CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big XII => Topic started by: utee94 on May 30, 2023, 03:45:03 PM
-
Not sure if there's ever been an official B12 realignment thread, at least not since 2011 or so?
Anyway, rumor mill is churning:
https://twitter.com/dennisdoddcbs/status/1663597432276385797?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1663597432276385797%7Ctwgr%5E57f42bd675e312c971d5fea3c748b7e985eac77a%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdennisdoddcbs%2Fstatus%2F1663597432276385797%3Ft%3DN6XupUZZjgnWSXruqh7ytQ26s%3D19
-
The University of Colorado seems to be in a "betwixt and between" situation. They were always the far-west geographical outlier in the Big 7, Big 8, and Big 12. And a cultural outlier to some extent as well. They spent their last decade or so in the Big 12 mooning over the Pac-10, but then when they (along with Utah) joined it to form the Pac-12, they seemed to be the geographical outlier in the other direction.
As the Pac-12 (-2) seems very shaky these days, I won't be surprised to see Colorado come back to the Big 12. They'll make more money if they do.
But I don't think they'll be happy about it.
-
Hmmm this didn't age well:
(https://i.imgur.com/BuCmFwt.png)
-
Kinda like your Depression Era grandma that never threw away extra fabric and hoarded beans, the Big 12 seems to be taking all who apply because, as God as their witness, they'll never collapse again!
I guess there's only a few actual "influential" teams in college football, and it's tough to get those teams to change conferences. However, the Big 12 seems to be a giant bag of generic potato chips. Nobody really wants them, but they'll do if they're the only thing available until dinner.
The Big 12 is looking more and more like Thursday/Friday night games, with something Saturday at 11am.
-
Oh and I guess we can make it official on this thread:
https://twitter.com/CUBuffs/status/1684675365728628736?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1684675365728628736%7Ctwgr%5Ee937782ffab4575b6a7a4a4cb411139249cfd1cc%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FCUBuffs%2Fstatus%2F1684675365728628736%3Fs%3D20
-
Kinda like your Depression Era grandma that never threw away extra fabric and hoarded beans, the Big 12 seems to be taking all who apply because, as God as their witness, they'll never collapse again!
I guess there's only a few actual "influential" teams in college football, and it's tough to get those teams to change conferences. However, the Big 12 seems to be a giant bag of generic potato chips. Nobody really wants them, but they'll do if they're the only thing available until dinner.
The Big 12 is looking more and more like Thursday/Friday night games, with something Saturday at 11am.
I mean, the B12 survives because its member schools actually care about, and watch, college football. And putting name brands aside, the B12 plays interesting and competitive college football.
The TV numbers don't lie-- the B12 pulls in better ratings than the PAC and a B12 without Texas and OU is projected to continue to pull in better ratings than the PAC without USC/UCLA. The B12 also pulls in better numbers than the ACC which has no true helmet schools. That could change with Texas and OU leaving but unless Clemson comes "back" and FSU somehow returns to its former glory, the ACC is a conference that nobody cares about or watches. It's a basketball conference.
-
Im glad for the Big12
its good to see them survive in a big way
-
Yeah I actually liked the B12, at least in its original incarnation. I'd rather be playing in the 1996 version of the B12, than in the 2024 version of the SEC.
But nobody in charge, ever asks me my opinion on these things.
-
Im glad for the Big12
its good to see them survive in a big way
a big way?
getting CU back to join with TCU??
-
a big way?
getting CU back to join with TCU??
A lot better off than the PAC and the ACC, as far as TV money goes. And then, in a few years after the SEC and B1G are done picking apart the ACC, there will only be three major conferences, and the B12 will be one of them.
So yeah I'd say they're surviving bigly.
-
I'll agree when the top few of the ACC are pillaged
-
I'll agree when the top few of the ACC are pillaged
That could be a decade away, but for that entire decade, UCF will be making more money than both Miami and FSU. The B12 is in a much better position than the ACC, simply because, people actually watch B12 football, and nobody gives a rat's ass about ACC football. They're the PAC-East.
-
glad I don't live on either coast
I'd have much better things to worry about than college football
-
The ACC has two "football programs" of course, and then two other close to elite universities all around. That's a pretty solid core, but if it erodes ...
-
The ACC has two "football programs" of course, and then two other close to elite universities all around. That's a pretty solid core, but if it erodes ...
It's a solid core for what? They're now significantly underpaid compared to the New B12. FSU and Miami are looking at over a decade of falling further and further behind... The University of Central Florida.
Conferences get paid for one thing and one thing only-- eyeballs on their live action sports, specifically football.
Nobody watches PAC football and this is the result. Nobody watches ACC football and after the next 13 years of being locked into a horrible contract with a GOR, they'll be looking at the same fate.
I'm not HAPPY about this, I'd love to go back to conference alignments and bowl affiliations from about 1983 or so.
But for every jackwagon coastal elitist douchebag that crowed about how the PAC and the ACC were going to gobble up the B12, all I can do is point my finger and deliver a hearty laugh.
I'm proud of the B12. They've adapted and done well for themselves. Bully for them!
-
I'm proud of the B12. They've adapted and done well for themselves. Bully for them!
losing Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado would kill most conferences for sure
-
losing Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado would kill most conferences for sure
if at the same time
-
It's a solid core for what? They're now significantly underpaid compared to the New B12. FSU and Miami are looking at over a decade of falling further and further behind... The University of Central Florida.
A solid core around which one could construct a decent athletic conference. I'm not talking TV revenue, just that it's a pretty food core. Add to that four pretty decent programs like NCSU and then you can afford four also rans like Louisville. They aren't going to compete with SEC/B1G monies, but I see it as a better four team core than what the residual B12/Pac has.
-
The newly reformed Big 12 is going to play very entertaining football games. I think we all agree on that.
Without Texas or OU to play around, I think they'll garner about the viewership of the MWC.
This league is tailor made to have four teams all go 7-5. Texas isn't leaving due to money. It's leaving because they consistently lost out on top talent that knew the SEC puts kids in the NFL. That's not going to change. As more and more "foreign" schools divide what's left of the state's talent, the Big 12 will still play entertaining contests, but will be removed from national relevance.
-
I thought Texas had been recruiting at a high level for a while.
-
Texas left for $$$
-
Both.
-
I thought Texas had been recruiting at a high level for a while.
Overall recruiting has been solid, but NOT being in the SEC has been hurting Texas in direct head-to-head recruiting battles against A&M, LSU, Florida, Auburn, Alabama, and your Georgia Bulldogs. Leveling that playing field will help Texas recruit even better.
-
yup, kids get the idea that the SEC puts more players in the NFL draft
It will be even more with the addition of Texas and Oklahoma
-
Maybe, I still think the elite recruits worry less about conference than program. Does a 4 star with an offer from Kentucky think he hit the jackpot?
-
he may think he's going to prove himself vs other 4 & 5 stars and future NFL players
but, not the jackpot
-
Maybe, I still think the elite recruits worry less about conference than program. Does a 4 star with an offer from Kentucky think he hit the jackpot?
I'm not talking about recruiting for or against Kentucky.
I'm talking about Texas in the B12, recruiting against A&M, LSU, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Auburn, in the SEC.
It's been a definite hinderance to Texas, and now it won't be. That's worth more than all the money in the TV contract, to the coaches doing the recruiting.
-
and with recruits comes winning in most cases
and winning is profitable
-
and with recruits comes winning in most cases
and winning is profitable
True that.
Even after over a decade of suckitude, Texas is still one of the top 2 or 3 most valuable brands in college football. Just imagine if we were actually winning....
-
True that.
Even after over a decade of suckitude, Texas is still one of the top 2 or 3 most valuable brands in college football. Just imagine if we were actually winning....
I think UT has a great shot at winning 10 plus games this year
-
Right now, I need to know who, on the Texas defense, is going to rush the passer. That's the position I don't have anything more than an "I hope someone develops" answer for right now.
Of secondary urgency is the OL. They were much improved last season, but not dominant. We played so many true freshmen with limited depth last season, so that's actually complimentary. After another year of development under Flood, they should be road graders. Since we won't have Bijan to erase mistakes (our returning backs aren't junk, though), they'll need to be a team strength. Rather than hope, I can articulate why I expect that to happen.
