CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big XII => Topic started by: utee94 on August 05, 2021, 02:33:10 PM
-
Well the Horns are about to be reunited with the ags and the pigs. And it feels so good.
And we'll maintain our rivalry with the sooners which is also fun.
And the sooners get to play their old rivals Nebraska this year, too.
Since the move to the SEC won't happen for another year, I don't want to litter that board with a bunch of old SWC/Big 8/Big 12 talk, so I figured I'd start this thread here.
-
And in the spirit of talking some rivalry smack:
https://twitter.com/kyleumlang/status/1423282281507037185
-
The OU president and Barry Switzer have commented that OU will play OSU in all sports, if OSU wants to. I appreciate the effort to keep the rivalry alive even though it will make for a tougher schedule every year.
I think the appropriate Texas response would be to schedule TCU every year. ;)
-
The OU president and Barry Switzer have commented that OU will play OSU in all sports, if OSU wants to. I appreciate the effort to keep the rivalry alive even though it will make for a tougher schedule every year.
I think the appropriate Texas response would be to schedule TCU every year. ;)
No thanks.
But we'll gladly put Nebraska on the schedule!
-
The OU president and Barry Switzer have commented that OU will play OSU in all sports, if OSU wants to. I appreciate the effort to keep the rivalry alive even though it will make for a tougher schedule every year.
I think the appropriate Texas response would be to schedule TCU every year. ;)
Im not sure who I want to play less TCU or Maryland
-
No thanks.
But we'll gladly put Nebraska on the schedule!
the rivalry that never was
-
Will A&M/UT be in the same sub-division (pod)? Will we play on/near Thanksgiving? Will we keep the Austin in even years and College Station in odd years schedule?
I'm hearing that there is some push to move the game earlier in the season and put A&M in the same pod as Missouri. It would be Missouri, A&M, LSU, and either Ol'Miss or Miss St.
-
Will A&M/UT be in the same sub-division (pod)? Will we play on/near Thanksgiving? Will we keep the Austin in even years and College Station in odd years schedule?
I'm hearing that there is some push to move the game earlier in the season and put A&M in the same pod as Missouri. It would be Missouri, A&M, LSU, and either Ol'Miss or Miss St.
From what I've seen, Missouri and A&M are alternate choices for the "other" team in a pod that has OU, Texas, and Arkansas.
I suppose that LSU could take that spot, leaving A&M and Mizzou in the same sub-division. That would create a very helmet-y group, with OU and Texas solid helmets and LSU on the borderline.
Do the PTBs at A&M want the Aggies in the same sub-division with Texas or not?
-
A&M got paired with USCe (kind of by default). I wonder if pairings will still happen with OU/TX in the league. The main pairings now are:
Bama-Tenn (!)
LSU - UF
UGA - Auburn
If your team was paired with someone from another division, who would you like it to be, besides Vandy.
-
A&M got paired with USCe (kind of by default). I wonder if pairings will still happen with OU/TX in the league. The main pairings now are:
Bama-Tenn (!)
LSU - UF
UGA - Auburn
If your team was paired with someone from another division, who would you like it to be, besides Vandy.
If we have Divisions then I'm assuming they'll assign one x-div perma-rival.
If we use pods, I guess they can still do that but it starts to impair the scheduling flexibility that's the primary benefit to using pods in the first place.
Anyway, my preference for a x-div perma-rival from all schools currently in the East, would probably be Georgia, Florida, or Tennessee, in that order. Obviously those schools might already have their dance card full with a more traditional SEC rival, in which case it doesn't really matter to me who we'd get annually out of Kentucky, USCe, or Vandy.
-
From what I've seen, Missouri and A&M are alternate choices for the "other" team in a pod that has OU, Texas, and Arkansas.
I suppose that LSU could take that spot, leaving A&M and Mizzou in the same sub-division. That would create a very helmet-y group, with OU and Texas solid helmets and LSU on the borderline.
Do the PTBs at A&M want the Aggies in the same sub-division with Texas or not?
It depends on which group of fans you ask. I don't presume to know what the Boosters of Substance (As Bill Byrne called them) want. I would guess that they would prefer to not have Texas and OU in the SEC at all but that ship sailed and obviously our BoR voted 8-1 to allow them in.
There are a pretty substantial group of fans who would prefer that we remain in the same division as LSU and attempt to develop a firmer out of state rival with a school that we already have a long history with and is fairly close to us as SEC distances goes. Of course nobody will ever be a bigger rival to A&M than UT. That being said we need a real out of state rival to ever really elevate our program. We can't just be seen as being anti-t.u. forever. We need to have some degree of separation to grow.
On the other hand playing the rivalry twice out of every fourth year would take some wind out of the hate like OU/NU had in the Big 12. Hard to sustain the hate that way with more than half the team not playing the rival every 3rd year.
I guess it really just depends on how they're going to rotate. Do they get rid of the permanent cross rival opponent for some teams? Does Alabama and Auburn move east?
Too many questions.
-
Texas-Tennessee would make an interesting pairing for several reasons, one of which being both right now are down from historical.
-
Texas-Tennessee would make an interesting pairing for several reasons, one of which being both right now are down from historical.
Remember, UTenn is a helmet school right? And by that logic LSU is not. One has won 3 MNC and played for a 4th. One has been stuck at the starting line.
-
the TV networks will want Aggies/Horns annually
-
Remember, UTenn is a helmet school right? And by that logic LSU is not. One has won 3 MNC and played for a 4th. One has been stuck at the starting line.
Yes.
By definition, helmetosity is not directly related to recent success. That's the entire reason we talk about helmets. Otherwise we'd only ever discuss the current Top 10 or whatever.
-
the TV networks will want Aggies/Horns annually
Yes, I believe that's true. And they'll also want TX-OU annually.
-
Remember, UTenn is a helmet school right? And by that logic LSU is not. One has won 3 MNC and played for a 4th. One has been stuck at the starting line.
Well now I know you're just trying to start a rivalry.
LSU has won 5 MNC's and played for a 6th. If you use the Alabama method of how many NC's a school claims, it drops to 4, tho. They don't claim 1908 even though recognized by polls recognized by the NCAA, and listed on the NCAA's website as NC's for that year....for what little bit of nothing that's worth. There's a segment of fans who want the school to claim 1908, quite a few who don't know anything about it, and as for the school itself, it's like they won't claim it now by tradition. Like they don't see the point in doing it now if they haven't done it already.
There is a pretty interesting back-story to what happened. Very political, very media-driven. I'm so glad we've come a long way in society and politics and media don't interfere with how things get done anymore.
Suffice it to say, it was an Auburn journalist's doing at the time, his rumors were unsubstantiated and ultimately proven false, but back then if there was dirt on your name for a season, I guess you didn't squabble about it. I've read through a lot of old newspapers on LSU football through the years, and from what I can glean, programs did not care about NC's at that time the way they do now. It was all about your schedule and hopefully winning your conference. What it does show, tho, is that Auburn has been Auburn since the beginning of time.
-
From what I've seen, Missouri and A&M are alternate choices for the "other" team in a pod that has OU, Texas, and Arkansas.
I suppose that LSU could take that spot, leaving A&M and Mizzou in the same sub-division. That would create a very helmet-y group, with OU and Texas solid helmets and LSU on the borderline.
I hate that pod already. The fact that so will most LSU fans is how I know that's probably what will happen.
-
pods suck
2 divisions, much better
-
Well now I know you're just trying to start a rivalry.
LSU has won 5 MNC's and played for a 6th. If you use the Alabama method of how many NC's a school claims, it drops to 4, tho. They don't claim 1908 even though recognized by polls recognized by the NCAA, and listed on the NCAA's website as NC's for that year....for what little bit of nothing that's worth. There's a segment of fans who want the school to claim 1908, quite a few who don't know anything about it, and as for the school itself, it's like they won't claim it now by tradition. Like they don't see the point in doing it now if they haven't done it already.
There is a pretty interesting back-story to what happened. Very political, very media-driven. I'm so glad we've come a long way in society and politics and media don't interfere with how things get done anymore.
Suffice it to say, it was an Auburn journalist's doing at the time, his rumors were unsubstantiated and ultimately proven false, but back then if there was dirt on your name for a season, I guess you didn't squabble about it. I've read through a lot of old newspapers on LSU football through the years, and from what I can glean, programs did not care about NC's at that time the way they do now. It was all about your schedule and hopefully winning your conference. What it does show, tho, is that Auburn has been Auburn since the beginning of time.
I must have edited my post because it should have said “ this century”.
as I remember 2003 2007 2019 and the infamous 2011 rematch. Of course didn’t the 2007 team have two losses? That right thar should tell you who is and who is not a helmet.
-
I know it seems like the pods suck but remember there will still be lots and lots of games versus the rest of the conference.
I’m all for the pods as long as they are set up so that you play so many different teams in a 4 year period.
Imagine playing Bama, Texas, Ou, UF, UGa, Auburn, A&M often. I think the way I saw it is you play the entire conference every 4 years home and away. IMO this is the only way to do it. Better yet have a playoff between pods for the CCG that way nobody can duck a great team due to a schedule quirk.
-
I must have edited my post because it should have said “ this century”.
as I remember 2003 2007 2019 and the infamous 2011 rematch. Of course didn’t the 2007 team have two losses? That right thar should tell you who is and who is not a helmet.
Eyeballs, television sets, and favor from poll voters/committee members, even without having success for decades, is what tells you who and who is not a helmet.
-
So what you’re saying is not NU and UTenn then? Because I’m not sure they have any of that anymore.
-
somehow, UNL still has eyeballs in the seats and better than average TV ratings
-
Tennessee is regularly accused of being "overrated" in the polls (when they manage to make the polls).
That's what happens for helmet teams. Texas, Notre Dame, USC, Tennessee-- even in down times, these teams get overrated by the voters, based on helmetosity.
I haven't looked at UTenn's TV numbers but I'm certain they consistently pull in more eyeballs than a non-name-brand team with the same record.
-
Vol attendance has been off of late. But I suspect eyeballs are there for the first half anyway.
When do we get around to talking BBQ and Beer here?
Is there no good food in B1G land?
-
Vol attendance has been off of late. But I suspect eyeballs are there for the first half anyway.
When do we get around to talking BBQ and Beer here?
Is there no good food in B1G land?
Well this was supposed to be "Rivalries" and it turned into pod talk, which is a thread on the SEC forum.
It's pure chaos.
I think there's some good food in B1G land. Chicago is known for its culinary prowess. And Nebraska has the runza. Whatever that is.
-
If we have Divisions then I'm assuming they'll assign one x-div perma-rival.
If we use pods, I guess they can still do that but it starts to impair the scheduling flexibility that's the primary benefit to using pods in the first place.
Anyway, my preference for a x-div perma-rival from all schools currently in the East, would probably be Georgia, Florida, or Tennessee, in that order. Obviously those schools might already have their dance card full with a more traditional SEC rival, in which case it doesn't really matter to me who we'd get annually out of Kentucky, USCe, or Vandy.
As you note, having permanent inter-divisional games undercuts the reasoning for going to pods (sub-divisions).
It's easy for me to say this, as the fan of a going-to-be "newbie" member of the SEC, but I'd rather there not be permanent non-divisional (or sub-divisional) games. For one thing, they cement scheduling disparities in place. (I suppose that could be addressed by rotating "permanent" games, but then what's the point of having them?) I'm looking forward to seeing OU play the eastern powerhouses of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida as much as old conference-mates A&M and Mizzou. I would be disappointed to see the interdivisional big dogs come to Norman only once a decade or so.
IF permanent rivalries are the deal, while OU has a little history with Tennessee, I like Cincy's idea of UT vs. UT, two orange helmet programs that haven't acted like helmets lately.
As for OU, I guess I'd pick the crimson school of the east, Bama. But Bama's already got a boatload of permanent rivalries, so that might be out of the question. So, then, Georgia.
My ideal would be subdivisions where you play the 3 other teams in your own subdivision, all 4 teams of one other subdivision, and 1 each team from the other 2 subdivisions. After 8 years, rotate the subdivision vs. subdivision lineup. I suspect that most folks would find that quirky, so my fall-back would be play your own 3 subdivision mates and 2 each from each of the subdivisions. After 6 years, you would have played at least a home-and-home with every school in the conference.
I'll bet it's going to be divisions, and I'll bet there will be permanent rivalry games.
-
UGA-OU would be a good pair I think because they have played but once, and it was a great game (in every respect). It would be bad for other reasons.
Tenn-Texas could battle for who can be called UT for a year. Bama-LSU has produced some epics of late. Arky-USCe seems to fit. A&M-Auburn?
Florida and .... A&M.
