CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big XII => Topic started by: TexasFan on September 20, 2018, 03:12:29 PM
-
Vegas has TCU as a 3 pt favorite. Basically calling it about even.
http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-football/odds/las-vegas/line-movement/texas-christian-@-texas-austin.cfm/date/9-22-18/time/1630 (http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-football/odds/las-vegas/line-movement/texas-christian-@-texas-austin.cfm/date/9-22-18/time/1630)
-
Not many fans I know would take Texas and 3 points
For UT to win they will have to hold TCU to under 30 and I dont think thats gonna happen
But of course one can always hope
-
Wish TF hadn’t started a game thread.
Texas is 1-1 with game threads and 1-0 without.
You have to ask yourself, how are the ECFGs going to interpret this hubris. I think the smart plan would’ve been to let them imagine our spirit is still completely broken.
-
We will win. Have faith. ;)
-
To paraphrase Napoleon, God is on the side of those with the better edge defenders.
TCU puts fast guys all over the offense. Texas needs the 1st half to end quickly so BJ Foster can rejoin the festivities. Basically, sound assignments and sideline to sideline defense. Rookie mistakes will show up in the endzone.
The Frog defense is complicated, but the Horn offense isn't. We don't care where TCU puts their guys, because the objective is to shove whoever is there out of the way. Save the tricky stuff for a less well disciplined defense and just see who's stronger.
TCU has the edge, and they deserve it. I just feel that, for the first time in a long time, the team, the coaches, and the fans are all on the same page.
-
We're doomed.
-
We are so doomed.
But you know...
After all I've endured as a Texas fan, I just consider it a moral victory when we keep the opposition under 60.
-
Yup, that's a win in my book
-
Vegas has TCU as a 3 pt favorite. Basically calling it about even.
I enjoy our helmet value. But I can't bring myself to bet against us. So I'll just take the loss.
-
Forget what I said before.
Texas 31
TCU 21
Why do I continually do this to myself.
-
TCU 49
UT 13
-
You have to ask yourself, how are the ECFGs going to interpret this hubris. I think the smart plan would’ve been to let them imagine our spirit is still completely broken.
ECFGs who don't already know what you're really thinking are ECFGs hardly worth fearing.
You're either pre-screwed/blessed, or else they're really impotent and don't deserve our respect. When it comes to the ECFGs, fatalism is the only sane option.
-
Forget what I said before.
Texas 31
TCU 21
Why do I continually do this to myself.
now that's a derned good question
-
ECFGs who don't already know what you're really thinking are ECFGs hardly worth fearing.
You're either pre-screwed/blessed, or else they're really impotent and don't deserve our respect. When it comes to the ECFGs, fatalism is the only sane option.
So you're the John Calvin of college football religion?
-
Always saw myself as more of a Martin Luther, but sure, why not.
-
Always saw myself as more of a Martin Luther, but sure, why not.
trouble maker
-
takes one to know one :)
-
Missouri Synod Lutheran
-
ECFGs who don't already know what you're really thinking are ECFGs hardly worth fearing.
You're either pre-screwed/blessed, or else they're really impotent and don't deserve our respect. When it comes to the ECFGs, fatalism is the only sane option.
Over the years you have proven yourself to be a good man, Amos, but you’d best be glad we don’t actually martyr heretics anymore because you don’t seem to know shinola about ECFGs.
Do you honestly think they’re omniscient like the big G?
I think we’ve already established the fact that they’re demons. Do Louisiana s think demons are omniscient? That must be some of that NOLA voodoo stuff slippin into your Kool-Aid.
Every half-assed armchair theologian knows they ain’t. Remember what the demon possessed doods in Gadarenes said to Jesus?
“What do you plan to do with us?”
Omniscient? I don’t think so.
I think Peter says there are things the angels wish they knew.
Come on, Amos. Pull your head out.
ECFGs are are evil and capricious but they don’t know what we think.
Shesh.
-
I tell you what though. They read every football forum.
Especially Bucknuts.
-
Let's go Texas!
-
Nice win. First vs tcu in awhile I think.
-
Lost 4 in a row I think, prior to that? And 5 of the last 6. This is only UT's second win in 7 seasons that TCU has been in the B12 I believe. Sucking sucks.
-
I don't relish the idea of having to play either the Horns or the Horned Frogs ... neither of them suck this year (at football that is, although of course Texas Sucks is one of the few invariant laws of the known universe).
-
I don't relish the idea of having to play either the Horns or the Horned Frogs ... neither of them suck this year (at football that is, although of course Texas Sucks is one of the few invariant laws of the known universe).
Not to mention Army
-
Fred, we may actually have an interesting contest in the Cotton Bowl this year.
-
So, does this mean you all will spare me all the sandbagging dOUmed posts this time round? That'd be nice.
I definitely think the RRR will be a major battle. Texas has gelled, and we've begun to falter. Am hoping the Baylor game isn't another near disaster like the Army one was. Losing Rodney Anderson was probably a bigger hit than any Sooner fan wanted to admit
-
Living in Austin for a number of years, I know a significant amount of Longhorn fans. Some of the very people on this board I consider friends. I went to a lot of games, because I like gameday atmospheres, because I love cfb in general, and because at one time utee94 threw a heckuva tailgate.
