the West will always have to travel farther just because of the population density east of the Mississippi. But you should at least have to leave your region every once in a while. CU/CSU is an annual, neutral site rivalry game, but if all of the rest of CU's OOC games were against the likes of Wyoming, Idaho, Utah St., etc., it'd be pretty pathetic (not to mention boring).

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

As far as the scheduling thing, it wouldn't have to be an NFL-style thing. Even if they did it similar to interleague play in baseball, where certain conferences would be matched up against each other over a span of 2-3 years, you could still do scheduling way in advance. It's not even so much about strength of schedule as it is about the home/away discrepancy. Even if SEC teams had to go to Baylor or Stanford or Northwestern, that'd be preferable to what we have now.

[SoCalTrjn]

washington state went to Auburn and played them in september when Auburn would have the greatest home climate advantage due to their humidity, Auburn should have had the balls to play at Washington State in November the next year to give the Cougars the same advantage.

So now it is beyond just traveling you want to make everything the same. So Auburn should interrupt the conference season to play a non-conference game in Nov because it might be colder then and an advantage to WSU. This is crazy. So if ND continues to struggle maybe U$C should be forced to drop them since it weakens their SOC. Come on you can't really be serious about some of this stuff.

W 09-01-2007 23 Kansas St. 13 Auburn, AL
L 09-08-2007 23 South Florida 26 Auburn, AL
L 09-15-2007 14 Mississippi St. 19 Auburn, AL
W 09-22-2007 55 New Mexico St. 20 Auburn, AL
W 09-29-2007 20 Florida 17 Gainesville, FL
W 10-06-2007 35 Vanderbilt (TN) 7 Auburn, AL
W 10-13-2007 9 Arkansas 7 Fayetteville, AR
L 10-20-2007 24 Louisiana St. 30 Baton Rouge, LA
W 10-27-2007 17 Mississippi 3 Auburn, AL
W 11-03-2007 35 Tennessee Tech 3 Auburn, AL
L 11-10-2007 20 Georgia 45 Athens, GA
W 11-24-2007 17 Alabama 10 Auburn, AL

were you saying something cockshine? When did Tennessee Tech join the SEC? I must have missed that Press Conference, I dont suppose you you have a link with the announcement of Tennessee Tech joining the SEC do you? The year after Auburn hosted the Cougars, Auburn played an OOC game in November when youre saying it would be crazy for them to do so, those crazy War Chickens.
Auburn wont play at Washington State because they are southern cowards and Tuberville has never won an OOC game ont he road while at that school, thats a fucking fact. To deny that fact makes you naive to the point that Christian Mythologists would call you gullible and simple. If it walks like a coward, talks like a coward and schedules like a coward, its a coward
I have no problem dropping Notre Dame from USCs schedule, in fact I think all major conf schools should boycott the Irish until the Irish are forced to join a conmference and play by everyone elses rules

[Left Seater]

Yeah, you got me flame away. I was thinking one school and typing another. Fact was WSU had a full conference schedule in Nov. What with conference schedules made many years in advance the only opportunity for most schools to play non-conference games is Sept. Look no further than the Big XII who has released their conference schedule thru 2016. Teams start conference play on the first weekend in Oct and go non-stop thru the last weekend in Nov.

Now why does it not surprise me that you had to go to a cock reference. Typical. Starting to feel sorry for you, really. What with breaking practice rules, teaching kids to win at any cost, supporting kids for arguing an umpires calls, and now your cock jones. Sad.

The ND thing is one of the few things you have ever said that is well thought out. Hell, I could even get behind it.

[buckeye_in_sc]

With the greatness of the SEC Sam...couldn't they just teleport?

that would be a great game...Saban coaching at Toledo and with the Browns...I know tOSU is out through 2018/2019 and just signed a deal with Tennessee...

would be nice to get a game like that...

[Dinsdale]

1 - WSU can't pay Auburn enough to travel to that hellhole out there.

I've been to Eastern Washington numerous times.


I'm allowed to refer to it as a "shithole."