-
On the other hand playing the rivalry twice out of every fourth year would take some wind out of the hate like OU/NU had in the Big 12. Hard to sustain the hate that way with more than half the team not playing the rival every 3rd year.
OU and Nebraska had an unusual rivalry. There wasn't much hate to it, at least not in the '70s and '80s. OU dominated the series in the '50s, Nebraska was better in the '60s. Both programs were really good in the '70s and 80s. Then Nebraska dominated in the '90s. And then it fell off to 2 games every 4 years. And Nebraska tailed off. And then the Big 12 had its first falling apart.
Some 40-ish Sooner fans hate Nebraska, ostensibly because they believe that Osborne ran up the scores in the '90s when OU was crappy (and those fans were not quite mature enough to accept beat-downs as what happens when you have four different HFCs in one decade, having fired three in four years). My response to that is that we should have been good enough not to get RUTSd.
-
One more wildcard. There is always the chance there will be more than the 9 conference games we are assuming. Especially if money is driving all this madness. I mean who really enjoys seeing Alabama beat Troy state 66-0 or LSU beat La Tech or A&M whip North Texas. It’s nothing more than a tune up game. A lot of problems could be solved by adding conference games.
Not to mention these players will son be up to their ears in NIL money. 10 conference games, 1 non-con versus another power 5, and then maybe 1 tune up game. Not too much different than now except most programs schedule one pansy, one tweener like UH, and one marquee opponent. Drop one for another conference foe.
-
one tune up game per season is enough
-
One more wildcard. There is always the chance there will be more than the 9 conference games we are assuming. Especially if money is driving all this madness. I mean who really enjoys seeing Alabama beat Troy state 66-0 or LSU beat La Tech or A&M whip North Texas. It’s nothing more than a tune up game. A lot of problems could be solved by adding conference games.
Not to mention these players will son be up to their ears in NIL money. 10 conference games, 1 non-con versus another power 5, and then maybe 1 tune up game. Not too much different than now except most programs schedule one pansy, one tweener like UH, and one marquee opponent. Drop one for another conference foe.
I'd be all for the SEC dropping all those embarrassing FCS games for sure, and then going to 10 conference games. One tune-up against a G5, one marquee intersectional matchup, and 10 conference games works great for me.
But there's no way the SEC or any other conference is going to do that, unless/until EVERYBODY is doing it.
-
I'm not against the idea of a 10-game conference schedule per se, but it is complicated when you have 16 teams, whether split into two divisions or four subdivisions.
So, with four subdivisions (pods), you play your 3 podmates, then you have to distribute 7 more games over the other three pods.
Or, with two 8-team divisions, you play 7 divisional games and then 3 of the 8 teams in the other division.
It's also not clean if you go to permanent interdivisional rivalries if you are in two divisions. You'd play 7 divisional games, your permanent rival in the other division, and then distribute 2 games over the 7 remaining teams in the other division.
3 doesn't go into 8 evenly and neither does 2 go into 7. So it takes a long cycle before you've played the 7 non-permanent-rivals in the other division the same number of times.
Similar problems with 10 games, pods, and a permanent interpod rival. You play your 3 podmates, your permanent rival, then you spread 6 games over the other 11 schools. 6 does not go evenly into 11. So, again, a long cycle before it all evens out.
The cleanest is 9 games with no permanent rival. 3 pod games, 2 games from each of the other 3 pods. With home-and-home, it takes 4 years and you've played everybody not in your pod twice.
With divisions, 9 games, no permanent rival, you get 7 divisional games, then 2 more games distributed across the 8 schools in the other division. It takes 8 years to complete the cycle, and you've played everyone in the other division twice.
-
With divisions, 9 games, no permanent rival, you get 7 divisional games, then 2 more games distributed across the 8 schools in the other division. It takes 8 years to complete the cycle, and you've played everyone in the other division twice.
done
-
With divisions, 9 games, no permanent rival, you get 7 divisional games, then 2 more games distributed across the 8 schools in the other division. It takes 8 years to complete the cycle, and you've played everyone in the other division twice.
Since I believe the traditional, regional rivalries are the most important aspect of college football, this is something I can't agree with. Because there's just no way to fit all traditional regional rivalries into the same division.
-
I'm not against the idea of a 10-game conference schedule per se, but it is complicated when you have 16 teams, whether split into two divisions or four subdivisions.
So, with four subdivisions (pods), you play your 3 podmates, then you have to distribute 7 more games over the other three pods.
Or, with two 8-team divisions, you play 7 divisional games and then 3 of the 8 teams in the other division.
It's also not clean if you go to permanent interdivisional rivalries if you are in two divisions. You'd play 7 divisional games, your permanent rival in the other division, and then distribute 2 games over the 7 remaining teams in the other division.
3 doesn't go into 8 evenly and neither does 2 go into 7. So it takes a long cycle before you've played the 7 non-permanent-rivals in the other division the same number of times.
Similar problems with 10 games, pods, and a permanent interpod rival. You play your 3 podmates, your permanent rival, then you spread 6 games over the other 11 schools. 6 does not go evenly into 11. So, again, a long cycle before it all evens out.
The cleanest is 9 games with no permanent rival. 3 pod games, 2 games from each of the other 3 pods. With home-and-home, it takes 4 years and you've played everybody not in your pod twice.
With divisions, 9 games, no permanent rival, you get 7 divisional games, then 2 more games distributed across the 8 schools in the other division. It takes 8 years to complete the cycle, and you've played everyone in the other division twice.
Great point. I didn’t think it fully through.
There’s a reason why this failed the first time. I’ll bet you the conference head honchos are having a devil of a time figuring it out as well.
-
Since I believe the traditional, regional rivalries are the most important aspect of college football, this is something I can't agree with. Because there's just no way to fit all traditional regional rivalries into the same division.
Are you saying that you see pods as the better solution?
-
I can't think of a real rivalry that would be lost with two divisions. Can you?
-
I'm not sure of the real rivalries in the SEC.
Is Bama-LSU not one? I have thought that it was, but maybe there's some recency bias there.
-
I'd say the historical rivalries, aside fron the in state things like the Egg bowl, are:
Bama - Tenn
Auburn - UGA
UGA - UF
That's it. I'm not including matchups between teams that have been good of late, those are just important games, like LSU-UF.
-
I can't think of a real rivalry that would be lost with two divisions. Can you?
you do the best you can and suffer maybe one lost?
better than losing more than that to pods or some other system
-
I'm not sure of the real rivalries in the SEC.
Is Bama-LSU not one? I have thought that it was, but maybe there's some recency bias there.
MDT tells me Bama-LSU is one that matters to him. It's not my place to second-guess actual longtime SEC fans, so I take him at his word.
The most logical divisions that preserve the most longstanding rivalries, mean moving Alabama/Auburn to the East, Mizzou to the West.
But without a perma x-div rival, then Bama-LSU is lost. To me, that's every bit as sad and unacceptable as losing NU-OU as an annual rivalry.
Like I said regarding the B12, I'm willing to accept a faux perma-rival for Texas, if it means keeping the schedules balanced and preserving important historical rivals. Even if that faux perma-rival ends up being someone uninspiring like USCe or Kentucky.
-
^^^^^
At the same time, I also recognize that setting up the Divisions that way, likely ends up making the Mississippi schools feel like they've been shafted out of their longtime history with the SEC. There's just no perfect solution, and perhaps there are really only bad solutions.
As I've said many times before, 16-team conferences just suck. So do 14-team conferences. Really, anything over 10 is less than ideal. It wouldn't have been my choice for college football to go this route, but nobody that matters, ever consulted me on it.
-
I don't think LSU-Bama was a "real rivalry" for decades, but at times it obviously is a very important game.
The Egg Bowl is a rivalry that isn't usually important. Tenn-UK is close to that. USCe-Clemson is a rivalry game, Tech-UGA, often not really of national interest.
-
I don't think LSU-Bama was a "real rivalry" for decades, but at times it obviously is a very important game.
The Egg Bowl is a rivalry that isn't usually important. Tenn-UK is close to that. USCe-Clemson is a rivalry game, Tech-UGA, often not really of national interest.
Could be. But it's certainly not my place to tell LSU or Alabama who their "real rivals" are.
And the thing about traditional rivalries, is that they don't have to be nationally interesting, to be important.
In fact, the number of rivalries that are actually nationally interesting, is pretty tiny, compared to the overall set of all rivalries. National interest is the LEAST important thing to a regional rivalry.
-
I thing that is the main point. Rivalries were local by necessity. Then conference rivalries that were not just local. ND/USC is the one that sticks out to me as the beginning of the modern national rivalries. One of the things I really liked about the Big 8, was that it left scheduling room for great non-con games. Texas was a permanent non-con game, and OU got to play the other helmet schools like USC/tOSU/Bama/ND home and home, not just in bowls.
-
I'd say the historical rivalries, aside fron the in state things like the Egg bowl, are:
Bama - Tenn
Auburn - UGA
UGA - UF
That's it. I'm not including matchups between teams that have been good of late, those are just important games, like LSU-UF.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
This is and historically has been, at least in my lifetime, the attitude of other member schools and their fans.
LSU: This is important to us.
Them: No, it can't be.
LSU: Yes, it is. Do us a solid, help us out, it costs you nothing.
Them: No..I don't think so. I don't care about it, so I can't see how you do. As for helping you out....eh, sounds like work. We'd probably have to write a memo or something. You understand the red-tape problems. Oh, by the way, don't forget to carry our banner and turn on TV sets and be crazy. The country loves crazy. So just stick to that, stop imagining that you care about things or have any history worth preserving, and don't call us again.
-
so, the Mississippi schools have to take one for the good of the conference
oh well, they could have been better the last 4 decades and had more pull, but............
-
I know it seems like the pods suck but remember there will still be lots and lots of games versus the rest of the conference.
I’m all for the pods as long as they are set up so that you play so many different teams in a 4 year period.
Imagine playing Bama, Texas, Ou, UF, UGa, Auburn, A&M often. I think the way I saw it is you play the entire conference every 4 years home and away. IMO this is the only way to do it. Better yet have a playoff between pods for the CCG that way nobody can duck a great team due to a schedule quirk.
That pod in particular really would suck for us. Like I said before, it's not playing UT, OU, and even the other refugees that I mind. That's actually kinda neat. But I'd gladly forego those games to be in a pod with some of our more long-standing partners. That probably includes A&M. While I didn't watch football as that came to a close, I'm plenty old enough to remember that it was a thing in my childhood. To me it's still new, but it does have an old feel, probably because I know a ton of old LSU fans who get worked up about A&M the same way they do about Ole Miss or Alabama.
OU/UT/LSU/ARK or Mizzou.....that would ensure that every year is the games I just don't care about, and I'm waiting half the time to see teams I do care about.
Don't let Cincy fool you, LSU/Ole Miss is a thing, they just don't have the clout to make anybody else care or recognize it. The Alabama schools probably come next for us. Most Alabama/Auburns fans I know feel the same way. LSU belongs in a tier below Tennessee/Auburn and Georgia/Alabama respectively, but we're generally next on the list. It's not only a recent thing either. I know any pod or division is almost certainly going to split us up, and I hate it, but there's nothing I can do about it. At the very least I'd like to see us in a pod with Ole Miss and A&M. That's not exactly asking a lot, except for the fact everyone else has to make adjustments to accommodate it, and that's not something I'd count on. Ole Miss would want to keep MSU, and it just dominoes from there.
The only excitement I could muster for UT to take the place of one of our current annuals is that I used to live there and have a lot of UT friends (and married a Hook'em....does that make her a hooker?). The paradigm of the thing itself....we've played them maybe 13 times, only two of which I can remember. OU? Even less. They beat us a in a bowl decades ago and then we edged them out in the Sugar/NC in a defensive slugfest, but even that was almost 20 years ago. Arkansas or Missouri......meh.
There won't be a perfect solution. I resign myself to trying to be happy if we get to play either A&M or Ole Miss annually.
-
That pod in particular really would suck for us. Like I said before, it's not playing UT, OU, and even the other refugees that I mind. That's actually kinda neat. But I'd gladly forego those games to be in a pod with some of our more long-standing partners. That probably includes A&M. While I didn't watch football as that came to a close, I'm plenty old enough to remember that it was a thing in my childhood. To me it's still new, but it does have an old feel, probably because I know a ton of old LSU fans who get worked up about A&M the same way they do about Ole Miss or Alabama.
OU/UT/LSU/ARK or Mizzou.....that would ensure that every year is the games I just don't care about, and I'm waiting half the time to see teams I do care about.