But I never actually rooted for them, per se. I used to describe Texas as like watching your neighbors kids playing outside the window. They're not your kids and you don't feel a deep connection to them, but you like them anyway and you'd miss them if they weren't around.
This year, my new bride and I are of course watching more football together than ever. Meaning I no longer miss any UT games. For her sake I feel vaguely obligated to root for them. It's easy enough to root for a team....every time I'm forced to watch NFL I can arbitrarily pick a team and root for them. But I can't be crushed with her. I can't long for UT dominance in days gone by with her. I can muster an acceptable amount of enthusiasm for big wins, but I can't adequately feign heartbreak over a loss.
Don't know if a real secondary fandom is something you can ever truly grow into, unless I have a kid one day that plays for UT. And I'm guessing that's okay, because I don't expect her to live and die by my team either, and I wouldn't want her to fake it.
I feel like something clever could be attached to that last line, but my inner CharleyHooky is awol.
-
On shaggy (surly) the proper response would be, "I faked it with your mom last night."
But nobody here is nearly so uncouth. Right?
My "secondary" teams are Stanford, Michigan, and Air Force, for various reasons. I enjoy watching them play and always root for them to win, but their losses don't affect me one way or the other. The Longhorns, on the other hand...
-
Slightly back on topic but does anybody ever wonder about TCU's long-term benefit for the Big 12? I mean right now they are a great addition to the conference and their football team has been nails for 20+ years and their baseball team is tops but you have to wonder when Gary Patterson leaves/retires/gets fired how well is TCU going to be able to keep it's football program up? Right now they take a lot of talent that most major schools don't want and either turn 3* players into 4 and 5* performers or get a nice transfer like Kenny Hill once in awhile. Once, when I was bored, I looked up TCU's SWC history and was shocked at how bad they were when the Big 12 was formed. It was no wonder why they didn't get the invite to the XII and probably a good thing for them too since they were able to establish themselves outside of some very tough competition. I do admit they have played much better in the XII than what I thought they would. It's got to really stick in their craw that freakin' Baylor of all people would keep them out of the playoff.
From my understanding although they have a very nice stadium it's small and they don't even fill it up. I'm not sure how well they draw on TV but I know I'll watch them if they're playing somebody good (like UT or OU) or a bowl game but outside of that I don't pay much attention. I always imagine that if we had hired Gary Patterson instead of Fran how much different the last 20 years would look (and yes I know we stole Fran from 'Bama not TCU).
-
Slightly back on topic but does anybody ever wonder about TCU's long-term benefit for the Big 12?
TCU has come darn close to obtaining helmet value in the last 10-15 years. It sounds crazy to say. Nationally they are known. I credit Gary Patterson but I'm hoping Chris Del Conte had something to do with that as well.
As of now, TCU deserves P5 membership. I mean, think about it, Wake Forest is P5. Just being in the State of Texas allows schools like Baylor and TCU to be somewhat competitive. If TCU was in Iowa it would have no chance.
I do believe that TCU/Baylor can still remain competitive for the longer haul, even if/when Texas rebounds. It's a big state. Granted, the SEC gets what it wants from Texas, and not just talking about A&M. But it's a deep well.
Moderate CFB fans in Texas enjoy the matchups between Texas schools, so TCU helps out in that regard. I know hardcore Aggies act disinterested but I know many Aggie girls that would enjoy playing Baylor and TCU, etc. They're not caught up in the "screw you" drama, they just want something fun. It's a solid point.
A&M is doing fine now as an SEC member, and I predict Jimbo will deliver. However, an A&M vs. Miss State matchup doesn't hold a candle to A&M vs. Texas Tech. I can enjoy A&M vs LSU, and A&M vs. Arkansas, but once it starts stretching beyond that, I don't care much.
Regional football is more passionate, and more fun. We'll see what happens when this current Big XII contract plays out, I'll bet Del Conte pulls off something awesome.
-
Agree with you BC.
When Gigem says he'll watch TCU play OU or Texas, but not any lesser team, I get that, and that's fine.
But the flipside is that all of the fans of other schools in Texas feel the same way about A&M. They might watch A&M play Alabama or LSU, but none of them give a rat's ass about A&M playing Ole Miss or Miss State or Arkansas or Kentucky.
So generally, fans watch big games, and they don't watch non-big-games, unless it's their own team.
Not sure about long term, but over the past 7 years since A&M left the B12 and TCU joined it, TCU has been better than A&M at football and baseball, and has had some success in basketball as well.
Personally I like the UT-TAMU rivalry and I wish the Ags hadn't left, but nationally, the B12 has actually been more competitive and better off with the Frogs, rather than the Aggies.
If the Aggies are happy in the SEC, good for them, I guess it worked out ok for all parties.
-
From a Sooner perspective, playing TCU is as tough as any other school in Texas, including A&M, in the years of the XII. They’ve always played OU tough, going way back before the XII, although Texas is still by far the game you want to win and the most talented team from the state. Generally speaking. But TCU has always been tough. Outside the region they may be seen otherwise, and certainly aren’t a known helmet, but I respect the hell out of them. The little School that could.
-
So generally, fans watch big games, and they don't watch non-big-games, unless it's their own team.