You are not, until such a time you've actually been there, when you can verify for yourself what a shithole Eastern Washington is.

[Dinsdale]

Though I must RACK all the recent Wazzu coaches, for being able to recruit players to the part of the world where the Aryan Nation rules supreme.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I'll defer to Dins on this one for sure, but I've also heard that Washington State is one helluva road trip in terms of getting there.

As I understand it, Pullman has no airport. Seattle is about a five hour drive away, and Spokane is about a two hour drive in the other direction. I've been told that teams have to fly into Seattle, get on a puddle jumper to fly from Seattle to Spokane, then take the bus from Spokane to Pullman.

[Left Seater]

Pullman has an airport and it is realtively nice. Granted I haven't been thru the pax terminal, but I think you can fly to Boise from there along with Seattle. I also don't have my brain bag handy for charts, but I don't remember an special proceedures for us there, so the runway was prolly 7K. While not huge by any means, it would lift a 757 that wasn't fully loaded. A team playing there from the East coast would prolly require a fuel stop. Not because the plane didn't have the range, but because a full fuel load would require a longer runway.

[SoCalTrjn]

Do you honestly think that anyone in Alabama can refer to any other region in this country as a "shit hole"?
Those confederate flag waving SEC fucks carrying signs that they wish the Civil War was a best 2 out of 3 so they could have kept their blacks in the cotton fields instead of the football fields should feel right at home in the racist North West

[Left Seater]

Do you honestly think that anyone in Alabama can refer to any other region in this country as a "shit hole"?
Those confederate flag waving SEC fucks carrying signs that they wish the Civil War was a best 2 out of 3 so they could have kept their blacks in the cotton fields instead of the football fields should feel right at home in the racist North West

Typical that you wouldn't know anything about this war. First it really wasn't a civil war in that the south wasn't attempting to overthrow the government. They were stepping aside to form their own country. Just like the States did with England. Was that a civil war? No, it was for self government. Same as the south.

Secondly, this war was hardly about slavery. The Union troops rallying cries were "Preserve the Union" not "Free the Slaves." Hell, Lincoln didn't give the Emancipation Proclamation until five days after the Battle of Antietam, on September 22, 1862. Further this didn't free all slaves. Lincoln went on to call it a "war measure." It only freed the slaves in non union controled areas of the south. Slaves and slaveholders in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee and a few other areas were exempt from this. Further if any states dropped their independence claims before Jan 1, 1863 they would also be allowed to keep their slaves. Finally the 13th amendment ended slavery.

In Dec of 1862, Lincoln proposed a three part plan to free the slaves not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. First all remaining slaves would be freed gradually over the years until no slaves remained by the turn of the centruy. Second slaveholders would be compensated by the government for their loss of property. Finally all freed blacks would be transported at government expense to Africa or South America.

Again this was not a war over slavery. It was more along the lines of the Revouluntionary War with the South being in the position of the colonies. Taxes were levied on imports and some exports all along the south. These taxes then went north to the federal government who sent back only pennies on the dollar.

If you would like to learn more about this war and the events leading up to it and during the course of the conflict I will be happy to suggest some books. Hell, I will even send you a few that I own. Care to expand your horizons?

[Left Seater]

Frozen,

Not trying to say that the War had zero to do with slavery, however, it wasn't the only reason as most think. In fact there were many things that went into it.

However, most of these lead back to one central issue, State's Rights. Yes slavery was listed as you correctly point out, but I and many smarter than myself boil it down to State's Rights. Don't forget that Lincoln himself said that if continuing slavery would keep the southern states from seceding, then he would. Lincoln only went to war, without much consultation with Congress which was in recession leading up to the War, to preserve the Union. Again, the Southern States felt slavery was a "State's Rights" issue, not a Northern Issue.

Futher slavery would have been been abolished soon thereafter anyway just like it was in much of the rest of the world around the same time. I think only oursevles and Hati had slaves freed during a time of war. Everyone else had it happen peacefully due to economic factors.