Don't let Cincy fool you, LSU/Ole Miss is a thing, they just don't have the clout to make anybody else care or recognize it. The Alabama schools probably come next for us. Most Alabama/Auburns fans I know feel the same way. LSU belongs in a tier below Tennessee/Auburn and Georgia/Alabama respectively, but we're generally next on the list. It's not only a recent thing either. I know any pod or division is almost certainly going to split us up, and I hate it, but there's nothing I can do about it. At the very least I'd like to see us in a pod with Ole Miss and A&M. That's not exactly asking a lot, except for the fact everyone else has to make adjustments to accommodate it, and that's not something I'd count on. Ole Miss would want to keep MSU, and it just dominoes from there.
The only excitement I could muster for UT to take the place of one of our current annuals is that I used to live there and have a lot of UT friends (and married a Hook'em....does that make her a hooker?). The paradigm of the thing itself....we've played them maybe 13 times, only two of which I can remember. OU? Even less. They beat us a in a bowl decades ago and then we edged them out in the Sugar/NC in a defensive slugfest, but even that was almost 20 years ago. Arkansas or Missouri......meh.
There won't be a perfect solution. I resign myself to trying to be happy if we get to play either A&M or Ole Miss annually.
Sheesh, pod talk not going away.
The divisional alignments with one perma x-div opponent (who is Alabama) would probably be the best for LSU, although they'd end up playing the OTHER SEC East teams even less than before. An SEC West of
LSU
Ole Miss
Miss State
Texas A&M
Arkansas
Mizzou
Oklahoma
Texas
That would preserve LSU-TAMU, LSU-Ole Miss, LSU-MSU, and if you set up Alabama as their x-div perma-rival, it settles that one as well.
Since Alabama would be in the East, they'd no longer need to use their perma x-div game to be Tennessee, as they'd be division-mates. And Auburn would also be in their division.
Georgia and Auburn would also be in the same division for the first time in decades.
-
That divisional alignment with one perma x-div rival is the best chance at preserving the most existing rivalries.
The main drawback of course, is that you rarely play the OTHER teams in the opposite division. But that's currently true of the SEC and B1G anyway.
-
it's what happens when conferences get too large
better to play the teams in your division EVERY season and develop and keep those rivalries than to water down the entire conference with pods or trying to play every team in the conference on a reg basis
-
That's probably as good as we could ask for. We'd lose Auburn in that scenario, and I think the fans would be pretty torn on who they'd rather keep out of the Alabama schools. One would definitely have to go though. As for never seeing the East schools...we don't see them very often anyway, sans Florida. I just hate for either Bama or Auburn to become one such school.
-
That's probably as good as we could ask for. We'd lose Auburn in that scenario, and I think the fans would be pretty torn on who they'd rather keep out of the Alabama schools. One would definitely have to go though. As for never seeing the East schools...we don't see them very often anyway, sans Florida. I just hate for either Bama or Auburn to become one such school.
I hear you. And I suspect the fans of the Mississippi schools feel similarly.
-
Where does Mizzou end up in divisions?
I had to read up on Baton Rouge history when writing my Book 3.
-
Where does Mizzou end up in divisions?
I had to read up on Baton Rouge history when writing my Book 3.
I think it makes the most sense to move Mizzou to the West, so you can move both Auburn and Alabama to the East.
Also, geographically, it makes sense for Mizzou to be in the West.
-
Here's the Divisions and x-div rivals I listed on the Pods/Divisions thread on the SEC board. You could change up the x-div rivals if there are some that make more sense, of course.
East West
Alabama LSU
Auburn Ole Miss
Georgia Miss State
Florida Texas A&M
Kentucky Arkansas
Vanderbilt Missouri
Tennessee Texas
South Carolina Oklahoma
-
looks like the SEC and the Big 12 to me
-
indeed
-
except ya swapped out the Mississippi schools for Okie St and Texas Tech
same same
-
Well it's also missing TCU and Baylor and ISU and KSU and KU and WVU.
-
Where does Mizzou end up in divisions?
I had to read up on Baton Rouge history when writing my Book 3.
I'm no help there. State history was 8th grade, and I got moved to GA for that, so I learned all about Georgia, and never about Louisiana. Formally, anyway. I've got some books I bought in my 20's because I felt like I missed out on something.
I still remember miscellaneous facts about GA from 8th grade. Don't know why. Maybe because I spent the whole year irked that I was forced to learn about a state I planned on leaving asap. Moved back to LA between 9th and 10th grade and resumed being a coonass. I thought it was a wasted 2 years at the time.
In retrospect, there was a fair bit to like about GA. Speaking as an old fart, the seasons were better. Macon had an actual fall and the leaves turned some nice colors. Also some nice hills, which I like. You don't get that around here.
It is where I uncovered the SEC family snob mentality, though. This was the earlyish 90's, LSU was pretty bad, my dad used to try to change the subject to baseball when people talked sports, LSU was dominating that at the time. But occasionally he'd encounter a Tech fan and roll his eyes and explain to me afterwards that "we" can abide UGA fans, because they're of our tribe, but Tech is just an SEC throwaway that played in a wuss conference, against wuss teams, and was in no way to be thought of in the same sense as UGA. In other words, if UGA give you grief, well, our home team is just going to have to do better, take your lumps and wait for fortune to turn. If a Tech fan yaps at you, they are not worthy, throat punch them if they don't shut up.
Well....okay, that's not what he said, but that seems to capture the overall gist.
-
I'd say the historical rivalries, aside fron the in state things like the Egg bowl, are:
Bama - Tenn
Auburn - UGA
UGA - UF
That's it. I'm not including matchups between teams that have been good of late, those are just important games, like LSU-UF.
Not Auburn-Alabama?
I think all the ones you listed would be preserved under a 2-divisional arrangement.
-
Here's the Divisions and x-div rivals I listed on the Pods/Divisions thread on the SEC board. You could change up the x-div rivals if there are some that make more sense, of course.
East West
Alabama LSU
Auburn Ole Miss
Georgia Miss State
Florida Texas A&M
Kentucky Arkansas
Vanderbilt Missouri
Tennessee Texas
South Carolina Oklahoma
South Carolina? Thanks for nothing.
-
I'm no help there. State history was 8th grade, and I got moved to GA for that, so I learned all about Georgia, and never about Louisiana. Formally, anyway. I've got some books I bought in my 20's because I felt like I missed out on something.
I got state history in the 9th grade, in Alabama.
I learned that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the Civil War.
My history teacher was a very nice lady. Just wrong.
-
Absolutely nothing?
I mean, I guess there's a case to be made that 10-15% of the Civil War wasn't about slavery--not sure how good of one--but not at all about slavery? That stretches credulity, even for Alabama public education.
-
IIRC, it was put this way. "The Civil War was about states' rights, not about slavery."
I used CFB MB license in posting "absolutely."
-
Lately I've had interest in reading some topic-specific history that references and cites original sources. It's been neat because I never thought much about how historians know history. I've learned a bit about their methodology, criteria for holding that historical documents are likely accurate and true, and found some of these documents online to read for myself.
There's been a few mild surprises in what historical sources actually say compared to what I remember learning in history books. Not anything major, like we covered up aliens or something. Just some things here and there that look like authors either didn't process the full scope of available material or else decided to skip over a few things.
In most cases. There are some things in widespread use out there that are egregious.
-
I got state history in the 9th grade, in Alabama.
I learned that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the Civil War.
My history teacher was a very nice lady. Just wrong.
In 7th grade I had a very nice teacher who was one of the ones that sticks out in my mind. In fact, she’s now the mayor in the next town over.
she told us “no matter what anybody tells you the civil war is not about slavery”
It was during this year that I really followed the presidential election. Mike Dukakis vs G Bush. We had to cut out political cartoons and such.
Next year in 8th grade our teacher, also a very nice lady who still sticks out in my mind said “ no matter what any body tells you the civil war IS about slavery”.
Talk about confused !
I finally realized that for some people, especially the aristocrats, it was a lot to do with slavery. I doubt the average southerner ever read the csa constitution but it certainly has a lot of slave related language.
I figure the average southerner was probably fighting for other reasons, a lot influenced by the aristocrats that ruled the day.
it’s really a shame though. Europeans imported slavery here at the genesis of our country and it took nearly 100 years and 100’s of thousands of lives to rid ourselves from it. And in some ways still paying the price.
-
(https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/by-default-2021-08-10-at-8.51.45-PM.jpg)
-
Lately I've had interest in reading some topic-specific history that references and cites original sources. It's been neat because I never thought much about how historians know history. I've learned a bit about their methodology, criteria for holding that historical documents are likely accurate and true, and found some of these documents online to read for myself.
There's been a few mild surprises in what historical sources actually say compared to what I remember learning in history books. Not anything major, like we covered up aliens or something. Just some things here and there that look like authors either didn't process the full scope of available material or else decided to skip over a few things.
In most cases. There are some things in widespread use out there that are egregious.
One of the key skills my students have to learn is to analyze primary-source documents for their content and their credibility.
You can't take any of them at face value except at great risk of misperceiving them.
They can be factually wrong on purpose. Or by accident. To see this in action, it's useful to read accounts from opposing commanders of the same piece of a battle--say, the fight for the Peach Orchard on 2 July 1863 at Gettysburg. They won't have the same time, the same actions, the same understanding of why the winner won and the loser lost, or even who the winner and loser were. And it's not because they were lying, necessarily, although it could be that. It's also that when they wrote their reports, their faulty human memories didn't remember it the way it was.
-
South Carolina? Thanks for nothing.
HA!
OK y'all can have Vandy then.
-
[img width=160.994 height=500]https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/by-default-2021-08-10-at-8.51.45-PM.jpg[/img]
Is that really an SI publication that put the horns-down? How... professional.
-
Life in the SEC. ;)
-
OU/USCe would pit Lincoln Riley vs Shane Beemer, assuming they are still there when time comes. OU vs Tenn would be OK. Riley vs Heupel. It is always good to kick orange buttocks.
-
Tenn-TX
OU-Bama
A&M - Auburn
UGA - Kansas State
UF - LSU
....
-
Life in the SEC. ;)
many times, the newbie in the conference draws the short straw
-
Tenn-TX
OU-Bama
A&M - Auburn
UGA - Kansas State
UF - LSU
....
Now you're just trolling MDT...
-
One of the key skills my students have to learn is to analyze primary-source documents for their content and their credibility.
You can't take any of them at face value except at great risk of misperceiving them.
They can be factually wrong on purpose. Or by accident. To see this in action, it's useful to read accounts from opposing commanders of the same piece of a battle--say, the fight for the Peach Orchard on 2 July 1863 at Gettysburg. They won't have the same time, the same actions, the same understanding of why the winner won and the loser lost, or even who the winner and loser were. And it's not because they were lying, necessarily, although it could be that. It's also that when they wrote their reports, their faulty human memories didn't remember it the way it was.
I haven't done a ton with anything recent enough to do something like that. I've been mainly interested in more ancient history to give me some more insights as part of an apologetics class I teach at my church. i.e., how well attested are the events of the New Testament compared to other accepted events of history, what parts do different scholars agree on and disagree on, and why, is the Christian origin story supported by any other historical texts that didn't wind up cannonized in the Bible, how much confidence is there that with no original manuscripts the copies we have are accurate....that kind of thing.
It's only tangentially related to what I started looking for, but there's a lot less corroboration to what "we" know about more ancient history (with any certainty) than I'd have guessed. What counts for rock-solid in number of sources is not as much as I'd have thought. There's not that many primary sources to consult. I would assume that the number of primary sources (or copies) increases as events get more recent. But I dunno.
I've got some books in my cue that get into American history, which is obviously more recent. Should be interesting, I hope.
-
I haven't done a ton with anything recent enough to do something like that. I've been mainly interested in more ancient history to give me some more insights as part of an apologetics class I teach at my church. i.e., how well attested are the events of the New Testament compared to other accepted events of history, what parts do different scholars agree on and disagree on, and why, is the Christian origin story supported by any other historical texts that didn't wind up cannonized in the Bible, how much confidence is there that with no original manuscripts the copies we have are accurate....that kind of thing.
It's only tangentially related to what I started looking for, but there's a lot less corroboration to what "we" know about more ancient history (with any certainty) than I'd have guessed. What counts for rock-solid in number of sources is not as much as I'd have thought. There's not that many primary sources to consult. I would assume that the number of primary sources (or copies) increases as events get more recent. But I dunno.
I've got some books in my cue that get into American history, which is obviously more recent. Should be interesting, I hope.
Not my specialty at all. I reckon you get into Josephus as one of your sources.
Tangentially, I took a class at OU called History of Ancient Israel, and it was cross-listed as a history class, a religion class, and a (IIRC) philosophy class. We had an academic textbook and we had the Bible. The translation that the instructor, who was a Jewish Rabbi, urged us to get was the Jerusalem Bible, which was a modern translation sponsored by the Catholic Church. He said that it was the one most faithful to the original texts available in modern-day English. He was only talking about the Old Testament. He offered no opinion on the NT, and we didn't get into it in the course.