Almost, for me. I'll watch nearly every SEC west game I can, no matter how small. We play all of them, so that sort of makes them interesting, and also I value my personal projections, and as I've endeavored to learn more X's and O's the past few years, I can anticipate the matchups and how teams will try to attack/defend us, and often times have a pretty good read on what will happen.
When nothing else is on, I'm happy to watch another game featuring non-big teams from somewhere else. But usually a big game from ooc is on or else some SEC action is happening, and I just can't skip that for Kansas vs. Iowa State.
-
I get what you're saying about TCU but what I am trying to say is that right now TCU is in the best period of their entire history. Yes, TCU is a much better football member of the Big 12 than A&M when we were there*.
They entered the Big 12 just as Texas was beginning a dip, Tech is no longer the program they were under Leach, Neb, A&M, CU, and Mizzou are gone. They are competitive with every team in the conference and also do very well nationally but what about in say 10 years when Patterson is no longer there?
Every fan on here knows, even with all the money in the world, great facilities, and great fan support just how hard it is to stay at the top. ECFG's will strike, and probably sooner than later.
Baylor being mentioned as competitive exactly makes my point. For about the first 20 years of the conference they were terrible, simply atrocious. Remember the game where they were winning and went for a garbage time score to "demonstrate toughness" and fumbled the ball, other team recovered and went 99 yards for the score and the win?
Wake Forest may be Power 5, but they don't deserve it and yes I know we lost to them last year. It took Baylor 20 years and a coach that pretty much sold his soul to the devil to start winning and even this was while the Big 12 was fairly down.
Oh, and I'm glad you liked watching A&M vs. Tech, it was usually a good match-up, but there were many years the game didn't make it on TV (but Iowa St/Kansas did). A&M vs. Miss St always makes it on TV. Tell me there wasn't something wrong with that.
What does TCU bring to the conference once they suck at football? Heck, they don't even have T-Shirt fans when they're winning.
-
Almost, for me. I'll watch nearly every SEC west game I can, no matter how small. We play all of them, so that sort of makes them interesting, and also I value my personal projections, and as I've endeavored to learn more X's and O's the past few years, I can anticipate the matchups and how teams will try to attack/defend us, and often times have a pretty good read on what will happen.
When nothing else is on, I'm happy to watch another game featuring non-big teams from somewhere else. But usually a big game from ooc is on or else some SEC action is happening, and I just can't skip that for Kansas vs. Iowa State.
Sure. And because we play both Kansas and Iowa State, I'm far more likely to watch that game than Ole Miss vs. Miss State.
You're basically saying the same thing. Fans tend to pay attention to 1) their own team 2) teams that they play regularly 3) big games not involving their own team or teams they play regularly.
-
I get what you're saying about TCU but what I am trying to say is that right now TCU is in the best period of their entire history. Yes, TCU is a much better football member of the Big 12 than A&M when we were there*.
They entered the Big 12 just as Texas was beginning a dip, Tech is no longer the program they were under Leach, Neb, A&M, CU, and Mizzou are gone. They are competitive with every team in the conference and also do very well nationally but what about in say 10 years when Patterson is no longer there?
Every fan on here knows, even with all the money in the world, great facilities, and great fan support just how hard it is to stay at the top. ECFG's will strike, and probably sooner than later.
Baylor being mentioned as competitive exactly makes my point. For about the first 20 years of the conference they were terrible, simply atrocious. Remember the game where they were winning and went for a garbage time score to "demonstrate toughness" and fumbled the ball, other team recovered and went 99 yards for the score and the win?
Wake Forest may be Power 5, but they don't deserve it and yes I know we lost to them last year. It took Baylor 20 years and a coach that pretty much sold his soul to the devil to start winning and even this was while the Big 12 was fairly down.
Oh, and I'm glad you liked watching A&M vs. Tech, it was usually a good match-up, but there were many years the game didn't make it on TV (but Iowa St/Kansas did). A&M vs. Miss St always makes it on TV. Tell me there wasn't something wrong with that.
What does TCU bring to the conference once they suck at football? Heck, they don't even have T-Shirt fans when they're winning.
You're not really acknowledging that there are cycles to football. Baylor was actually pretty good in the SWC long before the B12 existed. And TCU's last national championship in football was just one year before A&M's national championship in football.
So I guess my answer is, if/when TCU regresses to the mean, they will bring no less than the Aggies did through 100 years of SWC football and 15 years of B12 football.
And in the meantime, they've brought a lot more than the Aggies ever did to the B12.
We get it-- you're bagging on the B12. It seems to be an Aggie pass-time so no surprises there. You're delighted to play the Mississippi schools in the SEC. That's cool. Outside of Aggies, nobody in Texas gives a crap about Mississippi schools, but if you want to watch them play, then that's cool for you.
-
no one outside the SEC cares about the Mississippi schools
-
The university I attended has a football team now but since they didn’t when I was there, it’s hard to connect.
As an Austinite, Texas has always been my favorite local “pro” baseball, football & basketball team.
(Do like the ‘Stros and Spurs. Try to like the Cowboys).
Rice is my pet team.
I’m anxiously awaiting my assigned team as my son entertains Div 2 offers/opportunities.
-
You're not really acknowledging that there are cycles to football. Baylor was actually pretty good in the SWC long before the B12 existed. And TCU's last national championship in football was just one year before A&M's national championship in football.
