- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why is it taking Texas so long to make a hire?
Posted on 12/20/13 at 1:38 pm to Crimson1st
Posted on 12/20/13 at 1:38 pm to Crimson1st
quote:
My problem is with all these incessant Saban rumors
What incessant Saban rumors? You take this board stuff seriously?
I don't see anything reputable coming from legit media sources regarding Saban to UT. The vast majority of it comes from this board, yet you gumps keep reacting to it on here like a moth to a flame.
1
Posted on 12/20/13 at 1:38 pm to wilceaux
quote:
I hate defending the Big 12, but it has consistently been the 2nd best conference over the last 10 years
like GS said, that was before they replaced A&M, Mizzou, Nebraska, and Colorado with TCU and WVU.
Posted on 12/20/13 at 1:47 pm to prostyleoffensetime
quote:
Fisher,
This would be glorious, since they blame him for killing V. Young's career.
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:06 pm to TK421
quote:
I know you desperately want this to be the case, but it is not even close to being true.
How would you rank them?
SEC is a clear 1
B1G no matter the football product has a great brand, network, stability, money, etc. So they are 2
Unlike tOSU or Baylor late this season, when FSU beat the ACC no one questioned if they earned a trip to the national title based on their schedule. So the ACC is no lower than 4.
That leaves the fifth spot for either the PAC or the Big 12.
The PAC only got one BCS bowl, but Stanford stayed ranked after a loss like no Big 12 program did. Plus they had five teams in the last BCS poll compared to the Big 12's three.
So it seems pretty obvious that it is "close" to true that the current Big 12 is fifth among the "Big 5."
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:10 pm to Al Bundy Bulldog
Still waitin on St Nick.
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:11 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
B1G no matter the football product
We're talking about the football product as this is a message board dedicated primarily to football.
Nobody gives a shite about the marketability of the B1G.
Football rankings would be something like:
Sec
Pac12/Big12 (these flip from year to year)
ACC
B1G
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:16 pm to Al Bundy Bulldog
They probably have someone and are 75%+ sure of it.
Waiting until after Mack's last game/bowl season.
Waiting until after Mack's last game/bowl season.
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:19 pm to TK421
quote:
I know you desperately want this to be the case, but it is not even close to being true.
Actually, it is (solely based off of programs by top wins)
1-SEC (7,8,10,11,13,16,18,20,32,35) 10/14
2-Big Ten (1,4,5,12,28,29,30,39,40) 9/14
3-ACC (14,15,17,19,24,27,32,35) 8/14
4-Pac 12 (9,21,22,31,35,41) 6/12
5-Big 12 (2,6,14,42) 4/10
Still not quite sure if you can place Notre Dame (3) with the ACC.
This post was edited on 12/20/13 at 2:22 pm
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:21 pm to TK421
Ok, I won't argue with your evaluation of the B1G even if I don't agree with it (conference brand, money and power does matter I think).
But please explain to me why in weeks 12 and 13 this year the BCS standings had the undefeated eventual Big 12 champ ranked lower than any other major conference undefeated team at that time? Heck in week 12 a one-loss Stanford was still ranked ahead of the eventual Big 12 champion in the BCS standings.
But please explain to me why in weeks 12 and 13 this year the BCS standings had the undefeated eventual Big 12 champ ranked lower than any other major conference undefeated team at that time? Heck in week 12 a one-loss Stanford was still ranked ahead of the eventual Big 12 champion in the BCS standings.
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:23 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
But please explain to me why in weeks 12 and 13 this year the BCS standings had the undefeated eventual Big 12 champ ranked lower than any other major conference undefeated team at that time? Heck in week 12 a one-loss Stanford was still ranked ahead of the eventual Big 12 champion in the BCS standings.
That's very simple. If you're not Texas or Oklahoma, you will NOT get the benefit of the doubt because of how weak the conference is. Furthermore, Texas and Oklahoma MUST be unbeaten to make the playoff as losses to any of the other 8 teams are weighted much more unfavorably because of the weakness of the conference.