-
We should have an excellent RB room. They're largely untested but there is some serious talent there. I hope and pray the o-line has improved as much as folks seem to expect it to.
And yeah, the d-line rush has some serious question marks. It really doesn't make sense to expect anything major there, all we have is hope and crossed fingers.
-
https://twitter.com/365sportsYT/status/1686489671184826369?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1686489671184826369%7Ctwgr%5E3fa8631d07d2c7f3ed132a3a7778c8b507047e6b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2F365sportsyt%2Fstatus%2F1686489671184826369%3Fs%3D4626t%3DoC0-l2xwOjUxAomKreGliA
-
six current members were in the minor leagues two decades ago - this pac implosion is going to save them from turning into mountain west+……..for the time being. that said i see two issues moving forward. positively an expanded po gives their champ a seat at the table regardless of the second issue which is that w/o ou/tx it’s really going to blow more often than not once the impact of their departure settles in - the expanded po will save whatever is ultimately left of the big 12/acc/pac from national irrelevance which may save the sport in one sense. that will be a good thing.
with tv deals outside of the two heavies being unpredictable idk what the future holds for the sport…..i think it’s anybody’s guess. these ca schools playing league games in nj has taken r/a from merely unappealing to absurd.
maybe the big 12 can get ore/uw for a spell if the big ten decides to wait.
-
Oregon would be a terrible add for the B1G for reasons we've discussed at length on the B1G forum. They're competitive on the field, and they steal recruits by any and all means necessary. They're a real "win at all costs" program and the USC fans I know, are glad to be rid of them, and have no desire to see them in the B1G. Beyond that, they also don't bring in enough television audience numbers to make them a net add, instead they are a net detractor for the B1G. In short, it makes absolutely no sense for the B1G to add Oregon.
Washington is sort of meh. They're harmless but they also take more away from the table than they bring to it.
Either would be a decent add for the B12, though. What a strange world we live in.
-
what does that even mean these days when everything is ostensibly legal?
i would think the big 12 would be over the moon to get them considering their other recent adds.
-
Dropping bags of cash is still illegal, always has been, always will be. Oregon does it more than most. NIL is diminishing the effects of bags, but it hasn't eliminated it yet.
I don't know if the B12 would be "over the moon" to add Oregon, but it would be a decent add.
It would be a terrible add for the B1G. Increased on-field and recruiting competition against your marquee helmet brands, without bringing in any prestige or additional viewers and in fact being a net detractor. If the B1G adds Oregon, I'll laugh heartily out loud.
-
and how exactly does a toothless ncaa discern nil from pay for play and then enforce it?
it’s all pay for play sans the girls selling their bodies for followers on ig.
-
as for ore and uw maybe yes and maybe no i just read and watch and only think what i think until it changes it’s all messed up.
-
and how exactly does a toothless ncaa discern nil from pay for play and then enforce it?
it’s all pay for play sans the girls selling their bodies for followers on ig.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here?
We're not talking about hypotheticals, we're talking about a traditional cheater-school (and one of the worst of them all, at that) joining the traditionally non-cheater B1G. Just because some programs choose to skirt the rules doesn't mean they all do. The B1G has traditionally been full of programs that have chosen not to cheat and pay players under the table.
And I don't see the schools in the B1G changing their ways. So admitting Oregon would be like letting the fox into the hen house.
And they'd be doing it to themselves willingly, which is what would make me laugh heartily. Out loud.
-
i think legitimate nil vs what is in reality pay for play under the guise of nil is so minute it's not worth discussing in terms of how it's played out in real life making a conversation about cheating schools laughable particularly in the face of an impotent ncaa. our state has passed nil legislation essentially flipping the bird to the ncaa & if it's going on here (school that hasn't cheated a ton historically) then it's going on in a lot of places.
as for uw/ore to the big ten or not this yr or this decade i have no idea. i see them mentioned as the next domino so to speak so i pay attn & bring them up. doesn't get any deeper than that.
you haven't convinced me in the slightest not that that matters to either one of us or the issue in general - perhaps you're right. idk anything anymore dude.
-
i think legitimate nil vs what is in reality pay for play under the guise of nil is so minute it's not worth discussing in terms of how it's played out in real life making a conversation about cheating schools laughable particularly in the face of an impotent ncaa. our state has passed nil legislation essentially flipping the bird to the ncaa & if it's going on here (school that hasn't cheated a ton historically) then it's going on in a lot of places.
as for uw/ore to the big ten or not this yr or this decade i have no idea. i see them mentioned as the next domino so to speak so i pay attn & bring them up. doesn't get any deeper than that.
you haven't convinced me in the slightest not that that matters to either one of us or the issue in general - perhaps you're right. idk anything anymore dude.
Oregon is a bad match culturally, for the B1G. That's what I'm saying, and it's really not all that disputable. If you care to disagree, more power to you.
Anyway, it doesn't make any difference to me. My school isn't in the B1G.
-
uh no that is plain as day but idk how much it matters. r/a has already made for strange bedfellows what's two more.
-
uh no that is plain as day but idk how much it matters. r/a has already made for strange bedfellows what's two more.
Well then there's the fact that viewership numbers for Oregon and Washington are lower than the B1G average, which means that they both carry more away from the table, than they bring.
So, why would they be added? Neither exist in fertile recruiting grounds, neither pull large television numbers, neither have large national followings. There's really no reason at all to add them. The B1G would be much wiser to look in the direction of Florida. Which, from the rumors, is precisely what they're doing.
-
as opposed to the yahoo “rumors” re: cal/stanford/uw/uo?
none of them are worth the paper they’re written on idk why anyone would put stock in any of them after close to 15yrs of made up stories on the subject until something actually occurs.
the acc powers would have bounced yrs ago were they able to do so and surely will eventually - whether that’s imminent……they have barriers the pac schools don’t obv.
as far as why uo/uw would necessarily be added the la schools presumably would like travel partners and they are the best brands available in that general direction.
you seem so certain which i find odd after so many twists and turns and rumors reported as facts over the years. i am anything but at this point.
cal and stanford are worthless although i guess they are a cultural fit comparatively speaking.
-
I'm dead certain that if the B1G adds Oregon it will be a hilariously bad fit and it'll make me smile and laugh.
So anyway
-
idc what any of them do at this point it’s pretty wrecked. 2010-2011 fears coming to pass although it doesn’t look exactly the same as i thought it would.
-
More change was inevitable, the disparity between league payouts coming from the SEC and the B1G, contrasted with all the other conferences, was inevitably going to lead to the helmet schools ultimately having to move to one of those two conferences. Everything else is just fallout.
-
ya that’s exactly right
the other thing is looking further back it was always going to happen regardless of who the early movers were or weren’t, $ talks and someone was always going to come calling and they’re all merc’s with varying options.
-
Yup. The moment the B1G and SEC started driving large disparity in revenue, all the rest was inevitable. There's just no way a school like USC or Texas, can sit back and watch Northwestern and Vanderbilt bringing in $80M/year, while sitting at $35M/year.
-
I think a conference could add a UW/UO for geographic "parity" and balancing and/or to get to a good number of teams, you might like getting to 20.
Would you rather add Stanford/Cal over UW/UO?
-
I assume we're talking about the B12 here? Because I don't think ANY of them add anything to the B1G or SEC.
I guess MAYBE Stanford could act as a lure to help bring Notre Dame into the B1G? That's about the only value I see.
Now from the B12's perspective, I think Oregon/UDub are decent adds.
I don't think Stanford/Cal bring anything at all, their TV ratings and attendance and national interest are all below average for the New B12.
-
I agree with utee that the B12 thus far has responded quite well considering what they were dealt. The Pac hasn't responded publically. The ACC is hiding behind the GoR deal that lasts until 3123 AD.
-
I agree with utee that the B12 thus far has responded quite well considering what they were dealt. The Pac hasn't responded publically. The ACC is hiding behind the GoR deal that lasts until 3123 AD.
The ACC might be hiding but FSU sure isn't. They're quite pissed that Central Florida will be making a significantly larger amount of money than them, over the next decade-plus.
-
Nobody's ever actually attempted to pierce a GOR in court. I personally don't think it's as sound as it's being made out to be. I'll be interested to see the arguments FSU intends to make.