So I guess my answer is, if/when TCU regresses to the mean, they will bring no less than the Aggies did through 100 years of SWC football and 15 years of B12 football.
And in the meantime, they've brought a lot more than the Aggies ever did to the B12.
We get it-- you're bagging on the B12. It seems to be an Aggie pass-time so no surprises there. You're delighted to play the Mississippi schools in the SEC. That's cool. Outside of Aggies, nobody in Texas gives a crap about Mississippi schools, but if you want to watch them play, then that's cool for you.
Ah, but I am acknowledging cycles to football, and when the inevitable happens what does TCU bring to the conference? And when you say they will bring "no less than the Aggies did through 100 years of SWC football and 15 years of B12 football" I couldn't disagree with you more.
I guess it is shame that TCU didn't get the nod over Baylor in the mid-90's but looking at their record for the 20 or so years before that it's easy to see why.
I'd like to think I'm not bagging the B12 at all, rather I'm bagging TCU. You won't see me make this argument about WVU even though they're not nearly as strong of a program over the last few years as TCU. I thought then as I do now that WVU brings a lot to the B12 even if they're football team isn't the best.
I'm ambivalent at best about the Mississippi schools. To me they are the equivalent of Ok St or Iowa St.
-
Sometimes even that prescribed order changes for me. Don't tell anybody, but if we have a scrub game I have occasionally recorded it and watched a big game elsewhere instead. In week two we played SELA which didn't interest me as much as Clemson/A&M. Now I know you're probably thinking "A&M is in your division," but the same would have held true for TCU/Ohio State. Way more interesting.
As fot what TCU brings, I recall utee making comments on the old board about how the Big 12 should have zero interest in adding them because they add no market and no interest. So it's hard to reconcile this new position that they are a big positive contributor. Tons more Aggies turning on TVs and spending $$....but maybe we're talking about on-field performance? Which, honestly is not the first thing to cross my mind when considering what a team brings. Texas has been bad this entire decade and it'd still be exciting to have them in our conference, and the SEC would buy a free round of drinks and hookers for everyone if UT would join it. And they they wouldn't have to get a lick better, or bring more to the league on the field.
-
Sometimes even that prescribed order changes for me. Don't tell anybody, but if we have a scrub game I have occasionally recorded it and watched a big game elsewhere instead. In week two we played SELA which didn't interest me as much as Clemson/A&M. Now I know you're probably thinking "A&M is in your division," but the same would have held true for TCU/Ohio State. Way more interesting.
As fot what TCU brings, I recall utee making comments on the old board about how the Big 12 should have zero interest in adding them because they add no market and no interest. So it's hard to reconcile this new position that they are a big positive contributor. Tons more Aggies turning on TVs and spending $$....but maybe we're talking about on-field performance? Which, honestly is not the first thing to cross my mind when considering what a team brings. Texas has been bad this entire decade and it'd still be exciting to have them in our conference, and the SEC would buy a free round of drinks and hookers for everyone if UT would join it. And they they wouldn't have to get a lick better, or bring more to the league on the field.
You must be thinking of someone else? I never said those things about TCU. I don't love TCU by any means, they were cockroaches 50 years ago and they're cockroaches now. And it's true that they didn't bring any new television sets to the conference then, or now. But, nobody else that the B12 could realistically add would bring more TV sets either, so that was not a consideration at the time they were brought in. They weren't brought in to increase television ratings, they were brought in with the sole intent to plug the gap left behind by the departing Aggies.
So to be completely clear-- My position in 2010/2011, when the Aggies decided to leave the B12, was that the B12 needed to offset the loss of that Texas school, by adding another Texas school. For better or worse, a large part of the identity of the B12 is its "Texas-ness." Not every high school recruit in the state is going to get recruited by helmet teams like Texas or Oklahoma or Alabama, in fact the vast majority of them will not. A ton of those next-tier kids are going to end up at Baylor or TCU or Texas Tech or Oklahoma State (which is effectively a Texas school via proximity and its B12 affiliation). So maintaining mindshare within the state of Texas-- maintaining a focus among those kids on football within the state of Texas, and offering them another B12 option within the state-- was of paramount importance to the conference.
TCU just happened to be the best available Texas school at that time. They had built a solid program and had won some big games. They were really the only choice to replace A&M, given that we knew NOBODY we could realistically convince to join the conference was going to help with TV eyeballs.
People argued with me ad infinitum about my position on the importance of retaining the "Texas-ness" of the conference, and it's certainly possible I'm incorrect about that, but I absolutely DID argue in favor of bringing in TCU, after the Aggies departed.
-
Ah, but I am acknowledging cycles to football, and when the inevitable happens what does TCU bring to the conference? And when you say they will bring "no less than the Aggies did through 100 years of SWC football and 15 years of B12 football" I couldn't disagree with you more.
I guess it is shame that TCU didn't get the nod over Baylor in the mid-90's but looking at their record for the 20 or so years before that it's easy to see why.
I'd like to think I'm not bagging the B12 at all, rather I'm bagging TCU. You won't see me make this argument about WVU even though they're not nearly as strong of a program over the last few years as TCU. I thought then as I do now that WVU brings a lot to the B12 even if they're football team isn't the best.
I'm ambivalent at best about the Mississippi schools. To me they are the equivalent of Ok St or Iowa St.