This was ca. 1975, and there has been a New Jerusalem Bible out for quite a few years. I still have my original one, though.
-
Not my specialty at all. I reckon you get into Josephus as one of your sources.
Tangentially, I took a class at OU called History of Ancient Israel, and it was cross-listed as a history class, a religion class, and a (IIRC) philosophy class. We had an academic textbook and we had the Bible. The translation that the instructor, who was a Jewish Rabbi, urged us to get was the Jerusalem Bible, which was a modern translation sponsored by the Catholic Church. He said that it was the one most faithful to the original texts available in modern-day English. He was only talking about the Old Testament. He offered no opinion on the NT, and we didn't get into it in the course.
This was ca. 1975, and there has been a New Jerusalem Bible out for quite a few years. I still have my original one, though.
Josephus and a small handful of others. There just aren't that many, as far as I can tell. But fortunately they did write pretty extensively.
My $0.02 on Bible translations, and take it for the sticker price....due to the massive differences not only between modern English and ancient Hebrew, but also between the mindset and perceptual framework of the OT authors and modern westerners attempting to translate and read, it renders the question of which Bible is "closest" somewhat moot. Somewhat, I say. Some differences are dependent on the purpose of the translation itself, which is a valid variable, and other times differences depend on where on the spectrum from completely literal to completely idea-conveying the translation team settles. There's always a tradeoff between the two out of necessity, and the question of which end of that spectrum is best is not obvious either, which is why different versions begin with the goal of where on that line they aim for.
It's not as boring to learn about as it probably sounds, at least to me. Anyway, I don't doubt that the Jerusalem Bible nails some given translation ethos better than other versions, the paradigm of which the Rabbi may have deemed important or interesting, or both.
-
It's not boring to me either, MDT.
-
Holy Schnikies yes it's boring. Take it to "C-Dubb's Thread of Painfully Boring History Crap" or something.
This thread is for rivalry talk. It's 2:47 PM and ou still sucks!
And you may not be a rival yet, Tigers, but we've got our eyes on you.
-
Infidel.
-
Philistine.
-
It would be neat to somehow "know" what happened back when a compare with "histories" known today.
-
2013 Bedlam, in Stillwater. Last 1:46 in the game.
FoSu announcers on the call.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wtcHbcZFx0&t=349s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wtcHbcZFx0&t=349s)
-
That's fun!
So is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCVnrPRIRPI&t=15s
-
I remember watching that game. A real nail-biter no matter which team was your rooting interest.
-
Best part about that game was it really allowed us to dump Sherman. Great talent evaluator, great guy, but horrible game day coach.
-
Best part about that game was it really allowed us to dump Sherman. Great talent evaluator, great guy, but horrible game day coach.
On that subject, my brother and I were at the OU @ A&M game in 2006. OU was 6-2, A&M was 8-1. OU made a 4th-down conversion late in the game and preserved a 17-16 win. A lot of Aggie fans told us on the way out that Stoops had outcoached Franchione, and that they wanted a new head coach.
For myself, I didn't think that Stoops coached all that well in that game. After OU went up 14-3, he made what I thought was an ill-advised decision to try an onside kick. I said it was a bad call even before the kickoff, which failed. My brother thought it had been a good decision even after it had failed. A&M used the momentum boost and the short field to score a quick TD to make it 14-10. After that, it was just a grinding stalemate, where any mistake might be critical.
On the other hand, I thought that we should have punted (we were at our own 29) rather than try to convert the 4th-down play. My brother disagreed again, and this time it worked for OU. I think that we converted on the play, but A&M was called for a personal foul and we took the penalty. IMO, had we not gone for the onside kick, I don't think that the game would have come down to having to make a crucial call on 4th down.
So Franchione got fired after the following season, and you guys got Sherman.
-
I really thought Franchione was going to be a very good coach at A&M. Shows what I know about coaching potential, I suppose.
-
On that subject, my brother and I were at the OU @ A&M game in 2006. OU was 6-2, A&M was 8-1. OU made a 4th-down conversion late in the game and preserved a 17-16 win. A lot of Aggie fans told us on the way out that Stoops had outcoached Franchione, and that they wanted a new head coach.
For myself, I didn't think that Stoops coached all that well in that game. After OU went up 14-3, he made what I thought was an ill-advised decision to try an onside kick. I said it was a bad call even before the kickoff, which failed. My brother thought it had been a good decision even after it had failed. A&M used the momentum boost and the short field to score a quick TD to make it 14-10. After that, it was just a grinding stalemate, where any mistake might be critical.
On the other hand, I thought that we should have punted (we were at our own 29) rather than try to convert the 4th-down play. My brother disagreed again, and this time it worked for OU. I think that we converted on the play, but A&M was called for a personal foul and we took the penalty. IMO, had we not gone for the onside kick, I don't think that the game would have come down to having to make a crucial call on 4th down.
So Franchione got fired after the following season, and you guys got Sherman.
I remember that game because we were basically two or three plays from winning the division. OU being one game, the other escapes my memory.
we had a big full back, his name escapes me but this guy was unstoppable in short yardage goal line situations. It was like 4th and one or some such. Maybe 4th and goal. Instead of going to your go to guy Fran got cute and of course we got stuffed short. Many fans were very angry and rightfully so. He misused one of the best QBs ever go set foot on campus in Reggie McNeal and set all time records for losing. Horrible, horrible coach.
-
It was bugging me so I looked it up. It was Jorvorskie Lane. 19 TDs on the season, mostly short yardage situations. Dude was a beast.
We lost to Tech 27-31. OU 16-17. And Nebraska 27-28. Of course we got Devi aged by Cal in the Holiday bowl by a guy known for beast mode, Marshawn Lynch. One of several embarrassing bowl games under Fran.
-
Jorvorskie Lane was a beast. Pretty much a guaranteed TD in short goalline situations.
-
It was bugging me so I looked it up. It was Jorvorskie Lane. 19 TDs on the season, mostly short yardage situations. Dude was a beast.
We lost to Tech 27-31. OU 16-17. And Nebraska 27-28. Of course we got Devi aged by Cal in the Holiday bowl by a guy known for beast mode, Marshawn Lynch. One of several embarrassing bowl games under Fran.
I remember Jorvorskie Lane.
Maybe thinking of him is what made Stoops decide to go for it on 4th down from the OU 29.
-
I remember Javorskie Lane as well. I couldn't believe they stopped feeding him the ball because OU had no answer for him.
-
I really thought Franchione was going to be a very good coach at A&M. Shows what I know about coaching potential, I suppose.
I thought John Blake was going to be good for OU. I no longer have any confidence in my judgement about coaches.
-
I thought John Blake was going to be good for OU. I no longer have any confidence in my judgement about coaches.
I have a lot of doubts about Sarkisian, so hopefully my terrible track record of evaluation of coaching potential continues.
-
I have a lot of doubts about Sarkisian, so hopefully my terrible track record of evaluation of coaching potential continues.
He carries himself well in front of the press
just hope he can walk the walk
-
If I had to make a rationale for trusting Sark in the absence of no actual games played, I'd point to the ease in which some of the most respected and most ensconced assistant coaches and coordinators in the business left their gigs to make a usually lateral move to join him.
Kyle Flood, Bo Davis, and in particular Pete Kwiatkowski had no reason to leave their former jobs on a whim. They clearly feel Sark taking the reins at Texas is a special moment.
One wonders how many times this particular Texas fan is going to rationalize yet another program overhaul. However, I'm spending much less time explaining, "Well I know it looks bad, but if you see this angle and squint really carefully..." than I have with the priors.
-
I really thought Franchione was going to be a very good coach at A&M. Shows what I know about coaching potential, I suppose.
I really thought Herman was going to be a very good coach at UT. Shows what I know too.
-
I really thought Herman was going to be a very good coach at UT. Shows what I know too.
Sad times these are for Longhorn fans, both open and closeted. ;)
Sucking sucks.
-
I'm a fan of a few Longhorn fans, wife included, does that count?
-
Sure... sure.... you can tell yourself that if it makes it easier for you...
-
We gotta recall the disaster that was Steve Patterson.
Obviously, Mack "left" and took DeLoss with him. Things weren't exactly rosy then. Steve Patterson did the one thing that the University of Texas athletic director has NO BUSINESS ever doing - he cut costs. Money is something that happens to other people.
I believe Charlie Strong was learning the job. He was, though, continuously undercut by his AD who wanted to look for cheap assistants and support staff. His hand was forced when, after losing to Kansas, it became obvious that Texas alumnus Tom Herman was going to be hired by some big program. We had an interim AD, doing the best he could, who made the play for Herman. Herman had the right pedigree but no experience. He might learn the job one day, but this is not that day. Men with money decided to pay 8 figures for him to leave.
I see Sark as a man who made Herman's mistakes already. He thought he knew it all and couldn't fail. He publicly self-destructed, lost it all, and had to be honest about whether or not he wanted to get it back. He decided he did, worked on himself first, then took humbling jobs in the game until Saban accepted him.
I believe in Sark not because he's been successful, but rather because of how spectacularly he failed. He absolutely has the skills. His work with Alabama and abilities to hire assistants prove that. He knows the pressure that's coming, and he's looking forward to it.
-
Strong's main problem to me was that his teams were not ready to play the game
he had the worst special teams Ive ever seen at UT
We even played a game where do to our unpreparedness kicked off at both the beg of the game and the start of the 3rd quarter
-
Wasn’t there some kind of coin toss miscue in there too?
Charlie Strong was a spectacular failure in every way. I have no idea how his previous teams were so successful.
I don’t care who the coach is, every situation is different and there are lots of little pieces that can either make or break a coach. Sometimes it can simply be the culture of the team they inherit. I wish more players would speak out from previous years and coaching regimes.
-
Wasn’t there some kind of coin toss miscue in there too?
Charlie Strong was a spectacular failure in every way. I have no idea how his previous teams were so successful.
I don’t care who the coach is, every situation is different and there are lots of little pieces that can either make or break a coach. Sometimes it can simply be the culture of the team they inherit. I wish more players would speak out from previous years and coaching regimes.
yes that is what I was referring to
they won the toss and they deferred and we should have said we wanted the ball but instead said something like which goal we wanted to defend or something like that
-
Much like Herman, Strong's record was that of exceeding expectations at a modestly mid-level program. He had likewise been a coordinator at a very successful high level program. The hope was that he'd absorbed enough to be ready to take the head job at Texas.
The reality is that there's no way to be ready for that. There's going to be a learning curve. Strong was making mistakes, but seemed to be learning. He still had command of the locker room. I reiterate that he was hampered by an inexplicable and unforgivable bout of penny pinching by what can only be called an insane, clueless AD.
I don't blame Texas for moving on from him and Patterson. While I think Strong was learning, no one wanted to wait. Herman, on the other hand, I'm not sure how long it was going to take him to get an education.
I see Sark as already had his "Herman" moment spectacularly. He stood on top of the pile, demanded adulation, and ended up being left at the airport. He didn't have to get back up. He chose to. Really, I believe in him not because of how well he did with Alabama, but by how badly he failed. He knows what failure looks like, and how that path goes.
-
Strong fielded the worst defenses in Texas history. That's really all that needs to be said about him. It was embarrassing how poorly coached and unprepared his teams looked. That his teams were consistently destroyed while having incredible talents like D'Onta Foreman, is just inexplicable and inexcusable. He was in way over his head and no amount of on-the-job training was ever going to improve. I normally think you have to give a coach at least 4 years, but honestly he probably should have been let go after 2. We'd seen everything we needed to see at that point.
I certainly agree that Steve Patterson made a terrible impact to the program, there's no denying that.
-
Strong fielded the worst defenses in Texas history. That's really all that needs to be said about him. It was embarrassing how poorly coached and unprepared his teams looked. That his teams were consistently destroyed while having incredible talents like D'Onta Foreman, is just inexplicable and inexcusable. He was in way over his head and no amount of on-the-job training was ever going to improve. I normally think you have to give a coach at least 4 years, but honestly he probably should have been let go after 2. We'd seen everything we needed to see at that point.
I certainly agree that Steve Patterson made a terrible impact to the program, there's no denying that.
Completely agree.
I have a loosely held belief that a coach at a top 25 program is probably all he’s ever going to be in 3 years. Now that’s not to say that if they don’t win the CFP in 3 years they never will. I’m more referring to being a top 5 program competing for a MNC or a 10-25 type program sitting at that 8-9 win range, or a 5-7 win kind of guy who makes the same mistakes year after year. Like Fran or Strong.
This belief changes somewhat the further down the program ladder you go because there are some programs that are in such a deep hole not even the best coaches could raise their profile that fast and some of these have a natural ceiling. Texas Tech, oSu, etc.