-
Nobody's ever actually attempted to pierce a GOR in court. I personally don't think it's as sound as it's being made out to be. I'll be interested to see the arguments FSU intends to make.
Yeah I think that Texas and OU decided waiting another year would actually be beneficial to them and didn't push it. But they weren't staring down another 13 years of being financially inferior to... Central Florida. I won't be at all surprised to see FSU mount a real challenge to the GOR.
-
I expect them to challenge
-
Yeah, with the money "on the table", I expect they already hired some firm to look at it.
-
at some point, the money you spend to break the contract is less than the money you gain by breaking it
-
That would be part of the calculation of course, but I would "bet" FSU has retained a law firm to look at this. For one thing, they could apply pressure to the ACC sufficient to modify the GoR without going to court over it as the ACC is looking at the same equation.
-
At the very bottom of the barrel, without making a single legal argument, Texas could have walked away from the Big 12, just said "sue us", then never ever paid the judgement since the Texas Legislature has to authorize payouts for judgements against state entities. That wouldn't ever actually happen. There was also the option of "contract performance" under which they skipped to the SEC, and told the Big 12 they were free to pocket the revenue for any Big 12 games Texas played in Austin - as per the contract. That would be "none".
In the end, it was easier to play out the deal. It let the SEC prepare their own schedules as well.
FSU is looking at sacrificing over $300million over the course of the contract relative to what they could be earning. I can only assume there's a vaporware understanding with other conferences to take them.
-
I think we'll see something in the ACC fairly soon, probably rumors about negotiations. The ACC itself wouldn't want to get embroiled in some court case they could lose, and at minimum would cost legal fees. In such circumstances, large companies nearly always "settle".
-
at some point, the money you spend to break the contract is less than the money you gain by breaking it
this is the seemingly inevitable outcome for the acc powers.
supposedly they’re alleging on twitter as of this morning now that the pac may stay together and sign a gor - several were leaving yday
https://twitter.com/brett_mcmurphy/status/1687459635098189824?s=46&t=-SC6UqqBHwMwAIElNB5qvw
along with a story on espn that az is gone
which is why i believe everything and nothing about r/a.
i hope they survive the sport is better with them. it was bad enough seeing the big 12 deteriorate - the decline of the acc and pac will be sad and seems unavoidable (ultimately) at this time.
-
If the B1G and SEC want to redistribute their moneys to the other conferences to keep things equal, then nothing has to change any further.
But since that won't happen, further change is inevitable. Any and every school with value above the mean for the B1G or SEC, will end up in the B1G or SEC.
Notre Dame is, of course, a wildcard.
-
nd will have to be leveraged in one way or another - that seems clear at this point - either by the $ or access and with a 12 team playoff it doesn’t appear as if it’s going to be via the latter.
as for the $, the media landscape seems volatile so who can say re: the future other than live fball continues to be a valuable commodity.
-
Notre Dame is a fairly unassailable brand. There's no real reason for them to limit their options and affiliate with a conference. As long as the "big boys" keep answering their scheduling requests, they can create an a la carte schedule that makes them credible for the playoffs.
-
Does realignment talk ever go away?
-
Does realignment talk ever go away?
(https://i.imgur.com/pUhZP0D.png)
-
https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1687575233111187456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1687575233111187456%7Ctwgr%5Ec189bc49268901b5735815bf7cdfadd539b0246d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fpetethamel%2Fstatus%2F1687575233111187456%3Fs%3D4626t%3DEn8iZKNAMK5b0kjRipqzNA
-
https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1687575233111187456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1687575233111187456%7Ctwgr%5Ec189bc49268901b5735815bf7cdfadd539b0246d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fpetethamel%2Fstatus%2F1687575233111187456%3Fs%3D4626t%3DEn8iZKNAMK5b0kjRipqzNA
so when the dust settles how many teams in the BIG12
-
Let's see, it was 10 last year, -2+4, and now +4 again, I think?
So... 16.
-
I was told there would be no math ...
-
(https://i.imgur.com/45ruw6W.png)
-
I'll just wait for the schedule to come out
-
I'll just wait for the schedule to come out
It's all you can do.
We don't know the dates, but our 2024 lineup of SEC opponents is certainly interesting. We get to play all three of our traditional rivals in OU, Arkansas, and A&M, plus home games against Georgia and Florida. And that's all on top of the OOC game @Michigan. There's some fun to be had.
-
unfortunately I don't really care who plays ISU & KSU going forward
doesn't matter
-
I'll watch compelling and interesting games, regardless of conference, just as I always have.
Well, when I have the time, which I don't these days, but maybe in 6 years when the kids are out of the house...
-
I'll watch compelling and interesting games, regardless of conference, just as I always have.
Well, when I have the time, which I don't these days, but maybe in 6 years when the kids are out of the house...
youre assuming a lot but good luck on that
-
B12 games are going to be less compelling and interesting going forward
same with the PAC if it survives
-
Personally, I was very happy with the SEC we joined ( as I was also happy with much of the B12 as it existed, with the exception of the divisions makeup).
The conferences made sense. Now, they just seem so bloated. There can only be one conference champion. Arkansas has been in the SEC for 30+ years and hasn’t won it yet ( 4 CCG appearances). UTenn hasn’t won since 1998 ( coincidentally A&M’s last title as well). I can see a future where you have 3-4 blue bloods that get stuck in the middle for decades, sorta like UNL is right now. 1999 was their last, 24 years and counting and it may not happen for them ever again. I know OU fans have plenty of high expectations ( and a little hubris ) but seriously it only takes a few years of mediocre coaching and bad leadership and your program will be in a deep hole that’s hard to get out of. How happy is OU and its fans going to be when they hit 20-25 years with no conference titles. Has that ever even happened before in their history?
All the signs point to the SE US being the power center for football. Bama, UGA, UF.LSU is on that list also with 3 MNCs this century.
-
We talk a lot about blue bloods on this forum, I have no idea why except that a pecking order has been established and it’s sort of a given that in CFB past winning is very highly indicative to future winning. But I have observed that the blue blood list is not set in stone, and there have been teams from the past that have fallen off. Minnesota is one. There are others. I’d be inclined to say that we have 3-4 in jeopardy of falling off right now. UNL, UTenn.
The reality is that we have to think about what I call 21st century blue bloods. That list includes Florida, LSU. Clemson is close, but time will tell if they can sustain without Dabo.
-
I usually mark Saturdays down to watch CFB pretty much all day, sometimes switching of course, and of course I watch my team. I'm curious if any of this will impact my interest and habits etc. I think those late Pac 12 games were "past my bedtime" which no doubt was a factor for their $$$.
-
What I’m trying to say is that I can see a future where dealignment occurs. It may take 20 more years, but eventually the tv models will change, the value changes, and we’ll see a return to smaller conferences with 2-4 “big boys” , 3-4 mid tier teams, and 2-4 ne’er do wells ( KU, MSU, etc).
-
Money will drive whatever happens. I suspect we might see more NFLization until it's there.
Very long term, I expect football to be banned.
-
What I’m trying to say is that I can see a future where dealignment occurs. It may take 20 more years, but eventually the tv models will change, the value changes, and we’ll see a return to smaller conferences with 2-4 “big boys” , 3-4 mid tier teams, and 2-4 ne’er do wells ( KU, MSU, etc).
I think winning a division is similar to winning a conference back in the day
as divisions are now the size of old daze conferences
another reason I hope the "pod" model never happens
money drives everything - the conference champ game is a $$ game
Hopefully it stays
-
Money will drive whatever happens. I suspect we might see more NFLization until it's there.
Very long term, I expect football to be banned.
I don’t doubt what you say, and I guess the expanded playoff gets a lot of teams that chance they wouldn’t other wise have. Maybe just wishful thinking on my part.
We’ll just have to see how things shake out over the next few decades. I’m just happy that A&M is in a major conference from the get go, but I could see a world where A&M is one of the teams that forms a new SWC.
-
TV $$$ distribution would have the change dramatically for the SWC and Big 8 to come back
I don't see it.
The bluebloods aren't letting go of the $$$ or power
-
You say that, but TCU didn’t need it. What good does all the money do if you’re not winning ? Remember, 2-3 of the blue bloods are in danger of falling off the list.
-
Money >>> winning, but not winning means less money.