Yes, of course you disagree with me about the value that the Aggies brought to the B12, and the SWC before it. You're an Aggie. :)
Regardless, I'm very much on record as wishing the Aggies were still in the B12 conference. If they were, then TCU never would have been added.
But the Aggies decided to leave, and the B12 needed another Texas school, and TCU was by far the best option at the time (and has remained so).
-
Gotta remember, a lot of the years when the little guys sucked is back in the days of unlimited scholarships and such. If Patterson left TCU, it is very conceivable that another coach could bring them back.
The biggest requirements for success are exposure and location. TCU gets both right now. Size of student body (or stadium size) is not the factor it was decades ago.
Texas Tech (for example) has a hard time due to location. If anyone is behind the 8-ball in these parts, it's them. TCU and Baylor can do fine with P5 exposure and DFW/I-35 location.
All games are on TV now. Not just the helmet schools.
-
All good points. I agree that football wise nobody was better than tcu and they made the most sense.
It’s strange but I kinda like tcu and they are one of the teams I will watch. They are usually disciplined and play well no matter the opponent. I’m not sure how many other schools have had as much success as they have except maybe Boise st.
I just wonder if they will be able to keep the program up once Patterson is gone.
-
That's fair. I have no idea. Programs like TCU obviously have fewer advantages than helmet schools, but that hasn't stopped them from being significantly better than Texas over the past decade. And several other helmets having down time over similar periods, too.
-
You must be thinking of someone else?
No, I'm pretty sure it was you. But this was before the conference realignment stuff in 2011. This was back sometime when I was living in the area, so '09 or earlier. Aggies were not a candidate for departure as far as I know at the time, and we were probably just spitballing about the B12 adding teams if the SuperConference Wars started, or something. In fact, now that I think about it, I've asked you this before a few years ago, remembering that same conversation, and you said that whole dialog had to do with the B12 not needing any more Texas exposure than UT, TAMU, Tech, and Baylor already brought it, and that you didn't change your opinion so much as the position of the Big 12 changed with a handful of teams departing.
I'm getting old, I'm starting to repeat myself yourself.
-
Well before all the dearly departed left for other conferences, I certainly never thought the B12 needed to expand, but that's true of TCU or anyone else. So I suppose that's consistent with what you remember.
And even after Nebraska and Colorado left, I didn't think those schools necessarily needed to be replaced with Texas schools.
But, specifically, when A&M left, then I asserted strongly and often, that the replacement needed to be a Texas school. And TCU was really the only logical choice at that point, due to their program-building and recent success.
-
Conference wise, something good is probably coming for Texas. Del Conte is nothing like DeLoss Dodds.
-
I grew up on the Southwest Conference. Loved it, hated it, understood why it couldn’t last.
I loved the original Big 12 and I think it’s a shame it didn’t last.
I’m a Texas fan but I try to be honest and objective rather than an apologist so I believe Texas’ (and others) flirting with the then called PAC-10 started the reactions that led to the defections and replacements.
As far as ideal conference mates go, I think you need a balance between large fan bases, close proximity, historical relevance and en vogue buzz. You can’t always hit all of those measures so you have to give up one to get another. You just need to make sure other teams balance things out.
What’s a damn shame is when politics get involved and tell you that you have to include Baylor instead of UofH (to the Big 12) or instead of Colorado (to the PAC 10).
Also, I’m not opposed to schools that that need to grow up.
Texas Tech, Arizona and Arizona State are not schools that were in major conferences from the 1910s through the 1950s (or even in the 60s for the Arizona schools) but major conferences saw their potential and fattened them up.
Schools with big enrollments in nice markets (like UCF & USF) have that kind of growth potential.
As for the motion that Mississippi schools are somehow better than Kansas schools just because of their conference affiliation is just a bunch of bull.
-
The whole Texas A&M/SEC thing is still odd to me, and I'm not sure how long that's gonna take to wear off. When it comes to Aggies and LSU, that doesn't phase me in the least because that game was played all the time when I was a kid, and it's definitely a regional match, so it checks all the boxes in my brain. But I have yet to get used to watching Aggie play Alabama, Auburn, Clanga, etc. Something is just off about that.
Maybe it's because I lived in Texas and I know the average Texan's mentality about being a Texan, and that it kinda clashes with the prevailing Southern mentality, except Louisiana. Louisiana has a kind of diet-version of the Texas complex. People from Louisiana can often be pretty into themselves being from Louisiana. The rest the South, far as I can tell, are more into being Southerners rather than being from a specific state. So when A&M rolls into town thumping their chest because BY GOD WE'RE FROM TEXAS, LSU kinda neatly matches that ethos with WELL BY GUMBO, WE'RE FROM LOUISIANA WANNA START SOMETHING? When A&M goes to or hosts one of these other schools and says BY GOD WE'RE FROM TEXAS, those schools are like "Huh? Ok. We're from the South, I reckon. Er...nice to meet you?"
But mostly I think it's just weird watching A&M play a bunch of schools there's no history with, and not playing schools there's a ton of history with. I remember watching the annual UT/TAMU games as far back as they were on TV in my lifetime, and it's weird not to see it anymore.
Oh well, times change. They're our problem now, I guess, for better or for worse. I do hope the the UT game is resumed one day as an annual ooc match. And who knows what the future holds. The SEC is unlikely to stop courting UT, and who knows, one day maybe the 4th or 5th time will be the charm.