But for the helmet schools and the near helmets there is plenty of evidence to back up my 3 year rule. Bob Stoops at OU. Saban at Bama. Strong at UT. Zoom at UF. Fisher at FSU.
The outlier I can think of is possibly Mack Brown at Texas because it took him 7 years to win a conference championship and MNC but I’m fairly certain he was finishing in the top ten and possibly the top 5 during that span.
-
It took Darrell Royal 5 years to field a championship team
so ya just never know
-
Texas lost to KU. That's an indefensible fact right there.
I'm arguing that laying all the blame right at Charlie Strong is to ignore some issues that were out of his control. However, this is a results based business, and the results were unacceptable. Herman being available and a Texas kid forced the issue.
Mack's Texas teams sort of fell into the "Georgia" problem. Anywhere else, and the talent of Mack's earlier teams would be winning hardware. He just fell in the same division as OU who routinely did just a little better. As a result, Texas constantly came in 2nd.
Like I said, results based business.
-
The Georgia problem? Who else is in UGA's division that you can say "if they weren't stuck with them, they'd have a lot more to show for their seasons?" The only acceptable answer is Florida, and Florida hasn't been Florida in a long time. They certainly don't have the raw materials that UGA does at this point. There's not a great answer for UGA, other than maybe Smart is what he is. Time will tell, but it already has to some extent.
-
The Georgia problem is recruiting numbers at the very elite level and on field performance that has been just short, or more than just short, often as not. Fromm had a very good freshman year and seemed to regress, though part of that was loss of weapons and OL. Then they lose to Bama when it counts, several times.
They are fortunate to have what in effect is a one game conference schedule.
-
I think not watching much football and having nobody to talk about it with skewed my perception. Starting in Smart's second year, I see the Bulldogs won their division 3 years in a row, and only stopped last year, in a year that was literally a throwaway season (just don't tell rtf4 that).
I'm revising my previous sentiment on Smart. After his first year he won 13, 11, and 12 games consecutively, and then still won 8 of 10 games in a shortened season last year where everything was upside down, though without winning the division. That's not a coach I'd be inclined to part ways with anytime soon, or even criticize much.
I am ashamed I had to look up who UGA played in the 2019 SECCG. I really gotta start paying more attention.
Anyway, it looks like the occasional meeting with Alabama and LSU is UGA's only impediment. Struggling with Alabama is not a black mark, everybody does right now. UGA just has the misfortune of running into LSU when LSU is having good years, and when LSU is good it's not a strike to lose to them either. A Tigers team without Burrow doesn't beat UGA, it's bad luck that his two years coincide with the Bulldogs playing them, not a failing of Kirby.
-
I think not watching much football and having nobody to talk about it with skewed my perception. Starting in Smart's second year, I see the Bulldogs won their division 3 years in a row, and only stopped last year, in a year that was literally a throwaway season (just don't tell rtf4 that).
I'm revising my previous sentiment on Smart. After his first year he won 13, 11, and 12 games consecutively, and then still won 8 of 10 games in a shortened season last year where everything was upside down, though without winning the division. That's not a coach I'd be inclined to part ways with anytime soon, or even criticize much.
I am ashamed I had to look up who UGA played in the 2019 SECCG. I really gotta start paying more attention.
Anyway, it looks like the occasional meeting with Alabama and LSU is UGA's only impediment. Struggling with Alabama is not a black mark, everybody does right now. UGA just has the misfortune of running into LSU when LSU is having good years, and when LSU is good it's not a strike to lose to them either. A Tigers team without Burrow doesn't beat UGA, it's bad luck that his two years coincide with the Bulldogs playing them, not a failing of Kirby.
^^^^^
All of which, I think is basically droog's point. Texas had many excellent seasons under Mack Brown between 1998 and 2009. Good enough to win a lot of other conferences. Just not quite as good as OU over the same time period.
People like to poopoo the B12 now, but from 1996 to 2009, it was a very good conference, and from 2000-2009, the B12 South was arguably the best division in all of college football.
-
UGA has "almost" beat Bama several times of late, which works with hand grenades and nuclear weapons.
Burrow was on a different level of play that year.
-
There is one thing about Mack Brown’s tenure at Texas that sorta disputes the fallacy that it was just unlucky to be in a division with OU and Bob Stoops.
Several times Texas slipped by OU, either on the field or by luck like in 2001 when Les Miles and oSu beat OU. UT went to the ccg in 2001, lost to CU in a rematch. Beat OU h2h in 2006, lost to a very mediocre A&M team in Austin. Bear OU in 08, lost to Tex Tech and leach and resulted in the infamous 3 way tie. There may be another season or two in there where Mack should have went to or won the ccg but didn’t and he lost to a much lesser opponent in doing so.
-
It took Darrell Royal 5 years to field a championship team
so ya just never know
9-2 in year 3, SWC co-champs.
-
There is one thing about Mack Brown’s tenure at Texas that sorta disputes the fallacy that it was just unlucky to be in a division with OU and Bob Stoops.
Several times Texas slipped by OU, either on the field or by luck like in 2001 when Les Miles and oSu beat OU. UT went to the ccg in 2001, lost to CU in a rematch. Beat OU h2h in 2006, lost to a very mediocre A&M team in Austin. Bear OU in 08, lost to Tex Tech and leach and resulted in the infamous 3 way tie. There may be another season or two in there where Mack should have went to or won the ccg but didn’t and he lost to a much lesser opponent in doing so.
Ha! I love how even when a Longhorn is making a point about always losing to OU, an Aggie has to come along and still try to take us t-sips down another peg or two. Just such a classically aggie thing to do.
Don't ever change, ags!
This joining the SEC and getting to play the ags again thing, is gon' be FUN! :)
-
don't forget the CCG in San San antone in 1999
-
It took Darrell Royal 5 years to field a championship team
so ya just never know
that was a different time, different world
Osborne hung on for a decade while only upsetting the Sooners once in 78
-
Ha! I love how even when a Longhorn is making a point about always losing to OU, an Aggie has to come along and still try to take us t-sips down another peg or two. Just such a classically aggie thing to do.
Don't ever change, ags!
This joining the SEC and getting to play the ags again thing, is gon' be FUN! :)
Well don’t get me wrong, it was a helluva run, and I would trade places with those records and near misses in a heart beat. And Brown did bag a BCS championship in 2005 thanks to VY and co and then had the opportunity to play for another, so for 95% of the programs out there you can’t ask for more than that.
But still, to blame Stoops for not bringing home a little more hardware is a bit of a fallacy, because Mack should have won at least 3 more by my count.
-
that was a different time, different world
Osborne hung on for a decade while only upsetting the Sooners once in 78
sure wish we could go back to it
-
don't forget the CCG in San San antone in 1999
Yeah but that was before there was really a Brown-Stoops thing to even mention. Horns beat OU but were a mediocre 9-5 at the end of that year.
-
Well don’t get me wrong, it was a helluva run, and I would trade places with those records and near misses in a heart beat. And Brown did bag a BCS championship in 2005 thanks to VY and co and then had the opportunity to play for another, so for 95% of the programs out there you can’t ask for more than that.
But still, to blame Stoops for not bringing home a little more hardware is a bit of a fallacy, because Mack should have won at least 3 more by my count.
You just keep proving my point. Like I said, don't ever change, ags. :)
-
Well don’t get me wrong, it was a helluva run, and I would trade places with those records and near misses in a heart beat. And Brown did bag a BCS championship in 2005 thanks to VY and co and then had the opportunity to play for another, so for 95% of the programs out there you can’t ask for more than that.
But still, to blame Stoops for not bringing home a little more hardware is a bit of a fallacy, because Mack should have won at least 3 more by my count.
funny coming from an aggie
-
don't forget the CCG in San San antone in 1999
But it does make me wonder, how many times in major college football (which I'll limit to the current P5 conferences), has a team lost the conference championship in a rematch against a team they'd previously beaten?
For Texas it has happened thrice.
1999:
W Texas 24 Nebraska 20
L Texas 6 Nebraska 22 (B12 CCG)
2001:
WTexas 41 Colorado 7
L Texas 27 Colorado 29 (B12 CCG)
2018
W Texas 48 Oklahoma 45
L Texas 27 Oklahoma 39 (B12 CCG)
Some painful stuff right there. I wonder what other teams have experienced it, and how often?
-
The Horns have also beaten a team a second time, in a CCG rematch. That happened with Texas-Colorado in 2005, with a 42-17 regular season win, and then that 70-3 beatdown Vince & Co. laid down on Ralphie in the CCG, was glorious. I was at that game, just spectacular.
The Horns have never done the opposite, though. We've never WON a CCG rematch, where we had previously lost the earlier regular season matchup. We've never been paired up with a team that we've previously lost to, in fact.
-
The Horns have also beaten a team a second time, in a CCG rematch. That happened with Texas-Colorado in 2005, with a 42-17 regular season win, and then that 70-3 beatdown Vince & Co. laid down on Ralphie in the CCG, was glorious. I was at that game, just spectacular.
The Horns have never done the opposite, though. We've never WON a CCG rematch, where we had previously lost the earlier regular season matchup. We've never been paired up with a team that we've previously lost to, in fact.
I was at that game nice
-
one of the issues with the Big 12, was the number of upsets in the CCG that hurt their chances to crown a national champ or have a very highly ranked nationally respected team
don't think it's happened as many times as any other conference
-
I was at that game nice
I almost felt sorry for them beefaloes. Almost.
Then I remembered 2001. And 1990.
And my gleeful hysteria returned.
I was a little angry when they pulled Vince after the first drive of the second half. We could have hit 100 that day.
-
This talk about evaluating a pick for a coach had me thinking.
Nick Saban didn't look like so much prior to going to LSU. Sure didn't look like he would be the GOAT. It seems he really taught himself how to build a program.
Bob Stoops looked like a solid, not spectacular choice. In retrospect, even though he was a DC, he learned how to build a program from Snyder and Spurrier. Then he latched onto assistants trained by Snyder: Mangino, Venables, Mike Stoops. Coaches who were taught how to develop low rated players.
Herman had mentored under a great HC, but he never really had to develop low rated players at tOSU.
I have no idea how to evaluate Sarkisian. Mentoring under Saban has to be a plus as far as program building and he had great offenses but it is hard to tell how much was due to coaching and how much was due the the talent.
-
This talk about evaluating a pick for a coach had me thinking.
Nick Saban didn't look like so much prior to going to LSU. Sure didn't look like he would be the GOAT. It seems he really taught himself how to build a program.
Bob Stoops looked like a solid, not spectacular choice. In retrospect, even though he was a DC, he learned how to build a program from Snyder and Spurrier. Then he latched onto assistants trained by Snyder: Mangino, Venables, Mike Stoops. Coaches who were taught how to develop low rated players.
Herman had mentored under a great HC, but he never really had to develop low rated players at tOSU.
I have no idea how to evaluate Sarkisian. Mentoring under Saban has to be a plus as far as program building and he had great offenses but it is hard to tell how much was due to coaching and how much was due the the talent.
Herman tried to be a take-charge, alpha boss by reading a book on being a tough boss. He saw Urban Meyer do it, so he thought that was the way to go.
Urban Meyer acted like a gruff jerk because Urban Meyer is a gruff jerk. It works for him. His players respect it and respond to it. It isn't personal. Herman wasn't that guy. When he tried it, he was immediately unlikeable. Every company in America is crammed with middle-managers trying the same trick. They're embarrassing.
If Stoops had one advantage over Mack (and most others), it's that he knew risk. When the game was in doubt, he knew how to risk a loss in order to maximize winning. Sooner fans will point out a billion times when it didn't work out (and they're right), but he got skins on the wall because he would take those risks. Mack favored not losing. Herman, frankly, took it to the extreme and shut down whenever he took the lead.
-
This talk about evaluating a pick for a coach had me thinking.
Nick Saban didn't look like so much prior to going to LSU. Sure didn't look like he would be the GOAT. It seems he really taught himself how to build a program.
Bob Stoops looked like a solid, not spectacular choice. In retrospect, even though he was a DC, he learned how to build a program from Snyder and Spurrier. Then he latched onto assistants trained by Snyder: Mangino, Venables, Mike Stoops. Coaches who were taught how to develop low rated players.
Herman had mentored under a great HC, but he never really had to develop low rated players at tOSU.
I have no idea how to evaluate Sarkisian. Mentoring under Saban has to be a plus as far as program building and he had great offenses but it is hard to tell how much was due to coaching and how much was due the the talent.
Saban figured out that going to a place that was easy to get great recruits
Stoops came from a coach's family and came up through the system under many great coaches and then went to a place that was easy to recruit great players
Hermann had low rated players in Austin??? whaaaaat?