-
TCU didn't need the $$$ to win the B12, but they needed the invite to the conference
no program is ever going to agree to taking millions of dollars less, even if they think they can win more games
games against who?
I'm guessing going forward the 12-team playoff is going to be stacked with B1G and SEC teams, the ACC (for now) and ND
winning the B12 and the PAC isn't going to get you in.
-
I think the winner of the B12 will get an invite, probably a top 4 seed, in most years. We only have four conferences left, and the champions of each are almost guaranteed a top 4 seed. I can't think of a G5 that has much of a shot, and the "major" G5 teams are now in the B12, or perhaps some kind of Pac residual (SDSU).
Of course, the playoff may be changed before it happens.
-
depends on their record and resume
-
Didn’t Cindy get in a few years ago as a G5? Obviously they got obliterated, but still..
-
Can you think of a likely scenario where the top four ranked conference champions are not B1G/SEC/ACC/B12?
I can't.
-
Didn’t Cindy get in a few years ago as a G5? Obviously they got obliterated, but still..
Cincy did, yes, but under a very different playoff system.
-
The 12-team format will feature, in order, the top four conference champions, followed by some combination of the top six at-large bids and two highest-ranked remaining conference champions. Teams will be ordered based on the College Football Playoff rankings.
That guarantees at least one "Group of 5" team will make the Playoff each year and, while it's unlikely, allows the possibility of more than one G5 team making the Playoff in lieu of a "Power 5" team.
I think this is going to get changed. The G5 conferences have been stripped of nearly every semi-relevant team. Hawaii?? BSU??? UConn?????
We're going to have, otherwise, a really poor team as the 12 seed, which I guess is OK?
-
I think the top 4 conference champ thing can also be changed
-
Sure, I expect folks to talk about this a lot between now and then, maybe something gets done. The two highest ranked conference champions will end up being two crappy teams indeed.
-
9-3 Iowa State or Okie St.?
follow the $$$
teams like that aren't going to have great TV ratings, even in the playoff
-
I am looking at the two conference champs that don' tt make the top four slots. They would get an at large bid as it's currently done.
I'd guess you'd have the Pac Whatever champ, if it survives at all, and the MWC champ, which would be a sad group.
-
the TV network that bid to have those matchups is gonna want change
-
Long term, I think conferences will experience de-alignment.
Short term, next 10-20 years, I think we're going to be an AFC / NFC scenario.
B1G vs SEC, 8 outta ten teams int the playoff. 4 spots up for grabs, until the playoff expands to 16. That's the ultimate goal IMO.
-
TCU didn't need the $$$ to win the B12, but they needed the invite to the conference
no program is ever going to agree to taking millions of dollars less, even if they think they can win more games
games against who?
I'm guessing going forward the 12-team playoff is going to be stacked with B1G and SEC teams, the ACC (for now) and ND
winning the B12 and the PAC isn't going to get you in.
The ACC is terrible, I'm curious why you keep bringing them up? The New B12 is a much better football conference than the ACC.
-
Long term, I think conferences will experience de-alignment.
Short term, next 10-20 years, I think we're going to be an AFC / NFC scenario.
B1G vs SEC, 8 outta ten teams int the playoff. 4 spots up for grabs, until the playoff expands to 16. That's the ultimate goal IMO.
The playoff should be winner of the 4 major conferences and 4 at large for 8 teams
-
The ACC is terrible, I'm curious why you keep bringing them up? The New B12 is a much better football conference than the ACC.
indeed. regardless i would imagine both leagues will produce a top 12 qual team virtually every season that’s not that hard.
to the dude that referenced cinci getting in remember the yr they did that they won at notre dame and went undefeated and it was a yr nd otherwise had a good record.
-
We now have only four P5 conferences if we include the ACC and not the Pac 4. Something will have to give. And I don't think the ACC is all that bad in football.
-
according to the pre-season polls.....
national perception is that the ACC is better than the B12
perception is not reality, but.....
-
The ACC has three historically near elite programs, the B12 has none. The ACC drops off pretty fast though to mediocrity, and worse.
-
according to the pre-season polls.....
national perception is that the ACC is better than the B12
perception is not reality, but.....
Preseason polls, rat's ass.
Last year's final AP Poll:
2 TCU (new B12)
10 Utah (new B12)
11 FSU (ACC)
13 Clemson (ACC)
14 Kansas State (new B12)
22 Pitt (ACC)
new B12 avg rank 8.7, ACC avg rank 15.3. I rest my case :)
-
The ACC has three historically near elite programs, the B12 has none. The ACC drops off pretty fast though to mediocrity, and worse.
The ACC only has one program performing at an elite level in any consistent matter that is relevant in 2023, and a couple of fading near-helmets. The middle to bottom falls quickly to trash. The B12 is much more solid all the way through.
-
Last season's final AP Poll - closer than I thought until you get to other's receiving
1 -Georgia
2 -TCU
3 -Michigan
4 -Ohio State
5 -Alabama
6 -Tennessee
7 -Penn State
8 -Washington
9 -Tulane
10 -Utah
11 -Florida State
12 -USC
13 -Clemson
14 -Kansas State
15 -Oregon
16 -LSU
17 -Oregon State
18 -Notre Dame
19 -Troy
20 -Mississippi State
21 -UCLA
22 -Pittsburgh
23 -South Carolina
24 -Fresno State
25 -Texas
Others receiving votes: Duke 49, Texas Tech 19, North Carolina 8, NC State 6, Louisville 3
-
Last season's final AP Poll - closer than I thought until you get to other's receiving
1 -Georgia
2 -TCU
3 -Michigan
4 -Ohio State
5 -Alabama
6 -Tennessee
7 -Penn State
8 -Washington
9 -Tulane
10 -Utah
11 -Florida State
12 -USC
13 -Clemson
14 -Kansas State
15 -Oregon
16 -LSU
17 -Oregon State
18 -Notre Dame
19 -Troy
20 -Mississippi State
21 -UCLA
22 -Pittsburgh
23 -South Carolina
24 -Fresno State
25 -Texas
Others receiving votes: Duke 49, Texas Tech 19, North Carolina 8, NC State 6, Louisville 3
You missed the New B12's Cincinnati with 1 vote.
Now, go ahead and add up total points for each conference, see how that shakes out. :)
-
sorry, tough to think of Cincy in the B12
like I said, closer than I thought
I stand corrected
-
Arguing about the current relative quality of the two conferences is admittedly kind of silly.
What's more interesting, will be watching to see if the financial gap between the B12 TV contracts and the ACC TV contracts over the next decade, result in any increase in the quality of outcomes for B12 teams with respect to ACC teams.
As I've pointed out before, one of the primary things that has FSU all hot and bothered, is that Central Florida is going to be making more money than the Noles. More money than the Canes, too. Who would have thought THAT was possible a decade ago, or even 5 years back???
-
https://twitter.com/jasonscheer/status/1688364287008575488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1688364287008575488%7Ctwgr%5E07d16d094321fd79fa281ad5a09b74f7618daa34%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fjasonscheer%2Fstatus%2F1688364287008575488%3Fs%3D4626t%3DeJHk9B0xfuP0VGyqKCxp-g
-
I hope Oregon and Washington got discounted rates
-
I hope Oregon and Washington got discounted rates
That's the rumor.
-
Arguing about the current relative quality of the two conferences is admittedly kind of silly.
The list of items that garner a lot of interest in CFB that really are kind of silly is long.
-
I'm expecting the Big 12 to play really exciting, competitive ball. Really, too competitive.
When there was a "big hitter" in the league, like (sometimes) Texas or OU or Nebraska, one of those other teams could win their way up the chain by beating a (usually over-ranked) high rank team. Unless Utah continues or TCU has more than what I think they do, this is a league tailor made for beating each other up year after year.
-
I'm expecting the Big 12 to play really exciting, competitive ball. Really, too competitive.
When there was a "big hitter" in the league, like (sometimes) Texas or OU or Nebraska, one of those other teams could win their way up the chain by beating a (usually over-ranked) high rank team. Unless Utah continues or TCU has more than what I think they do, this is a league tailor made for beating each other up year after year.
Yup.
It's actually been advantageous for the SEC and the B1G to be fairly top-heavy over the years. Keeps a couple of teams "clean" at the top while giving all the other teams just enough juice to prop up the top guys. Works even better when you're only playing 8 conference games instead of 9, replacing those missing conference games with FCS cupcakes, and therefore cutting the number of guaranteed total conference losses by as much as 7 per season.