-
The SEC is unlikely to stop courting UT, and who knows, one day maybe the 4th or 5th time will be the charm.
The problem is that while Texas and Oklahoma might fill out the SEC quite nicely, schools like Villanova, oops, I mean Vanderbilt, have no business there while Texas Tech and Oklahoma State get left out.
It's not like the SEC doesn't have it's own chopping block material. 2 schools from Mississippi? Pfffft.
-
Did I miss something? I’ve never heard anything about Texas joining the SEC? in fact I’m not sure that would happen. Not because they aren’t an attractive program, because they are, but because the sec doesn’t need another top 10 program. 14 teams is already unwieldy as it is.
If that happens the sec might as well try to get a few more teams and split off into its own league and get rid of the ncaa.
-
Supposedly Texas has a standing offer.
Also, Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky and A&M supposedly have a gentlemen’s agreement to collectively block the entry of a second school from any of their states.
-
Did I miss something? I’ve never heard anything about Texas joining the SEC? in fact I’m not sure that would happen. Not because they aren’t an attractive program, because they are, but because the sec doesn’t need another top 10 program. 14 teams is already unwieldy as it is.
If that happens the sec might as well try to get a few more teams and split off into its own league and get rid of the ncaa.
Texas was offered in during the SEC's "original" expansion in 1992 that landed us Arkansas and South Carolina, but Texas and Texas A&M was at the top of their list. They offered UT again when the SWC disbanded prior to 1996, and probably A&M as well, for all I know. In 2011 when the PAC 10 made its move to form the PAC 16, the SEC immediately publicly offered UT, TAMU, and OU. No proof I can point to that says Texas has a standing offer, but that's been the scuttle for a while, and the SEC's interest in Texas (and to a lesser extent OU) is well-documented.
-
You guys are way harsh on the Mississippi schools. From a program standpoint, sure, who gives a crap. From a watchability standpoint, they're pretty easy on the attention span. In general, no they're not, and I fully agree, total snooze-fest. But since Hugh Freeze took Ole Miss and Dan Mullen's second half of his tenure at Clanga, those have been some fun offenses to watch. I mean, who doesn't like good QBs, crazy NFL WR talent, and lots of passing? I mean, that's basically the Big 12 South when there was divisions. It remains to be seen how long these teams stay watchable without Freeze and Mullen at said schools, but if you skip them based on brand alone, that's unfortunate. You can't claim Okie State is interesting and the MS schools are duds lately. Too much the same thing.
K-State is also quality viewing, those guys are fun to watch so long as Snyder is there. Nothing like seeing a bunch of 2 and 3 star kids play so well and fundamentally sound together that they consistently punch above their weight class. That's good stuff.
But yall are acting like the MS schools are like watching KU or ISU or something, and I don't think you're gonna find any neutral parties who agree.
-
You might be suffering from some SECSECSEC bias there, my friend.
The Mississippi schools are exactly like ISU and Kansas. Actually, ISU is more fun to watch than the Mississippi schools IMO. They play some pretty solid ball, respective to the talent they have available to them, and they do it without the... ahem... complications... that the Hugh Freezes of the world tends to bring along with them. I mean, even Baylor got into the Top 10 fairly regularly when they were cheating. But cheating to win doesn't make your football more interesting.
Kansas sucks for sure, but we keep 'em around for basketball, obviously.
-
If that happens the sec might as well try to get a few more teams and split off into its own league and get rid of the ncaa.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
-
But yall are acting like the MS schools are like watching KU or ISU or something, and I don't think you're gonna find any neutral parties who agree.
Let me be clear on my stance - I think Ole Miss is quality SEC material. Miss St? Meh.
But the thing is - the whole state of Mississippi is a colossal dump about the size of the Houston metro area. And it gets 2 schools in the SEC?
Nah. Not worthy.
-
Let me be clear on my stance - I think Ole Miss is quality SEC material. Miss St? Meh.
But the thing is - the whole state of Mississippi is a colossal dump about the size of the Houston metro area. And it gets 2 schools in the SEC?
Nah. Not worthy.
Ole Miss was good maybe 6 decades ago, and any more recent success has been of the cheating kind, so I don't consider them "quality" at all.
Other than their coeds, that is.
-
Ole Miss was good maybe 6 decades ago, and any more recent success has been of the cheating kind, so I don't consider them "quality" at all.
Other than their coeds, that is.
I'm not begrudging Mississippi to have at least one school in the SEC, and the school with The Grove wins.
-
You might be suffering from some SECSECSEC bias there, my friend.
Obviously. And you suffer from Big 12 bias. Thus my appeal to neutral fans.
I'll reiterate: In general...absolutely. I don't waste my time watching much MS teams either for a lot of my football watching years. But Mullen and Freeze absolutely have had some humming offenses in those places, and like I said, both are gone now and it's easy to imagine both schools quickly going back to Must-Miss TV. But for the moment Ole Miss has one of the best QBs in the league and country and 3 of the league's best WRs to boot. They're "interesting" in a whole other way on defense....in the way that car wrecks are interesting and you can't look away. Clanga has two of the best lines in the league and nation. If line play is not your thing then I guess we're two different kinds of fans, but they've also had some nifty QBs who made for plenty exciting games. I'd think as a Cowboys fan you understand the draw of a Dak Prescott at the college level.