-
Well he didn't have Alabama or tOSU level talent, but he sure had better than Maryland level talent.
-
There is one thing about Mack Brown’s tenure at Texas that sorta disputes the fallacy that it was just unlucky to be in a division with OU and Bob Stoops.
Several times Texas slipped by OU, either on the field or by luck like in 2001 when Les Miles and oSu beat OU. UT went to the ccg in 2001, lost to CU in a rematch. Beat OU h2h in 2006, lost to a very mediocre A&M team in Austin. Bear OU in 08, lost to Tex Tech and leach and resulted in the infamous 3 way tie. There may be another season or two in there where Mack should have went to or won the ccg but didn’t and he lost to a much lesser opponent in doing so.
Agree and disagree.
I disagree in the sense that Texas "should" have done better at any particular one of those things. That's like saying breaks don't factor into a team's season and luck plays no part. That's obviously false. "Should" Texas have beaten Tech in 2008? Sure, in a macroscopic sense, but in the real world you're not at the top of your game 100% of the time and we know that something is likely to bite you somewhere. Alabama is on a historic run--the likes of which any other helmet team can no longer come close to comparing themselves--and they have one undefeated season to show for it (two, if you count last season, which I don't, because again....complete throwaway season where every team in the country lived in the Upside Down).
I agree in the sense that Texas had a specific problem with OU over the long term. They "should" have done better overall against the Sooners. You can't control a specific bad outcome in a given season, but overall you do control, year to year, your performance against a particular team you know stands in your way. No reason Texas should've had some of those embarrassing losses to OU, and without some of those Texas does claim more conference hardware, possibly national too.
-
The Horns have also beaten a team a second time, in a CCG rematch. That happened with Texas-Colorado in 2005, with a 42-17 regular season win, and then that 70-3 beatdown Vince & Co. laid down on Ralphie in the CCG, was glorious. I was at that game, just spectacular.
I was at the regular season 2005 UT/CU game. First Texas game I attended, I believe. VY set a school record for passing efficiency that day, iirc. Something like 19/21 completions. Or maybe it was completion %. I remember there was some school record he set that day.
-
Some painful stuff right there. I wonder what other teams have experienced it, and how often?
Off the top of my head, it happened to Auburn a couple years ago. They beat UGA regular season--really smoked them--and them got beat just as badly, if not worse, by UGA in the SEC CG. 2017, I'm thinking.
The one I'd guess most painful is Tennessee and LSU, 2001. The Vols had won an NC just a couple seasons previous and were on a roll, had finally licked their Florida problem that year, and handily defeated LSU in the process. A rematch with an emerging but still not elite LSU was all that stood in the way of going to the Orange Bowl to play Miami for an NC. Their fans all brought oranges to Atlanta. And then for good measure, LSU's starting QB Rohan Davey got hurt in the game. This sent a backup named Mauck in, whose mobility was not something UTenn had prepared for, and a running QB was a novelty in a Fisher type offense back in those days. There's no doubt in my mind Tennessee was the better team that year, but LSU stunned them and got to go to the Sugar Bowl, knocking TN out of the Orange in the process. Heard more than one of their fans tell me that one really hurt.
-
Rematches are won twice in the main, something like 75% of the time in CFB. UGA played Auburn at Auburn and made mistake after mistake, it happens, I had a feeling they would rip them a new one in the CG. That was the last really good UGA team, I think, the one's since have been decent but flawed, usually on offense. Well, always on offense.
-
I agree in the sense that Texas had a specific problem with OU over the long term. They "should" have done better overall against the Sooners. You can't control a specific bad outcome in a given season, but overall you do control, year to year, your performance against a particular team you know stands in your way. No reason Texas should've had some of those embarrassing losses to OU, and without some of those Texas does claim more conference hardware, possibly national too.
From a Sooner perspective, it seems like--if anything-- we should have beaten Texas more over the last 22 years (from 1999--Stoops' 1st season--to the present).
1999: #23 Texas, 4-2, beat NR OU, 3-1, 38-28.
2000: #10 OU, 4-0, beat #11 Texas, 63-14.
2001: #3 OU, 4-0, beat #5 Texas, 4-0, 14-3.
2002: #2 OU, 5-0, beat #3 Texas, 35-24.
2003: #1 OU. 5-0, beat #11 Texas, 4-1, 65-13.
2004: #2 OU, 4-0, beat #5 Texas, 4-0, 12-0.
2005: #2 Texas, 4-0, beat NR OU, 2-2, 45-12.
2006: #7 Texas, 4-1, beat #14 OU, 3-1, 28-10.
2007: #10 OU, 4-1, beat #19 Texas, 4-1, 28-21.
2008: #5 Texas, 5-0, beat #1 OU, 5-0, 45-35.
2009: #3 Texas, 5-0, beat #20 OU, 3-2, 16-13.
2010: #8 OU, 4-0, beat #21 Texas, 3-1, 28-20.
2011: #3 OU, 4-0, beat #11 Texas, 4-0, 55-17.
2012: #13 OU, 3-1, beat #15 Texas, 4-1, 63-21.
2013: NR Texas, 3-2, beat #12 OU, 5-0, 36-20. Mack Brown got an easy win in his last season to finish 6-9 vs. Bob Stoops.
2014: #11 OU, 4-1, beat NR Texas, 31-26.
2015: NR Texas, 1-4, beat #10 OU, 4-0, 24-17. Bob Stoops managed to lose to Charlie Strong's bad Texas team.
2016: #20 OU, 2-2, beat NR Texas, 2-2, 45-40.
2017: #12 OU, 4-1, beat NR Texas, 3-2, 29-24.
2018: #19 Texas, 4-1, beat #7 OU, 5-0, 48-45.
2018 CCG: #5 OU, 11-1, beat #19 Texas, 9-3, 37-27.
2019: #6 OU, 5-0, beat #11 Texas, 4-1, 34-27.
2020: NR OU, 1-2, beat #22 Texas, 2-1, 53-45 4OT.
OU's 15-8 W-L lead over this period is a little misleading for two reasons. Those blowout wins in 2000, 2003, 2011, and 2012 made things seem worse than they were. (And people tend to forget Texas' blowout win in 2005, which I think was the Horns' biggest in the series.) Bob was 8-5 vs. Mack at that point, yet it seemed to many that he was doing much better than that.
The second reason is that, while OU has gone 7-3 since then, the games have nearly all been tough ones. The biggest win was Texas 36-20 victory over an OU team that had beaten Notre Dame in South Bend and went on to beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. To OU fans, it seems like we have had the significantly better team nearly every year in this second period, and yet we have struggled to pull out victories in games that very easily could have gone the other way.
All of the "upsets" except for last year were won by Texas.
-
Wow a sooner thinks the sooners deserve to win more. This is almost as shocking as the news that Nick Saban thinks Alabama deserves to be in the CFP more often. More breakings news at 11.
-
the Sooners think that "magic" should get them wins even when the opponent is better
probably the fault of the Cornhuskers
-
Wow a sooner thinks the sooners deserve to win more. This is almost as shocking as the news that Nick Saban thinks Alabama deserves to be in the CFP more often. More breakings news at 11.
Heh! "Deserve" has nothing to do with it, as you well know.
-
the Sooners think that "magic" should get them wins even when the opponent is better
probably the fault of the Cornhuskers
Isn't everything?
-
We've all noted how back in the day, a good season one could relish was 11-1 with a major bowl win and top five finish.
Now for "elite teams", it's NC or bust. One can count how many of those there are today, but it's 6-7-8-9 or so, and they can't all win it duh.
Obviously Clemson/Bama/OSU sort of headling that group, and OU is not far behind, and I know UGA fans are desparate. And I don't mean the usual insane fans either.
-
We've all noted how back in the day, a good season one could relish was 11-1 with a major bowl win and top five finish.
Now for "elite teams", it's NC or bust. One can count how many of those there are today, but it's 6-7-8-9 or so, and they can't all win it duh.
Obviously Clemson/Bama/OSU sort of headling that group, and OU is not far behind, and I know UGA fans are desparate. And I don't mean the usual insane fans either.
I hate the way college football has gone down this path. I've often cited the nationalization of the sport and the cynical 24/7 sports news cycle as major driving factors.
I also think the generational attitude shifts toward shorter attention spans and "what-have-you-done-for-me-lately" mindsets contribute to the problem.
-
I never had a problem with the bowls & polls. I really liked the bowl tie-ins with the conference champs and miss the traditions it created. It also kept recruiting more regional.
Now it creates a creates a cycle where the top teams get the top recruits and makes it ever harder for a team to ascend to that top rank. Anyhow, that is what we have and I am just going to enjoy the games and not fret about it. There will be some fine football in the Big 12 this year and I'm going to savor the moments.
-
Exactly. Just gotta enjoy what we have, while we have it.
I highly doubt that in 20 years there will be anything left that resembles the college football game we have right now. Maybe a lot sooner than that.
-
I agree. I've cut down on sports I follow to CFB, some women's softball, and disc golf. Disc golf has been free from ESPN until recently when some of the events are picked up on ESPN+.
I have been turning off most TV streaming in the off season. Anymore to get live sports it is too much like cable. The only real advantage is not having a contract. This season I'm trying Vidgo. It is cheaper than Hulu or Youtube TV and has more sports channels. It doesn't have CBS or NBC but I get CBS sports with my Paramount + subscription ($50/year). It does have the SEC, ACC, B1G, and PAC 12 networks along with LHN and NFL networks as well as the ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, Fox Sports, FS1 and FS channels. It doesn't have a DVR but I don't need that. With tax & all it costs me $330/yr.
-
I've gotten readdicated to Da Braves because of playing in their fantasy baseball camp every January. Our "cable" is satellite and included in the HOA so I have no real choice. Something called Bally Sports now carries the Braves on either channel 646 or 649. I still watch Them Dawgs (we don't do well with articles and pronouns).
I watched Max Fried spin a complete game shutout last night, complete games are almost a gone thing too. I think that is the first one for the Braves this year.
I think I'm just getting old.
We had a nice time today at the Arts Festival in the park, it was a bit humid and I spent some money on a handbag. For the wife. They had a grouping of food trucks doing serious business with rather high prices, I passed.
(https://i.imgur.com/22xdnHo.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Wzjtf16.jpg)
The booths stretched for over a mile mostly with artsy stuff, some of it rather creative I thought.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/22xdnHo.jpg)
"A Little Nauti"?
Is there a topless beauty at the service window?
-
I agree. I've cut down on sports I follow to CFB, some women's softball, and disc golf. Disc golf has been free from ESPN until recently when some of the events are picked up on ESPN+.
I have been turning off most TV streaming in the off season. Anymore to get live sports it is too much like cable. The only real advantage is not having a contract. This season I'm trying Vidgo. It is cheaper than Hulu or Youtube TV and has more sports channels. It doesn't have CBS or NBC but I get CBS sports with my Paramount + subscription ($50/year). It does have the SEC, ACC, B1G, and PAC 12 networks along with LHN and NFL networks as well as the ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, Fox Sports, FS1 and FS channels. It doesn't have a DVR but I don't need that. With tax & all it costs me $330/yr.
No DVR....I'm not sure I could do it. I'm not available too many times in a season, and even when I am the Tigers and Longhorns wind up playing games at the same time, which is a conflict for me and Mrs. DeTiger. However, all the other services have jumped to $70, and they're not even close to worth it, imo. There may come a day when the streaming services are as functional as traditional cable/satellite, but this is not that day. For less control and a more awkward user experience, I expect cheaper.
Might give it a try anyway. Probably need CBS though. And you will too, soon, so keep your Paramount subscription. Hulu is probably my other option for this season. Don't like it as well as YTTV but I have other problems with Google and they're not my first option.
-
From a Sooner perspective, it seems like--if anything-- we should have beaten Texas more over the last 22 years
This made me laugh.
That is certainly a Sooner perspective.
-
This made me laugh.
That is certainly a Sooner perspective.
Sure it is.
But do you disagree with my logic? ~???
-
I see your logic if you go with the favored teams. Texas has punched above its weight in this series, upsetting OU at least 3 times and taking the Sooners to the wire at others.
-
No DVR....I'm not sure I could do it.
I don't know if anyone does it for LSU, but all the OU games are on YouTube the morning after with all the commercials, halftime and time outs removed. If I can't watch the game live (like pay per view), I listen to it on the radio and watch the YouTube game the next day. That is better than a DVR to me.
-
I see your logic if you go with the favored teams. Texas has punched above its weight in this series, upsetting OU at least 3 times and taking the Sooners to the wire at others.
Starting with the 2008 RRS, OU has lost 3 times as the higher ranked team, while Texas has only lost once in that situation, and that was last year, when OU came in off losses to K-State and Iowa State due largely to Spencer Rattler turnovers.