The B12 has pretty much been the opposite for most of its existence. Outside of a couple or three years when OU or Texas or Nebraska were simply the dominant team in the conference, it's really beat itself up and caused a lot of damage to its perception over the years.
-
SEC programs have some historical props that helps a lot, "near blue bloods" who do really well often enough to remain someone notable, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, UGA, Florida, they all sound like worthy programs, even if they are 8-4. It yields a ranking boost for them I think.
-
SEC programs have some historical props that helps a lot, "near blue bloods" who do really well often enough to remain someone notable, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, UGA, Florida, they all sound like worthy programs, even if they are 8-4. It yields a ranking boost for them I think.
Yup, and 8-4 looks better to the voters at season's end, and they never remember that 8th win was against Tennessee Chattanooga and if there'd been 9 conference games, that record might have been 7-5, which all of a sudden sounds less near-blue-bloody.
It's not against the rules and it has been quite effective.
-
Well, the 9 conference game thing is not much different from playing 8 and 1 decent opponent and 3 pastries, if the 9 still has 3 pastries.
Maybe you add Vandy and drop say FSU ...
-
Well, the 9 conference game thing is not much different from playing 8 and 1 decent opponent and 3 pastries, if the 9 still has 3 pastries.
Maybe you add Vandy and drop say FSU ...
Maybe you drop Tennessee Chattanooga and add a not-great but still-dangerous 4-7 Texas A&M team? That's precisely the danger of playing an added conference game and being forced into one more game against the middle of your conference.
It's also a guaranteed 7 losses within your 14-team conference, rather than a likely conference clean-sweep against the FCS on the SEC's annual cupcake weekend.
-
guaranteed 7 losses effects overall SOS
-
guaranteed 7 losses effects overall SOS
Yup. It also affects the way poll voters cast their ballots.
-
I literally never even thought about the whole 9 conference game scenario vs 8 games. It only comes up in this forum, and it really doesn't matter. I have no idea why we talk about it so much, and once Texas is in the SEC you won't care either.
About the only thing I don't care about is not playing all the conference foes in a somewhat decent time frame. For example, A&M has only played UGa once in conference in our 12 years in the SEC. I'd like to play all the conference teams at least twice per decade or something. But when you get to 14, 16, or more teams that becomes more and more difficult.
-
I'd be for 9 conf game slates IF everybody still played another P5 OOC.
-
I literally never even thought about the whole 9 conference game scenario vs 8 games. It only comes up in this forum, and it really doesn't matter. I have no idea why we talk about it so much, and once Texas is in the SEC you won't care either.
About the only thing I don't care about is not playing all the conference foes in a somewhat decent time frame. For example, A&M has only played UGa once in conference in our 12 years in the SEC. I'd like to play all the conference teams at least twice per decade or something. But when you get to 14, 16, or more teams that becomes more and more difficult.
You're wrong, because I'm in favor of the SEC moving to a 9-game conference schedule. That would enable the 3-6-6 schedule which I believe is far superior to any other scheduling alternatives floated out there.
-
And it comes up in all kinds of football forums that are not strictly SEC-focused.
Of course you're never going to hear about it on Texags or SECrant, but there's a whole big world of forums out there that are not SEC-focused.
It's one of the things I like about Joel Klatt-- he talks about this stuff all the time. Mind you, the SEC hasn't done anything that's against the rules, everything is legal and the other conferences could certainly do it too. In some part, the ACC already mimics it. They're just so terribad that it doesn't really matter.
-
Is the ACC still around?
-
They are until the B1G figures out a way to break the GOR and spring FSU.
-
And Miami, UNC and UVA.
Followed by ND, Stanford and Texas A&M.
-
:7505:
-
UNC and UVA & Stanford
who are they of little TV ratings?
basketball schools???
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/366573973_741319947797864_5233166134904938673_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=pf9GGBYTsYwAX-FxATJ&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfC0vvMm5vzLd4waURlh02lMVZ-By-vv7qtqTslxs9fEiA&oe=64DB10B6)
-
Figured this fits on a realignment thread. This family portrait taken before Houston joined the SWC in '72.
(https://i.imgur.com/YlV5mrs.jpg)
-
the way it should be
8 or 9 teams
7 or 8 game schedule
-
https://www.kold.com/video/2023/08/07/ua-shift-pac12-big12-could-also-have-academic-impact/ (https://www.kold.com/video/2023/08/07/ua-shift-pac12-big12-could-also-have-academic-impact/)
-
https://www.kold.com/video/2023/08/07/ua-shift-pac12-big12-could-also-have-academic-impact/ (https://www.kold.com/video/2023/08/07/ua-shift-pac12-big12-could-also-have-academic-impact/)
Im not sure what the message is here
Are they suggesting their academic quality will decline when going to the Big12?
-
don't know from that shoddy piece
I'd guess so
the message is that they don't know
-
https://www.lubbockonline.com/story/sports/college/red-raiders/2023/08/20/so-close-so-far-away-an-inside-look-at-how-texas-techs-2010-talks-to-join-the-pac-10-fell-apart/70528852007/
Man things could have really went different.
-
The article is conflating a lot of the issues from 2010, and 2011. Those were two distinctly different time periods for realignment.
In 2010 the LHN didn't exist and had nothing to do with the 2010 negotiations. Everyone knew that Nebraska was bolting and that's when Texas, OU, oSu, A&M, Tech, and Colorado started having talks with the PAC, trying to set up a soft landing spot if the B12 fell apart after Nebraska's departure. All 6 got PAC invites and when Colorado heard that Baylor was asking UT to bring them in place of Colorado, the Buffs accepted the invite and split town. Lots of their alumni had long leaned toward the PAC anyway, there are some pretty close ties between the states of Colorado and California and a lot of Buff grads end up there. So Nebraska and Colorado were gone, and the rest of the B12 was scrambling. The remaining 5 schools were still talking to the PAC, but that's when A&M decided to slow down their part of the talks, because they had also been in talks with the SEC and many in their camp believed it to be a better fit than the PAC. And that hesitation gave Fox and ESPN just enough time to come through with big-time contracts that kept the B12 competitive enough for the time being, money-wise, with the B1G and SEC, and that is what convinced Texas to stay home in 2010. Once Texas decided to stick around in the B12, and A&M was talking to the SEC, the rest of the "PAC-16" discussions ended pretty quickly.
In 2011, things were very different. The LHN did exist and is why there were never any negotiations between the PAC and UT to begin with-- Texas to the PAC in 2011 was not even a remote possibility. The PAC was certainly courting Texas, Tech, OU, and oSu, but Texas had no desire to go at that point. Everyone had known since 2010 when the ags put the big pause on the PAC-16 deal, that the ags were headed east, which is why they weren't a part of the 2011 negotiations with OU, oSu, and Tech.
A couple years later OU and oSu once again flirted with the PAC on their own, but without Texas, the PAC wasn't interested.
-
This is kind of funny:
https://twitter.com/CJVogel_TFB/status/1703482955518087343?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1703482955518087343%7Ctwgr%5Ed22eb12e63cb77b1b80f1df9ef4375756a3608b6%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fx.com%2FCJVogel_TFB%2Fstatus%2F1703482955518087343%3Fs%3D20
-
Do you think the "new B12" will be a decent conference? Or a group of quasi-midgets battling it out and beating each other to have some 10-3 champion making the playoff?
-
quasi-midgets
-
The related question will be whether they make enough money to be competitive longer term. With no Blue Blood or Big Dog, would they have enough interest to snag a nice contract?
-
Do you think the "new B12" will be a decent conference? Or a group of quasi-midgets battling it out and beating each other to have some 10-3 champion making the playoff?
The B12 is always going to be a stepping stone conference, but it has traditionally produced some pretty good coaching and some very good players. Geographically, where it is situated, with so many Texas schools still involved, it's always going to have access to talent. As for 10-3 champions making the playoff? Yeah it could happen. But I don't really care so much about that. TCU was "unworthy" last year, right up until the point they beat heavily favored Michigan. Turns out "we" don't know much about competition and competitiveness.
The related question will be whether they make enough money to be competitive longer term. With no Blue Blood or Big Dog, would they have enough interest to snag a nice contract?