I don't claim they are PROGRAMS worth having around, only that they've had extremely watchable teams for a few years now. I do fail to see how people can look at Texas Tech or Okie Lite and make any favorable comparisons. Hell, Ole Miss basically IS a Big 12 team at the moment. With worse defense this year, tho.....ugh.
-
I do fail to see how people can look at Texas Tech or Okie Lite and make any favorable comparisons.
Don't get me to touting for Okie Lite... but I do believe they have graced the top 10 more in the last decade than Ole Miss and Miss St combined.
Or even top 25.
Top anything.
-
FWIW, my secondary teams are places I went to school or worked at, plus the grad school of my lovely wifita. So, Virginia, Georgia, Virginia Tech, and Oregon State ... at the D1 level anyway. But, honestly, I don't really care what happens to any of these teams beyond when I look at the scores and come across who they're playing, and I have this mild little thing inside that says "oh yeah!" when they're ahead or have won, and "darn it" when they're behind or have lost, and then it's kind of instantly lost.
It's not at all the same as that gut wrenching feeling of despair that happens when the Sooners hang an L, which lasts like up to maybe 24 hours before I manage to remember that it's only sports, and so aw f--- it, there's always next game/year.
-
Don't get me to touting for Okie Lite... but I do believe they have graced the top 10 more in the last decade than Ole Miss and Miss St combined.
Or even top 25.
Top anything.
It's like I'm talking and no sound must be coming out.
I'm not making PROGRAM comparisons. At all. If those are better programs with more blah blah blah, fine, I don't even care to verify it, I'm happy to agree with it.
All I'm saying is if people find Texas Tech and Okie Lite entertaining viewing (and I frequently do), then the Mississippi teams of the PAST FEW YEARS should be equally watchable. I make no claims that they are MORE fun to view than the B12 schools. I make no claims that their schools are in any way comparable or bring anything resembling the same thing to the conference. I freely admit most of my football watching years have found me not caring one bit about the MS schools.
I'm saying that they've been fun for a few years and I think people bagging on their boringness are either being B12 homers or else they've just missed the entertainment.
I mean, I wouldn't skip a Top Ten match for them or anything like that, I'm just saying they're not Must-Miss TV as they have often been in years past. They could return there at any time.
-
No kidding, I don’t even get what you’re saying at this point.
-
No kidding, I don’t even get what you’re saying at this point.
Mike I totally get it.
Also, I'm not sure about that ranking deal with OM/MSU vs TT/OSU. MSU has been in/out of the rankings a bunch for a few years as has MSU.
-
MDT, you're making the mistake of thinking that people here carefully read posts, think about them and then make logical replies. Come on, man, that's just not how it works ;)
Anyway, FWIW, those Missississississippippippi teams are pretty entertaining if you ask me. I don't watch them very often, but when I do, they're pretty fun.
Now, not on your point but I'll throw this in anyway because I just wanna. If/when those Miss teams get matched up with either Ok State or Tech in a bowl or a OOC game, I'd generally put my meager football wager on the Miss team (whichever one, as they kind of blur together from my point of view, although I know that's pure sacrilege in some quarters), pretty much by default
-
It's like I'm talking and no sound must be coming out.
I'm not making PROGRAM comparisons. At all. If those are better programs with more blah blah blah, fine, I don't even care to verify it, I'm happy to agree with it.
All I'm saying is if people find Texas Tech and Okie Lite entertaining viewing (and I frequently do), then the Mississippi teams of the PAST FEW YEARS should be equally watchable. I make no claims that they are MORE fun to view than the B12 schools. I make no claims that their schools are in any way comparable or bring anything resembling the same thing to the conference. I freely admit most of my football watching years have found me not caring one bit about the MS schools.
I'm saying that they've been fun for a few years and I think people bagging on their boringness are either being B12 homers or else they've just missed the entertainment.
I mean, I wouldn't skip a Top Ten match for them or anything like that, I'm just saying they're not Must-Miss TV as they have often been in years past. They could return there at any time.
I'm really not sure what you're not getting???
You have a regional/conference reason to watch these teams and be interested in them. Nobody outside the SEC does. They might play interesting football and since your team plays them every year, that interests you. I think ISU plays interesting football, and since my team plays them every year, I'm naturally going to be more interested in them.
It's not that I dislike the Mississippi teams, it's that I don't care at all about them. They don't tick any of the boxes we listed above. 1) They're not my team 2) They're not teams my team plays, and 3) They're not bigtime national teams that would interest me outside of those two factors. This seems pretty cut and dried and I really have no idea why you're attempting to insist that people that have no reason to care about Mississippi schools should simply acknowledge they're more interesting than teams YOU don't personally care about. That's just a bizarre position to take IMO, no offense intended my old friend.
And, you may "appeal to neutrality" all you want, but you're most certainly not going to find it on a college football message board, I can guarantee you that! :)
-
But yall are acting like the MS schools are like watching KU or ISU or something, and I don't think you're gonna find any neutral parties who agree.
I mean, let's get back to the heart of your statement, and my opposition. There it is right there ^^^^^^
So the question is, why do you think that? What is the origin of that?