So, I say that OU should have won two more games that it did.
Nothing about "deserving" to win those games. Usually, the team that deserves to win wins.
I've mentioned the 2013 RRS somewhere recently. It was the last meeting of Bob vs. Mack, and the underdog Horns won rather easily. OU had a terrible offensive game plan (under OC Josh Heupel) and stuck with it to the bitter end. OU was by most criteria the better team, but Texas was better on the day that it counted and definitely deserved to win the game.
Also, I imagine that the Horns can point to a stretch where they were losing to underdog Sooner teams more often that underdog Horn teams were winning in the RRS.
All that being said, we should have a great DL this year, and Texas will be breaking in a new QB whose last name is not McCoy and who also is not Sam Ehlinger. I hope to see our D linemen in the Horn QB's face all day.
Here's the Big 12 Conference's highlight film of last year's barn-burner. https://youtu.be/vqOau2W5nDM (https://youtu.be/vqOau2W5nDM)
-
Sure it is.
But do you disagree with my logic? ~???
You responded to my comment so I assume you were building on that train of thought. My point was that Texas underperformed their capabilities too many times in those years, and it particularly showed up against OU. At a program level, there is no reason Texas should be an underdog to OU that much in the first place.
Your point seems to be Texas did better re: expectations for the year based on rankings and odds than it should've. My point is that OU should not be favored so much in the first place. OU has no advantages I can think of that Texas can't match. UT has no business not hitting at least in the 50% range, regardless of if they have a year where OU is rightfully favored. There shouldn't be as many of those years as you listed.
-
IPTV always has the option to to DVR type playback, but it's old school CATV type pricing and lineup
-
You responded to my comment so I assume you were building on that train of thought. My point was that Texas underperformed their capabilities too many times in those years, and it particularly showed up against OU. At a program level, there is no reason Texas should be an underdog to OU that much in the first place.
Your point seems to be Texas did better re: expectations for the year based on rankings and odds than it should've. My point is that OU should not be favored so much in the first place. OU has no advantages I can think of that Texas can't match. UT has no business not hitting at least in the 50% range, regardless of if they have a year where OU is rightfully favored. There shouldn't be as many of those years as you listed.
I have no particular disagreement with any of that.
Right now, Texas is an underperforming helmet program, and it has been for the most part since Darrell Royal retired. Mack Brown produced a renaissance in the '00s, but no one has since. So what is the norm for the Horns? 1977-1997 and 2014 to the present, or 1998-2013?
It's to OU's discredit that it couldn't take advantage of Texas' down years in the 2 decades after the Royal era. 8-11-2 vs. the Horns during that period. Weak. Even in Barry Switzer's last 12 years, OU only went 6-5-1 against Texas under Fred Akers and David McWilliams (his 1st two seasons).
So, in the RRS, does OU choke more than Texas, or does Texas overachieve more than OU?
-
Well we all know that ou sucks, so any analysis beyond that is pretty much irrelevant.
-
Well we all know that ou sucks, so any analysis beyond that is pretty much irrelevant.
yep and those sooners are especially wordy today
-
b cause they have scoreboard
-
b cause they have scoreboard
something as far as the Horns are concerned Nebraska knows nothing about
-
agreed, unfortunately
-
So, in the RRS, does OU choke more than Texas, or does Texas overachieve more than OU?
Meh, from a 3rd party observer, botha youse need a serious SEC Speed upgrade, fortunately you're both about to get one.
It won't change anything, but now when you lose a game you can say "It's the best league, anybody can beat anybody on a given day," or "We weren't up for it," and you still get in the playoffs.
-
You're half-kidding but you're also right.
I was looking at a recent slam piece against UT from some sports rag, don't even remember which. In it they're comparing UT's and A&M's relative success in football, and one of the metrics they cite is number of athletes drafted into the NFL. But they didn't use the number from each of the two schools-- no, instead, they used NFL draftees by conference. And despite the fact that the SEC has almost 50% more teams than the B12, they didn't use average per school, they used absolute numbers.
That is the kind of slanted bulljive that every single non-SEC school must work against on a near-daily basis, and that's just one small example.
But now, Texas will receive the full benefit of stupid tilted analysis like that, so... yay, SEC. :)
-
While that article is obviously deficient, I don't think Texas has suffered a ton throughout the ages from an abundance of tilted bulljive. Many are the years I look at the rankings and I think Texas is there because they're Texas.
In general I agree with you, other schools must fight an uphill battle. When Oklahoma State is really good, it's hard to get people to see that. Ohio State, USC, Texas, etc....not so much. Blue blood is blue no matter what conference you're in. The fact that Texas is one of the top ten all-time programs still carries weight, even when they suck for a decade.
-
Obviously we get a lot better analysis around here than from alleged sports writers.
-
While that article is obviously deficient, I don't think Texas has suffered a ton throughout the ages from an abundance of tilted bulljive. Many are the years I look at the rankings and I think Texas is there because they're Texas.
In general I agree with you, other schools must fight an uphill battle. When Oklahoma State is really good, it's hard to get people to see that. Ohio State, USC, Texas, etc....not so much. Blue blood is blue no matter what conference you're in. The fact that Texas is one of the top ten all-time programs still carries weight, even when they suck for a decade.
The slanted conference reporting hurts us in recruiting on a daily basis.
That obstacle will now be removed. Which is great for us (and for OU). Not so great for the ags.
-
No, losing to much inferior competition for years and years hurts more than bull jive press. OU has recruited well in the same circumstances. Not every player wants to go to the SEC.
A&M recruited well even when we shared a conference with OU/Tex but we lost too often to teams that we out-recruited every year. Losing is the problem.
-
No, losing to much inferior competition for years and years hurts more than bull jive press. OU has recruited well in the same circumstances. Not every player wants to go to the SEC.
A&M recruited well even when we shared a conference with OU/Tex but we lost too often to teams that we out-recruited every year. Losing is the problem.
Nope.
Overall Texas has recruited well-- better than OU in many of those years-- and yet it's still a true statement that Texas has suffered from the bulljive media. Those can both be true-- and they are.
-
Nope.
Overall Texas has recruited well-- better than OU in many of those years-- and yet it's still a true statement that Texas has suffered from the bulljive media. Those can both be true-- and they are.
Look, since y'all are coming and there's nothing I can do about it, let's get this out of the way. Everybody Is Against Us, Woe Is Me is our schtick, and you're not welcome to it in your new conference. LSU fans invented it, LSU fans copyrighted it, LSU fans own it. If there's going to be any whining about the bulljive media unfairly piling on us, not noticing when we're awesome, or completely misrepresenting what actually happened in a game or in a larger time span, you leave that to us. Find your own thing, we don't need two of that.
-
Look, since y'all are coming and there's nothing I can do about it, let's get this out of the way. Everybody Is Against Us, Woe Is Me is our schtick, and you're not welcome to it in your new conference. LSU fans invented it, LSU fans copyrighted it, LSU fans own it. If there's going to be any whining about the bulljive media unfairly piling on us, not noticing when we're awesome, or completely misrepresenting what actually happened in a game or in a larger time span, you leave that to us. Find your own thing, we don't need two of that.
Uhhh.... your team was awarded the MNC with not one, but TWO losses.
So, nope. You don't get to play ANY "woe is me" bullcrap.
-
Uhhh.... your team was awarded the MNC with not one, but TWO losses.
So, nope. You don't get to play ANY "woe is me" bullcrap.
Silly cattle, you're proving my point.
We won a freaking NC, and all ANYBODY has ever cared to talk about is THEY HAD TWO LOSSES WAH WAH WAH!!!
They also went into a #1 team's stadium, beat them, and all the media could do was complain loudly that the other team was really better and they should be given a second chance at the expense of other teams, because we all know what LSU did was bulljive and didn't count.
You can certainly find instances where it hasn't been the case, but you don't want to start comparing slights with me. I guarantee you, you are not equipped for that fight.
-
BOO freaking HOO.
Your team won the MNC with 2 losses. Texas has never, ever been allowed to even play for the MNC with anything fewer than ZERO losses.
You are awarded zero points and may God have mercy on your soul.
-
You didn't address my point, though it was an excellent evasion. Congressman-worthy.
A ton of teams have never played for an NC with any losses. Texas is not special in that way. I freely and happily admit that LSU was picked out of 4-5 other two loss teams in 2007. I did say it's not universal, everybody gets the benefit the doubt sometime and that was one such time. I also freely and happily assert that it was so black and white that it left "them" no other options, and had there been any other options, someone else is probably picked. I'll also direct you to the fact that starting about the time the clock hit zero, "they" (and you, apparently) only remember that it was a silly nc, weakest NC team ever, two losses, blah blah blah. Anything but "hey, it wasn't perfect but they looked like the best team that year." Shoot, LSU did pull off a perfect season, and all we get in our conference and elsewhere is "Yeah, but Tua had hurt his ankle previously so he probably wasn't full strength. Gumps were coming back in the second half. They would win a rematch. LSU didn't even have a championship caliber defense for most of the season anyway. They're running game was not even as good as it used to be. They weren't that great outside of Burrow. Look at all the warts." Even a perfect record and virtually every record rewritten can't even help us. What do you ever hear about 2005 Texas? Best NC game ever. VY, legendary performance. Slayed the Trojan beast and obliterated all others. Magical season. I have yet to hear any detraction on that one.
Suits me. I'm just saying, you'll have to find another bit. Angsty paranoia is taken.
Now...if you're asking me to believe the Big 12 has had a major PR problem the last little while and Texas suffers because of it, I not only agree but also would think that's obvious. But overall, I am confident that if you add up all the ways you think Texas was done wrong through the years and stack them against all the ways I can show LSU was done wrong through the years, all you have to say is "blue-blood" and I think you know who has the bigger file of grievances.
btw, blame OU for the small time frame that Texas has "endured" whatever it's endured. It's their fault that the Big 12 champion keeps representing poorly in the outside world. Speaking of, I wish to amend an earlier statement in the realignment thread about having only two games of history with OU, 1950 and 2003. Apparently we played them in 2019. After being reminded of this, I do in fact remember that game, but remain unconvinced that was actually Oklahoma.
-
Incidentally, not only are you proving my point, I'm proving my own point.
It's pretty obvious that I can out-whine you.
So again, this is our thing. Longhorns will have to find their own thing.
-
BOO freaking HOO.
Your team won the MNC with 2 losses. Texas has never, ever been allowed to even play for the MNC with anything fewer than ZERO losses.
You are awarded zero points and may God have mercy on your soul.
It occurs to me that Texas is one of the few teams that claims a MNC having lost the last game of the season...
Boo Freakin' Hoo Indeed.
-
We're coming to the SEC. We're gonna out-play you AND we're gonna out-whine you.
We're also gonna out-arrogance you.
Prepare for Hell my friend.
-
We're coming to the SEC. We're gonna out-play you AND we're gonna out-whine you.
We're also gonna out-arrogance you.
Prepare for Hell my friend.
I have never for one minute doubted that middle sentence.
You forgot "outspend you."
-
I have never for one minute doubted that middle sentence.
You forgot "outspend you."
Maybe. Honestly, we don't spend nearly enough. We give way too much back to the useless "academic" side.
-
It occurs to me that Texas is one of the few teams that claims a MNC having lost the last game of the season...
Boo Freakin' Hoo Indeed.
You're kidding right? Tons of teams do it, since the bowl games didn't count into both polls until the 70s. You might wanna re-check your "facts."
-
Maybe. Honestly, we don't spend nearly enough. We give way too much back to the useless "academic" side.
I know this is partly in jest, but it's still too close for comfort.
I used to be able to shake my head at some stuff that was particular to UT and a handful of west-coast and yankee schools, but the uselessness of (counter)academia is everywhere now, certainly in Baton Rouge at the state school. It's gotten to the point where I don't think I could hire somebody who's gone to college. I'd rather apprentice workers and let them learn on the job than deal with the BS pumped into college grads now. I thought STEM majors would remain immune to the junk I'm talking about. I was wrong.
-
You're kidding right? Tons of teams do it, since the bowl games didn't count into both polls until the 70s. You might wanna re-check your "facts."
Mostly kidding, but it seemed apropos.
seems kinda silly now though doesn’t it ?
-
Mostly kidding, but it seemed apropos.
seems kinda silly though doesn’t it ?
It's all silly. :)
We're arguing about a game. A game played by 18-23 year olds. There's really nothing BUT silliness involved in that.
Doesn't mean it can't be fun, though.
-
I know this is partly in jest, but it's still too close for comfort.