People actually watch B12 football. That's why it was always going to outlast the PAC-- nobody watches PAC football, nobody cares about it, not even their own fans. I know all of the traditional Big Ten fans on this site poo poo'd me when I kept saying it for the past decade, because of their love of their traditions with the PAC and the Rose Bowl, but post-2011 there was never going to be a scenario where the B12 dissolved and the PAC survived. The ONLY way that would have happened would have been back in 2010, when Texas and 5 other schools were nervous about the future of the B12 and looked westward. But even then, ESPN and Fox knew the true value was in the B12, because that's where the television ratings were, and they offered up contract increases to keep the B12 at least somewhat aligned to the money in the SEC and the B1G (and ahead of both the PAC and ACC).
The B12 is actually stable now, precisely because they have no more brands to poach. Contrast that to the ACC which is currently unstable, because there are still brands that the B1G and SEC are interested in. As long as that's true, then the B12 is actually safer than the ACC. And it's not like the level of competition in the ACC is any better than the B12, in most years it's significantly worse, aside from Clemson-- whose reign seems to be coming to a close. FSU might or might not be good, but they're not enough to save that conference from all of the basketball schools.
Will the B12 be making as much money as the B1G and the SEC? Of course not. Will they be making as much as the ACC? They're already making more, and contractually will continue to do so for another decade. And then, once the B1G and SEC poach the last remaining desirable brands from the ACC? I don't see any way the ACC can possibly keep up.
But will that be enough for the "New B12" to actually compete with the B1G and SEC, when the deltas in TV contracts reach $50M-$70M per school, per year? No way. And the ACC will be even further behind. At that point, there will be two definitively separate tiers within FBS/D1-A, even without some manufactured "breakaway."
-
People actually watch the Big 12...but with Texas and Oklahoma in it.
What's the footprint for viewers strictly within the school fan bases?
There are surely many like me who watch Big 12 games because often we want to see what the name brands are doing. When OU and UT are no longer in the B12, I don't know that I'll be watching that much.
There's going to be a lot of outside viewership lost once there are no Helmets in the league, I suspect.
-
People actually watch the Big 12...but with Texas and Oklahoma in it.
What's the footprint for viewers strictly within the school fan bases?
There are surely many like me who watch Big 12 games because often we want to see what the name brands are doing. When OU and UT are no longer in the B12, I don't know that I'll be watching that much.
There's going to be a lot of outside viewership lost once there are no Helmets in the league, I suspect.
Sure, but even normalizing for only games without the helmets, the B12 consistently got better ratings than both the ACC and the PAC. Seriously, nobody has watched the PAC in decades, outside of an occasional game with USC or Oregon in it. But for whatever reason, people DO tune into games with TCU vs. Oklahoma State or West Virginia vs. Kansas State or whatever. At least, in numbers relative to matchups with the non-helmets from the other conferences. There are just more college football fans in middle America than there are on the coasts. Plenty of people have opined on why that might be over the decades.
Here's the ratings from last year's conference championship games, which provide a glimpse into the television ratings realities by conference, relative to one another. As expected the B1G and the SEC games lead the pack, but the B12 game followed them pretty closely even without a helmet of any kind, and had 1.5X the viewers of the PAC title game which featured USC, and more than 2X the viewers of the ACC game which featured Clemson.
(https://i.imgur.com/C4MLJ1t.png)
-
Who will be the top programs in terms of fan interest?
-
I think the "new" Big 12 will play exciting football that will be attractive to the respective fan bases.
The big issue is going to be national relevance. The very thing that'll make most of the games exciting (that is, they're fairly evenly matched) means it's unlikely that the Big 12 will affect national outcomes for long.
Much gets made about a team's fan base, and all things equal, it's good to have a large one. However, large fan bases don't earn the big viewership numbers by themselves. A "small school" team with an opportunity to win a spot (or demote a contender) will find that game raking in the viewers. Such games will naturally find themselves running in advantageous time slots as well.
The Pac-12 starting at 930 was fantastic for hardcore CFB fans who wanted to keep the party going after the "good" games!
-
Who will be the top programs in terms of fan interest?
Not sure.
BYU has a fairly large national following.
Utah has had some recent success and is fairly popular, and Colorado has the Prime factor, so when they move over next year they'll probably draw some eyeballs.
And then there's TCU which despite its small size, seems to punch above its weight class regularly, and fans dig that.
-
Hey, cool....nearly 11 million people watched my team get Dawg-stomped like chumps last year.
-
Well there were zero watching us that weekend 'cause we sucked so bad we couldn't even make the CCG. So there's that.
-
Do the AZ teams get many eyeballs? BYU will be interesting.
-
Do the AZ teams get many eyeballs? BYU will be interesting.
I don't think they get many. It's not like bringing in some of the bottom teams from the PAC is going to "save" the B12, but I don't think it's going to hurt the B12, either.
-
I think the Pac teams will be about even, as you suggested, from what I can discern. Maybe they should take OrSU and Wazzu and basically make a "Western Division".
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ON6usMK.jpg)
-
I don't know how much interest the Arizona teams bring in their own state but I would maybe think that the matchups with the other Big 12 teams would be more exciting than what the PAC offered outside USC/UCLA. I never watched much of anything with the PAC anyways, but I may be interested to see Ariz and oSu or ASU and KSU.
If the teams are good the fans will watch it. Entertainment is what we're after.
-
Personally, I was very happy with the SEC we joined ( as I was also happy with much of the B12 as it existed, with the exception of the divisions makeup).
The conferences made sense. Now, they just seem so bloated. There can only be one conference champion. Arkansas has been in the SEC for 30+ years and hasn’t won it yet ( 4 CCG appearances). UTenn hasn’t won since 1998 ( coincidentally A&M’s last title as well). I can see a future where you have 3-4 blue bloods that get stuck in the middle for decades, sorta like UNL is right now. 1999 was their last, 24 years and counting and it may not happen for them ever again. I know OU fans have plenty of high expectations ( and a little hubris ) but seriously it only takes a few years of mediocre coaching and bad leadership and your program will be in a deep hole that’s hard to get out of. How happy is OU and its fans going to be when they hit 20-25 years with no conference titles. Has that ever even happened before in their history?
All the signs point to the SE US being the power center for football. Bama, UGA, UF.LSU is on that list also with 3 MNCs this century.
Re the underlined, OU was champion of the MVIAA (the ancestor of both the Missouri Valley Conference and the Big 6/7/8) in 1920 and did not win another until 1938, when it won the Big 6. More recently, OU won the Big 8 in 1987 and did not win another conference title until 2000. Those are the longest dry spells as far as winning a conference title.
-
Well A&M is at 25 years and counting (I already wrote this year off, had to beat Bama at home to have a shot). I know most of you don't think much of the Aggies but we've won 18 conference championships in our past. We're not in quite the same class as Texas Tech or Kansas or Oklahoma State. We were pretty good at times in almost every decade except the 50's and 60's and even then we won a couple in the SWC, we won a lot in the 80's and 90's.
The sad part is that we probably would have won at least 2-4 more conference titles had we stayed in the Big 12. I know it's easy to say that after the fact but OSU won, Baylor won, TCU won.
-
Gigem:
Looking back at the original Big 12 configuration, A&M would seem to have been the natural #4 team, based on historical performance. But that understates how good A&M was at the time. The '90s were a decade in which Texas A&M went 6-4 against Texas and had a better overall record than Texas. And A&M had a much better decade than OU did. So, when the conference was formed, the Aggies could have made the case that they were the #2 program in the conference, behind Nebraska.
But Mack Brown's arrival in Austin and Bob Stoops' arrival in Norman brought improvement to UT and OU, and R.C. Slocum failed to keep up. A&M won that 1998 conference championship, ruining Bill Snyder's last best hope for a national championship, but none after that.
Is Jimbo Fisher the guy to get the Aggies where the fans want them to be?
-
The SEC is going to be bloated, but at least it's still relatively regional and name still mostly makes sense. Oklahoma isn't really south or eastern, but they fill out the square shape of the southeast quadrant of the country. Texas is sort of Southern, depending on who you ask, but geographically they are the obvious place for the SEC to expand.