-
Texas was offered in during the SEC's "original" expansion in 1992 that landed us Arkansas and South Carolina, but Texas and Texas A&M was at the top of their list. They offered UT again when the SWC disbanded prior to 1996, and probably A&M as well, for all I know. In 2011 when the PAC 10 made its move to form the PAC 16, the SEC immediately publicly offered UT, TAMU, and OU. No proof I can point to that says Texas has a standing offer, but that's been the scuttle for a while, and the SEC's interest in Texas (and to a lesser extent OU) is well-documented.
There was a bunch of stuff written (in 12th man magazine) back in the 90's when I was in school about A&M and the SEC. Supposedly, the SEC wanted A&M and we wanted the SEC but state politics interfered and we went with the Big 12 along with Texas, Baylor, and Tech. The gist of it was that a few powerful politicians, mainly Bob Bullock (Lt. Gov and Texas Tech Alum) and Ann Richards (Tx Gov and Baylor Alum) wanted their schools to be affiliated with a major conference and not suffer the same fate as TCU and UH. I'm sure the SEC wanted UT as well during this time but I'm thinking UT always saw itself associated with a "different culture" aka more refined.
It has been suggested that Texas has always pined for the Pac-10 (or now Pac-12) due to how they perceive themselves culturally and academically. In fact they pretty much had a deal to take both them and A&M back in 2010 or 2011. As you can guess our leadership was never on-board with this move.
-
Your leadership was very much on-board with it, for a while. But they did a double-take and decided to go a different direction, which was totally within their rights and also the correct thing to do for A&M, in my opinion anyway.
As for the SEC stuff and Texas, MDT explained it all pretty well. Texas was "supposed" to go with Arkansas back in 1991/92. Former Arkansas head coach, and then-current Arkansas AD Frank Broyles, who also happened to be a good friend of Texas coaching legend Saint Darrell Royal, was actually shocked when it didn't work out that way. He thoroughly believed it was going to happen.
As has been alluded to, the state legislature got involved and didn't want Texas to leave the remaining Texas-based members of the SWC high and dry.
Subsequently, in the 92/93 timeframe, Texas expressed interest in both the PAC and B1G, and the interest was mutual, when UT's administrators saw the writing on the wall for the SWC based on the new "TV contract conference era." Gigem is certainly correct that a lot of the suits considered UT to be more inline with the values of the B1G and PAC, compared to the SEC, however you choose to interpret that.
And simultaneously A&M was interested in the SEC. But the Texas leg wasn't about to let the two teams leave the SWC.
Interestingly enough, Ann Richards had zero to do with Baylor's inclusion in the B12. Bob Bullock was extremely powerful and influential, and he had degrees from both Texas Tech AND Baylor. It was completely his doing. I have to respect how much that guy swung his weight around, he's among the most powerful politicians in Texas history, close behind LBJ and maybe a handful of others.
-
I don’t why Amos gets so worked up when people imagine he’s saying something more relevant than he is and rebuts it.
Program comparisons are relevant.
Saying if we stumbled across an Ole Miss or MSU game, we might be amused is a weak argument.
I’m amused by cats playing with crickets.
But I don’t want to be in a conference with cats and crickets and I’d get plenty incensed if somebody (and heaven knows it wouldn’t be you, Amos) tried to tell us cats and crickets are better conference mates than the Kansas schools.
Course, BC would probably try to split the difference and tell us the cat has earned the right but the cricket can go to hell.
-
This seems pretty cut and dried and I really have no idea why you're attempting to insist that people that have no reason to care about Mississippi schools should simply acknowledge they're MORE interesting than teams YOU don't personally care about.
You missed it AGAIN. Geez.
Not at all what I said, but I give up. Go start a beer or brisket thread.
-
I don’t why Amos gets so worked up when people imagine he’s saying something more relevant than he is and rebuts it.
You Texas guys are shooting O-fer. Clearly I did not get worked up about anyone's opinions about this, but admit to having then been worked up by certain sensative persons' complete and utter lack of understanding of what I'm actually saying. Straw men and misconstruings abound, and my personality type does not handle that well, I concede. I'm working on it.
In the meantime, y'all could try reading and thoughtfully digesting what was said, but let's just wipe the slate clean on this one.
-
Thoughtfully digesting stuff that's said doesn't sound at ALL like what Al Gore invented the internet for, so I'm gonna have to politely decline my friend. :)
-
In the meantime, y'all could try reading and thoughtfully digesting what was said
It made my brain hurt on the first pass, and I had no reason to believe a 2nd pass was going to clarify.
I've almost forgotten the subject matter anyway. Something about Oklahoma State being more relevant than Mississippi State, which any sidewalk fan of the last decade knows.
-
Amos often jousts irrelevant windmills on the periphery of engaging discussions others are having but I’m not sure when I’ve ever seen him get so worked up about it.
Could be he’s so happy in his marriage that his negativity has nowhere else to go.
-
and hence the backporch does its job, saving marriages, like a virtual pressure cooker valve, one negative puff of steam at a time ...
-
Did someone mention Oklahoma state? I like oSu. They are, after all, your 2011 college football national champions.
-
I
Did someone mention Oklahoma state?
Not that I can see or recall.
Maybe you heard some vegan say, "Oh my hummus steak."
-
i dated a vegan girl for a while in college, pretty sure she probably tried to convince me to eat hummus steak.