I used to be able to shake my head at some stuff that was particular to UT and a handful of west-coast and yankee schools, but the uselessness of (counter)academia is everywhere now, certainly in Baton Rouge at the state school. It's gotten to the point where I don't think I could hire somebody who's gone to college. I'd rather apprentice workers and let them learn on the job than deal with the BS pumped into college grads now. I thought STEM majors would remain immune to the junk I'm talking about. I was wrong.
Hmmm, yeah, so many avenues of discussion here. I guess I'll say two things
1) College was never meant to be a vocational school. And in general it does a poor job of it.
2) There are effectively some vocational majors in college, though. I would never hire an engineer that hadn't been through a rigorous engineering program. I guess that doesn't HAVE to be a college degree, but right now, it is.
-
It's all silly. :)
We're arguing about a game. A game played by 18-23 year olds. There's really nothing BUT silliness involved in that.
Doesn't mean it can't be fun, though.
Word.
And by silly I meant excluding the bowl games at the end of the season for rankings well into the 70's.
-
Word.
And by silly I meant excluding the bowl games at the end of the season for rankings well into the 70's.
Oh I don't think that's silly at all. You can't really look at it through our modern lens.
The bowl games were always just exhibitions, a reward for the team for a good season, and ideally a fun travel destination for the fans. Lots of coaches and players didn't start taking them seriously UNTIL the polls started awarding the MNC afterwards.
They were considered so irrelevant that Notre Dame didn't even bother going to them until 1970.
-
I recall some successful LSU teams in the late 80's that still treated bowls as nothing more than a nice trip for a hard season. Wendell Davis was recently interviewed re: his induction into the LA Sports HOF and he mentioned that as hard as they tried in the regular season, the bowls had no urgency or weight to them and remarked how differently the fans and players feel about them now. He said his final year the seniors realized they had never won a bowl game, and while they weren't exactly bothered by it, they decided they didn't want to leave without ever having got a win in one. So they prepped much harder and tried to impress on the younger classes that they really wanted to win that one. He played from about '86 - '89.
I guess you could say Orgeron still doesn't care about them since he opted not to take advantage of the NCAA's rule that would've allowed LSU to play in a bowl last season. That's a silly joke. More likely, probably like me he thought the sooner he closed that shitshow down the better.
-
Eh, ND. The team that still has not joined a conference. I wouldn’t consider their actions as my bench mark. I really don’t know the entire history but I’m betting they’re the only program arrogant enough to turn down a bowl invite. Especially when there were only a handful of bowls. It was a real privilege to get a bowl invite back in the day.
Of course it’s always been pushed about bowl games being exhibition back then and not really counting for much. I don’t know, it was way before my time but I just have trouble accepting that. If A&M and UT scrimmaged in the spring I’m betting somebody would keep score and the fans would ruffle the feathers of the losing team.
I just never really bought the argument that the fans and players didn’t care all that much.
-
I recall some successful LSU teams in the late 80's that still treated bowls as nothing more than a nice trip for a hard season. Wendell Davis was recently interviewed re: his induction into the LA Sports HOF and he mentioned that as hard as they tried in the regular season, the bowls had no urgency or weight to them and remarked how differently the fans and players feel about them now. He said his final year the seniors realized they had never won a bowl game, and while they weren't exactly bothered by it, they decided they didn't want to leave without ever having got a win in one. So they prepped much harder and tried to impress on the younger classes that they really wanted to win that one. He played from about '86 - '89.
I guess you could say Orgeron still doesn't care about them since he opted not to take advantage of the NCAA's rule that would've allowed LSU to play in a bowl last season. That's a silly joke. More likely, probably like me he thought the sooner he closed that shitshow down the better.
Oh yeah, outside of bowl games with MNC implications, many bowls even decades after the mid 70s have been considered exhibitions.
Heck, outside of the BCS bowls he played in, Mack Brown always used the extra practices as preparation for the following season. He only spent a couple of days working on the upcoming opponent. He didn't care at all.
-
Speaking of a spring scrimmage I’ve seen rumblings that coaches are asking to have real scrimmages in spring and fall practice, especially if they quit playing a directional school heavy pre-season. Or are those considered exhibition games as well? The directional school games, not scrimmages of course.
-
Directional schools are exhibition games.
That is, until you lose one of them.
-
Yep. Been there done that. Ull, Ark St for us and I think Troy for you guys recently.
-
just remembered we play Arkansas this year
all of a sudden that game takes on added significance
-
Yep. Been there done that. Ull, Ark St for us and I think Troy for you guys recently.
They have some kind of voodoo on us....Saban nearly lost to Troy early on at LSU. Les Miles' Tigers almost lost to Troy again in 2008, needing a furious 4th quarter comeback of about 28 points or so. Then Orgeron succeeded where Saban and Miles had failed....he actually managed to lose to them. Unlike the lack of focus the other two coaches could claim, Troy was just a flat-out better team than LSU at that point in 2017, who haplessly hung on to a win through no fault of their own a week prior against a terrible Syracuse team.
-
The problem is that college football is almost exclusively reliant on polls and perception over actual W/L standings. We have "pre-season" polls. Any action that might influence that perception isn't "pre-season" at all. A practice scrimmage that one team wins and the other doesn't will still change voter opinion, and therefore has meaning.
The Dallas Cowboys can goof up as many preseason games as they want. Their ability to make the playoffs will be determined by their record in season. If TAMU tanks against Blinn in a closed practice, they'll fall from #6 to #11 in some preseason poll.
-
This is old so maybe y'all saw it already, but here it is anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntGICknpD3k
-
Yup. Some of those SEC shorts are pretty funny.
-
Yup. Some of those SEC shorts are pretty funny.
Most of them are, I think, rather well done.
-
I find them hit or miss. I think people who are fans of SEC schools probably find them more humorous than others do.
But there are definitely some good ones.
-
This one's funny but cruel. Or maybe "and cruel" is more correct.
https://youtu.be/LQl1iewrZMg (https://youtu.be/LQl1iewrZMg)
-
I think there's some good food in B1G land. Chicago is known for its culinary prowess. And Nebraska has the runza. Whatever that is.
Nothing comes close to possum on the half shell over on the Forty Acres,maybe corny dogs
-
aged road kill possum in Arkansas is tasty
-
What do you think they put in Runza?
-
the smelly stuff is cabbage
-
Nothing comes close to possum on the half shell over on the Forty Acres,maybe corny dogs
Every now and then Mr. N comes in with some totally nonsensical zinger that just literally makes me laugh out loud.
Don't ever change my friend!
-
the smelly stuff is cabbage
(https://i.imgur.com/0j6FJiL.png)
-
So I'm curious @CWSooner (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1544) and @Thumper (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1548) , what do you think about the OU administration's promise to play OkState annually in every sport?
I think I recall C-Dubb saying he doesn't see a lot of value in playing OkState, but would you be okay with abandoning the rivalry completely in football and/or all other sports?
(and let's be honest, football is by far the most important)
-
I think it is mostly throwing a political bone their way. It is a big money generator for OSU but the game doesn't do much for OU. After beating OSU 90 times, the bloom is kind of off that rose. Outside of football, the wrestling is a rivalry but very lopsided in favor of OSU.
-
I am not especially opposed to playing FoSu on a regular basis, but I don't want it to be our marquee game. If it's our #2 game, then schedule 'em every year!
But as our marquee game, they wouldn't add value. They would keep us from playing better opponents in the B1G, Pac, and ACC.
Unless the "Alliance" is going to pull a scheduling embargo on the SEC. Then, sure, schedule FoSu some as the marquee game.
FoSu to OU is not ATM to Texas. Aggies and Horns is a genuine rivalry, albeit one dominated by the Horns. But Bedlam is the most one-sided intra-state rivalry in FBS.
For other sports--fine. Schedule them for old time's sake.
-
I am not especially opposed to playing FoSu on a regular basis, but I don't want it to be our marquee game. If it's our #2 game, then schedule 'em every year!
But as our marquee game, they wouldn't add value. They would keep us from playing better opponents in the B1G, Pac, and ACC.
Unless the "Alliance" is going to pull a scheduling embargo on the SEC. Then, sure, schedule FoSu some as the marquee game.
FoSu to OU is not ATM to Texas. Aggies and Horns is a genuine rivalry, albeit one dominated by the Horns. But Bedlam is the most one-sided intra-state rivalry in FBS.
For other sports--fine. Schedule them for old time's sake.
I don't know. It's a little closer in the W/L column than Bedlam, but as you say it's still dominated by Texas. Traditionally OU was always the main rival for most Texas fans, and for people my age and older, Arkansas was also a bigger rival than Texas A&M. There were games between Texas and Arkansas that impacted, and even decided, national championships. That was never true of UT-A&M.
Anyway, I'm in the minority of Texas fans but I've always valued the UT-A&M rivalry and I'll be glad to see it renewed. Same is true of UT-Arkie. Traditional regional rivalries are important to me, and I believe they're important to college football, whether "college football" agrees with me or not. :)
-
big $$$ for the state of Oklahoma
the state of Iowa insists on the Hawkeye/Cyclone game for purely monetary purpose
-
While the UT/A&M series is dominated by Texas the numbers are much more equal once you account for recent history. Something to do with going from a citadel type military college to a co-ed university had something to do with that don't you think? When has OU/oSu ever had a 50% split over a 20 or 30 year period in the W/L column?
I think if you look at the recent series starting in the 70's we're nearly dead even with W/L. oSu has never had the kind of success we have had in football, and their really pitiful record vs OU reflects that. Remember, A&M won our MNC (one and only!) about 20 years before UT won their first. We had a Heisman winner 20 years before UT had theirs, we were a founding member of the SWC along with UT. A lot of history between our two schools went down, 13-0 to BEVO and such.
I think they're is a rich history between the two schools and I'd like to think in the future our games will be really meaningful on a national scale, much like FSU/UF has been in the past or tOSU/UM. When Tex/A&M play hardly ever are both teams ranked and actually directly competing with each other to win the conference, although there have been a few times where we knocked UT out of contention but we were not in contention ourselves.
oSu is a decent program, and they've been unfortunate to share a small state with one of the few cfb superpowers and they're peaks have not really come during the few times OU has been down.
-
Yeah you ags always love to pick "starting dates" in the series that reflect better on your program. :)
I think 1995 is an excellent starting date, What's the series record since then? ;)
-
The only game I really care about is the next one. The only season I care about is the current one.
-
The only game I really care about is the next one. The only season I care about is the current one.
Amen, brutha!
Gonna be some serious fun playing the ags and pigs regularly again. :)
-
Yeah you ags always love to pick "starting dates" in the series that reflect better on your program. :)
I think 1995 is an excellent starting date, What's the series record since then? ;)
5 W, 12 L to answer the Q. Probably the worst 17 year period of Aggie football, aside from about 3 seasons.
Although the last 10 years since that time have not been the greatest I think the record would have been heavily in our favor, by about 7-2. Alas, no way either of us would ever know.
Wha was the record when you were in school ? 1985-1994 was a very good time to be an Aggie indeed.
-
Amen, brutha!
Gonna be some serious fun playing the ags and pigs regularly again. :)
Although we will eventually lose to the pigs again their long term history suggests they may never be a power again. They’ve never won the SEC in over 30 years of competition, and they go 5-7 a lot more than 9-3 or better. If football is the only sport that counts, and it should, they would jump ship to the Big 12 before another school takes that spot. They won’t, but they should.
-
5 W, 12 L to answer the Q. Probably the worst 17 year period of Aggie football, aside from about 3 seasons.
Although the last 10 years since that time have not been the greatest I think the record would have been heavily in our favor, by about 7-2. Alas, no way either of us would ever know.
Wha was the record when you were in school ? 1985-1994 was a very good time to be an Aggie indeed.
Ags have only won 1/3 of the games that were actually played, but are certain they'd win 100% of the games that were never played. Same as it ever was. :)
-
Horns were 1-3 against A&M while I was in school. The dark years indeed.
But Texas was 3-1 against the Sooners over the same span. That part was fun.
-
Ags have only won 1/3 of the games that were actually played, but are certain they'd win 100% of the games that were never played. Same as it ever was. :)
Where do you see 100% ? I think my assessment is close. It’s kind of a shame really.
-
Although we will eventually lose to the pigs again their long term history suggests they may never be a power again. They’ve never won the SEC in over 30 years of competition, and they go 5-7 a lot more than 9-3 or better. If football is the only sport that counts, and it should, they would jump ship to the Big 12 before another school takes that spot. They won’t, but they should.
Back when the Big 12 (-2) was last considering expansion, Arkansas was an occasional suggestion. It would have made all kids of sense, but Arkie wasn't going to give up the SEC $$$.
-
Where do you see 100% ? I think my assessment is close. It’s kind of a shame really.
Of course you do. I'd expect nothing else. It's one of those endearing things about ags, never stop being you.
:)