It's way better than what the Big 12 has going on these days with West Virginia, for example, and now BYU. That's a geographic mess. And the Big Ten, with the California schools etc. joining......ugh. Traditionally college football was a regional sport, and while the SEC has done as much or more than anyone to NFL-ize the sport, at least A&M gets to participate in something that's still mostly regional.
-
The SEC is going to be bloated, but at least it's still relatively regional and name still mostly makes sense. Oklahoma isn't really south or eastern, but they fill out the square shape of the southeast quadrant of the country. Texas is sort of Southern, depending on who you ask, but geographically they are the obvious place for the SEC to expand.
It's way better than what the Big 12 has going on these days with West Virginia, for example, and now BYU. That's a geographic mess. And the Big Ten, with the California schools etc. joining......ugh. Traditionally college football was a regional sport, and while the SEC has done as much or more than anyone to NFL-ize the sport, at least A&M gets to participate in something that's still mostly regional.
Oklahoma became a state with the merger of Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory. Oklahoma Territory was "western" in outlook and economy, while Indian Territory was "southern." There was a question about which viewpoint would prevail. Then the first law passed by the Oklahoma legislature established Jim Crow. So "southern" won that culture war.
Missouri is the outlier as far as shape goes.
-
Missouri is the outlier as far as shape goes.
More or less. But it could be argued that Kentucky was already a geographic outlier, and adding Missouri nicely rounds out a more normal outline to the SEC, making UK look less like an outlier. Particularly now with OU on board. The conference will cover a quarter of the country, but it's a contiguous quarter which can aptly be described as "southeastern."
In other news, many think of LSU as a Johnny come lately that started under Saban in the early 00's. In fact, LSU is something like 13 or 14 all-time, according to several lists I've seen (and if somebody made a list, it has to be true). Not exactly a blue blood, but not a historic also-ran either. I wonder if having to play OU and UT more frequently now is going to hurt LSU's win% going forward. In our case we'll probably only ever play one or the other in a given year, but that's an extra historic power that will take the place of a Mississippi State, for example, on our schedule.
SEC fans have said for years that other big schools wouldn't win so many games if they had to play through an SEC schedule. Guess we're 'bout to find out.
One thing I do know for sure, roster acquisition and management has fundamentally changed with NIL and the xfer portal. And LSU is badly behind the times with NIL, and it shows when you track individual swings and misses with players. I hate what the game is now, but LSU will have to figure something out if they don't want to slide into irrelevance.
-
Ive never thought of Oklahoma as a deep Southern state
All my relatives on my moms side came from Oklahoma
My mother was born in Anadarko Oklahoma
However in my mind Oklahoma is much more Southern then Missouri
-
Oklahoma isn't really south or eastern, but they fill out the square shape of the southeast quadrant of the country.
Yep. OU is S of Mizzou and E of UT.
-
Some of East Texas could be considered culturally "Southern." The rest of the state is not, with the West and the South being DISTINCTLY not.
But yes, since the "New SEC" is linked by state border-to-border, it's still significantly more geographically cohesive than the B1G, B12, and ACC.
-
The authority
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIrj9KHLrYw
-
He's correct....Nashville should absolutely have it's Southern status revoked. Buncha hipsters with Macbooks sitting around coffee shops talking about their latest activism.
-
Calli's map is better than Matt's. Only the eastern portion of Texas should be included, West Texas is nothing like The South and South Texas down into the RGV is about as far from "Southern" as you can get, other than the fact that Tejano and Zydeco both make heavy use of the accordion.
And I don't think of Oklahoma as Southern at all.
I can't really speak to Nashville, I've only briefly visited a couple of times, but I suspect he's right about Atlanta. It seems to be almost as hipster as Austin these days.
-
Do they speak with a drawl. That’s my criteria. All the people I associate with do, thus we’re southern. This includes my Hispanic and black friends.
-
I don't know. Every time Hollywood tries to make a movie about Texans, they end up forcing the actors into some kind of Georgia-style Deep South accent. The Texas accent is not a Deep South accent, they're not even particularly close.
-
Do they speak with a drawl. That’s my criteria. All the people I associate with do, thus we’re southern. This includes my Hispanic and black friends.
additional criteria you should use
1 are there more then 2 dogs on the front porch
2 do they go to family reunions looking for dates
3 is there more then 1 junk car in the back yard
4 does their house have wheels
-
Calli's map is better than Matt's. Only the eastern portion of Texas should be included, West Texas is nothing like The South and South Texas down into the RGV is about as far from "Southern" as you can get, other than the fact that Tejano and Zydeco both make heavy use of the accordion.
Arguably, Texas could not be included at all, since Texas is kinda....Texas....moreso than Southern. Granted there are similarities.
But here in SETX, it's pretty Southern, and this area has more in common with Louisiana than Austin or certainly El Paso/Brownsville, or even College Station. From my working days, I think East Texas, which I define as Lufkin, Tyler, etc. is also pretty Southern, though distinctly Texan in other ways. I'm not sure how far you have to go to leave that. Although College Station was a whole different animal than central Texas, it never felt very Southern to me. YMMV.
-
College Station is just culty. Not Southern, not Texan. Just culty.
I mean, they worship dead dogs. It's weird.
-
Best chicken fried steak Ive ever had was at a place called Youngbloods in College Station
I think now its called Carney's Pub
-
Eastern Oklahoma is culturally southern. I lived in the Choctaw nation, my wife in the Cherokee nation. Both tribes had treaties with the Confederacy. The Eastern Oklahoma accent is very close to the hillbilly twang of Arkansas.
-
Gigem:
Looking back at the original Big 12 configuration, A&M would seem to have been the natural #4 team, based on historical performance. But that understates how good A&M was at the time. The '90s were a decade in which Texas A&M went 6-4 against Texas and had a better overall record than Texas. And A&M had a much better decade than OU did. So, when the conference was formed, the Aggies could have made the case that they were the #2 program in the conference, behind Nebraska.
But Mack Brown's arrival in Austin and Bob Stoops' arrival in Norman brought improvement to UT and OU, and R.C. Slocum failed to keep up. A&M won that 1998 conference championship, ruining Bill Snyder's last best hope for a national championship, but none after that.
Is Jimbo Fisher the guy to get the Aggies where the fans want them to be?
What killed us was our leadership and boosters at the time didn't think they needed to upgrade facilities and amenities for recruits/players at the same pace as OU/Texas. I clearly remember that 1999 Norman game we lost to OU, like 51-6 or something. We went in with aspirations to repeat as Big 12 Champions and came out losing the conference to OU (and Texas) for essentially the rest of our time there. Of course Bob Stoops turned out to be one of the best coaches in CFB for that era, maybe one of the best of all time but shortly after the game ended photos started circulating on Texags showing OU's indoor practice fields and their locker rooms and all the things you would expect from a top tier CFB program, and this had all been in place for several years. Meanwhile our locker rooms were from the 1970's, the coaches office was cramped and just all around shitty.
Sure, RC failed to keep up with Mack and Bob, but our leadership failed to give him the facilities he needed. Eventually they saw the light and started building, probably 7-10 years too late, but they fired RC before he had a chance to use them. I realize now that firing RC was probably a mistake, but it really more depends on who you hire after the fire. Franchione seemed like a really solid hire at the time, turned out a big disaster. Sherman was a WTF hire. The man could recognize talent and recruit, but was a terrible game day coach. Sumlin =/= Tom Herman (even from UH). He really wasn't that bad. Fisher seemed really good, but hell we would go 8-4 with almost any coach for half the cost.
-
What killed us was our leadership and boosters at the time didn't think they needed to upgrade facilities and amenities for recruits/players at the same pace as OU/Texas. I clearly remember that 1999 Norman game we lost to OU, like 51-6 or something. We went in with aspirations to repeat as Big 12 Champions and came out losing the conference to OU (and Texas) for essentially the rest of our time there. Of course Bob Stoops turned out to be one of the best coaches in CFB for that era, maybe one of the best of all time but shortly after the game ended photos started circulating on Texags showing OU's indoor practice fields and their locker rooms and all the things you would expect from a top tier CFB program, and this had all been in place for several years. Meanwhile our locker rooms were from the 1970's, the coaches office was cramped and just all around shitty.