The north dominated House with the population breakdown of roughly 20 million to 5 million. The north also dominated the Senate, 19 states to 11. Then things like the Kanas Nebraska act further upset the south. What with the north not accepting the free decisions of the residents. At the same time it is estimated that maybe as much as 85%, but certainly 70% of the US budget was generated in the South. Remember there was no income tax at the time, infact one was declared unconstitutional.

So yes, slavery was a part, maybe even the most recognizable part of State's Rights, but not THE reason for the war. As Lincoln said if that were the only reason he wouldn't be opposed to keeping slavery to keep the south part of the union.

[Dinsdale]

Spokane has an international aitport. Yeah, probably about two hours on a bus, probably a lot less in a car through the middle of Bumfucked. About 4.5-5 hours from Seattle (not a heck of a lot of difference from Portland).

Once you get that far east in WA, it gets a little more rain (not much), and it ain't quite so tough on the eyeballs. Further west, it's the Columbia Valley, which is a big huge pile of arid nothing.

[Dinsdale]

How the hell did this thread go haywire?!?!

It took a left somewhere around Walla Walla.

[indyfrisco]

Sam,

Cut the shit. We all know it was Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandpa Bush's fault.

[Left Seater]

Frozen,

One of the major things was the transcontinental railroad act. The fact that this was to terminate in Chicago, Cairo, or elsewhere, was crazy. Granted the majority of the people lived in the north, but the railroad wasn't being built for pax travel. Rather it was to move southern crops to the West coast for lumber and other goods. The southern crops would need to be moved UP the Mississippi to one of these cities, instead of the much smaller amount of goods coming down river to a southern terminal. Further a southern route across Texas, NM, AZ, and Nevada would have been much easier than thru the heart of the Rockies. Paxs were an after thought.

Trade was also a major issue. Southern states were only allowed to sell their goods to other countries after the northern states bought what they needed. Southern states were not able to operate in a free ecocnomy. They were unable to buy cheaper manufactured goods from Europe due to tarifs to protect Northern employers.

Another issue was Land Grant Schools. These ag schools were being awarded in numbers that no ratio could support for northern states. They didn't follow population or geography common sense. Was an ag school in northern Vermont a good location?

Further State's Rights weren't just a Southern Rally cry. The Hartford convention was called by the Federalist Party to discuss states rights way back in the 1810s. Cartoons of the time showed some of the NE states going back under the Crown.

If slavery were the only issue, why did the Southern States secede? Lincoln stated he would continue slavery before the war. He further only freed slaves in the "outlaw" states with the EP, not in Union controled states.

[Left Seater]

Sam remember though by this time both the North and South had outlawed the practice of importing slaves. Neither would allow new slaves to be brought into the country. So as more slaves got their freedom and worked their own land or moved North, the population in slavery was declining.

[Left Seater]

As was pointed out, the importation of slaves was illegal at the time of the Civil War. In fact, the Confederate Constitution made the practice expressly unconstitutional.

And hey, we're all just having a civil discussion sparked by schmick's asshattery. It's interesting to discuss this with people who can do so rationally instead of just hollering about the "War of Northern Aggression."

I can't stand some of the labels people put on things to frame arguement/discussions. I never use the above War of Northern Aggression, nor do I use the Civil War. Both are incorrect, but widely used. Sadly most people now have an incorrect definition of a Civil War. The other place where labels are out of whack is the abortion debate. The worst is the relatively new one by those supporting Abortion rights in calling the other side anti-choice. Should those who support reducing abortion label the other side pro murder? Of course not and as such anti-choice shouldn't be used either.

Back to the importation of slaves. I am sure some of the largest plantation owners were still trying to find ways to import more slaves as their numbers were reducing rapidly. As Frozen pointed out once in "free" states the slaves would not be trasported back to the south. Strangely though many freed slaves often chose to stay and work along side their former "masters" instead of heading for northern cities. They chose to work for themselves and many were given their own land after helping to hold the Mississippi river back during floods in the 1850s and 1860s.

[indyfrisco]

Wow. This thread took a turn for the boring.

And no, I don't care much for history unless there was some kind of football, basketall, baseball or some other athletic instrument involved.

Debate on, historians.