Sure, RC failed to keep up with Mack and Bob, but our leadership failed to give him the facilities he needed. Eventually they saw the light and started building, probably 7-10 years too late, but they fired RC before he had a chance to use them. I realize now that firing RC was probably a mistake, but it really more depends on who you hire after the fire. Franchione seemed like a really solid hire at the time, turned out a big disaster. Sherman was a WTF hire. The man could recognize talent and recruit, but was a terrible game day coach. Sumlin =/= Tom Herman (even from UH). He really wasn't that bad. Fisher seemed really good, but hell we would go 8-4 with almost any coach for half the cost.
I'd just add that Mack Brown was one of the best CFB coaches of that era too. Heck, he's still a good coach, doing good things at UNC.
How R.C. would have done with better facilities is an unknown, but the subsequent hires haven't worked out all that well.
-
Definitely concur about Mack being a really great coach. In the end he won as many MNC as Stoops. It seemed like even when he managed to finally beat OU and Stoops they would lose to Tech or some lesser opponent like CU in 2001. Must have been maddening to Texas fans of the era.
Conversely ou could lose to KSU in the CCG and still get in. Hmmmm
-
Definitely concur about Mack being a really great coach. In the end he won as many MNC as Stoops. It seemed like even when he managed to finally beat OU and Stoops they would lose to Tech or some lesser opponent like CU in 2001. Must have been maddening to Texas fans of the era.
Conversely ou could lose to KSU in the CCG and still get in. Hmmmm
Indeed it was.
Unfortunately for Mack, his legacy amongst many Texas fans will always be defined by his general failures against the Sooners. Such is the nature of that rivalry, there's little room for forgiveness.
But still I wish him well and am glad to see him successful elsewhere.
-
I think that's the nature of fandom now, which has been turned into NC-or-bust. The objective best coach in our school's history has mostly been forgotten, and when remembered, mentioned exactly as he usually was during his tenure, as a moron who couldn't coach.
Despite taking the school on its best run in history and one of the better runs in cfb history, his legacy is defined by losing the rematch to Alabama.
.....still irritates me that a team that went 12-1 with a crap schedule could win an NC over a team that went 13-1 with an all-time sos, and they being 1-1 against each other. C'est la vie.
-
I think that's the nature of fandom now, which has been turned into NC-or-bust. The objective best coach in our school's history has mostly been forgotten, and when remembered, mentioned exactly as he usually was during his tenure, as a moron who couldn't coach.
Despite taking the school on its best run in history and one of the better runs in cfb history, his legacy is defined by losing the rematch to Alabama.
.....still irritates me that a team that went 12-1 with a crap schedule could win an NC over a team that went 13-1 with an all-time sos, and they being 1-1 against each other. C'est la vie.
Oh I'm not defining Mack Brown's tenure by the NCs or lack thereof. Truth is that he won one, and played for another, which is already better than the vast majority of coaches out there.
I'm actually measuring his accomplishments the OLD way. Beat your rival, win your conference, go to a good bowl. His legacy is sadly lacking in the first of those, which unfortunately led directly to his struggles doing the second. He did have a pretty good bowl record ultimately, and won some really big ones.
-
Hmm....there's probably valid parallels there as well.
When Miles was fired I agreed it was probably time, and nobody had been a bigger defender than me. I thought the average fan got it mostly wrong, though. He was defined by no longer beating Alabama starting in 2012. For various reasons I didn't think that was such a knock, and I recognize that zebras blatantly took the 2014 game away from LSU, which would've gone a long way toward buying some goodwill.
IMO the correct thing to ding him for was the Alabama Hangover. In the final seasons there were too many instances of good LSU teams that hinged their entire reason for being on beating Alabama, and when that didn't happen, they folded. i.e., why he needed to be let go, imo, was not for losing to the Gumps, but rather for losing too many times to Ole Miss and Arkansas which came after. No way those LSU teams should've lost to those other teams, and no doubt in my mind that they packed it in after Alabama and went through the motions until they destroyed some hopeful bowl opponent. He had lost his ability to motivate the team post-Bama, and his 10/11-win seasons became 8/9 win seasons unnecessarily.
Today's average LSU fan, I think, sees Bama the same way Texas sees OU. It's not analogous, imo, and I think admin finally arrived at (probably) the right conclusion, for the wrong reasons.
-
.....still irritates me that a team that went 12-1 with a crap schedule could win an NC over a team that went 13-1 with an all-time sos, and they being 1-1 against each other. C'est la vie.
That situation illustrates why I have never been in favor of a playoff.
But nobody asked me, so all I can do is yell at people to get off my lawn.
-
That situation illustrates why I have never been in favor of a playoff.
But nobody asked me, so all I can do is yell at people to get off my lawn.
I dont understand this logic
If team A beats team B they are the champs
They either can beat them or they cant
If they cant beat them they dont deserve the title
If UT didnt possibly play OU again then OU should be in the playoffs and UT should stay home or not be in the mix
settle it on the field
the only possible exception is the CCG winner should determine who is playoff bound
-
Indeed it was.
Unfortunately for Mack, his legacy amongst many Texas fans will always be defined by his general failures against the Sooners. Such is the nature of that rivalry, there's little room for forgiveness.
But still I wish him well and am glad to see him successful elsewhere.
I don't disagree, but think about all the seasons where he beat OU but lost to a lesser team along the way and let OU sneak into the MNC. I can think of at least 3. '01 CU, '06 A&M, and '08 Tech. Even playing for a major bowl in any of those seasons would have lessened the sting.
I may be misremembering CU because I think OU beat Texas big but Texas still went to the Big XII CCG. I just remember that Texas had an outside chance at the MNC that year. I think FSU won it (or maybe Miami).
-
I don't disagree, but think about all the seasons where he beat OU but lost to a lesser team along the way and let OU sneak into the MNC. I can think of at least 3. '01 CU, '06 A&M, and '08 Tech. Even playing for a major bowl in any of those seasons would have lessened the sting.
Texas did play in a BCS bowl that year--Fiesta Bowl, I think--against Ohio State. And tbf OU snuck into the MNC in no small part because voters awarded them the 3-way tie-breaker between UT, OU, and Tech. There are some teams the voters forgive for stumbling.....SEC, OU.....and other teams that don't get the same consideration.....USC, Texas are the examples that year.
Frankly, I think in OU's case they did it because they're trolls and enjoyed watching what happened to OU in BCS games.
-
I don't disagree, but think about all the seasons where he beat OU but lost to a lesser team along the way and let OU sneak into the MNC. I can think of at least 3. '01 CU, '06 A&M, and '08 Tech. Even playing for a major bowl in any of those seasons would have lessened the sting.
I may be misremembering CU because I think OU beat Texas big but Texas still went to the Big XII CCG. I just remember that Texas had an outside chance at the MNC that year. I think FSU won it (or maybe Miami).
Miami won it that year and conventional wisdom is that anyone they played would have been a sacrificial lamb. That might be true. But they played Nebraska, not OU, in that game.
Anyway Texas lost to OU in 2001 so it doesn't really fall into your exact definition. That loss didn't cost Texas a shot at the B12 CCG but then the Horns turned around and lost to CU 39-37 in Irving, after beating the Buffs 41-7 in Austin. That's a missed opportunity at a conference championship that lies squarely at Mack's feet for starting Chris Simms over Major Applewhite, who was the better gameday quarterback. Major almost engineered a furious comeback victory, but fell 2 points short.
The '06 team beat OU pretty handily but lost to both Kansas State and Texas A&M (and Ohio State non-conference). After the departure of Vince Young, that team just wasn't elite or even close to it. As great as Colt McCoy played as a freshman, he was still just a freshman. I don't really blame Mack for anything that season, other than perhaps promoting Duane Akina to DC when he was clearly a good position coach and nothing more. Oh and OU didn't play for the NC that year either. Instead they played Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl-- and lost.
'08 is what it is. A crazy loss on the high plains to Tech when the refs allowed Orakpo and all the other Texas d-linemen to be bear-hugged to the ground all day long, like this play, that ended up injuring Orakpo and knocking him out of that game and the next couple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM28K2wg8dY
Zero doubt in my mind Texas was the best team in the country that year. That '08 team was significantly better than the '09 team that actually went to the NC game against Alabama. And Texas did play in a major bowl that year, beating the 10th ranked Ohio State Buckeyes 24-21 in the Fiesta.