Case in point:
Kansas State - 1998, 2012
Texas Tech - 2008
Oklahoma State - 2011
Baylor - 2013
This post was edited on 12/20/13 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:28 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
But please explain to me why in weeks 12 and 13 this year the BCS standings had the undefeated eventual Big 12 champ ranked lower than any other major conference undefeated team at that time?
This is where brand comes into play. Had that undefeated eventual Big 12 champ been either Oklahoma or Texas, they would have been ranked higher. In a similar manner, how long would take an undefeated Maryland team to rise to the top five? The perception is that the Big 12 is down because the perennial powers are down, when in reality the bottom tier of that conference has gotten much better recently.
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:32 pm to cardboardboxer
While in many ways I'd agree with your rank-and-file, especially is based upon financial strength, academic prowess, huge alumni fanbases, and OSU/Michigan as powerhouses..
One could argue that the Big-12 despite recent conference disassembly, and having too many members in one state(albeit a huge, populous, prospering, and fertile state), with rising programs in Baylor and OSU, and two schools in UT/Okla with natty titles in the last 13 years, both also with multiple BCSCG appearances..4 for OU..2 for Tex.
Until this year's BCSCG, the ACC had been DOA since FSU and Miami in early '00s. The Pac-12 sans One-Pete and UO BCSCG appearances, recent Stanford rise, largely underachieving in UCLA, ASU, AZ, UW, WSU, OSU, Cal.
Granted, many Big-10 programs get geeked, and take down some SEC schools in scheduled-up/down bowl games, for conference pride sake. But, sans OSU and the late whistle vs Miami, Buckeyes would be 0-3 in BCSCGs, needed Ark to whiff on easy pointblank scoop-and-score to hold onto Sugar win vs Ark to stop SEC bowl streak vs OSU. Michigan usually overrated, gets slapped by OSU and/or USC in Rose, even if unbeaten late in the season, Wisky faded since Alvarez and not dominant away from Madison,etc..
There is no doubt that the Big-12 has a weak lower middle and bottom-tier in terms of Football, and leaner population metros/epicenters than the aforementioned conferences. But, UT/OU's BCS era workload and trophy case outshine just about any sans SEC's Big 4, Ohio St, USCw..and on par with FSU/Mia if based strictly upon BSC title wins. Oregon arguably also on par(despite no hardware)in terms of BCS berths, Ws,etc..
One could argue that the Big-12 despite recent conference disassembly, and having too many members in one state(albeit a huge, populous, prospering, and fertile state), with rising programs in Baylor and OSU, and two schools in UT/Okla with natty titles in the last 13 years, both also with multiple BCSCG appearances..4 for OU..2 for Tex.
Until this year's BCSCG, the ACC had been DOA since FSU and Miami in early '00s. The Pac-12 sans One-Pete and UO BCSCG appearances, recent Stanford rise, largely underachieving in UCLA, ASU, AZ, UW, WSU, OSU, Cal.
Granted, many Big-10 programs get geeked, and take down some SEC schools in scheduled-up/down bowl games, for conference pride sake. But, sans OSU and the late whistle vs Miami, Buckeyes would be 0-3 in BCSCGs, needed Ark to whiff on easy pointblank scoop-and-score to hold onto Sugar win vs Ark to stop SEC bowl streak vs OSU. Michigan usually overrated, gets slapped by OSU and/or USC in Rose, even if unbeaten late in the season, Wisky faded since Alvarez and not dominant away from Madison,etc..
There is no doubt that the Big-12 has a weak lower middle and bottom-tier in terms of Football, and leaner population metros/epicenters than the aforementioned conferences. But, UT/OU's BCS era workload and trophy case outshine just about any sans SEC's Big 4, Ohio St, USCw..and on par with FSU/Mia if based strictly upon BSC title wins. Oregon arguably also on par(despite no hardware)in terms of BCS berths, Ws,etc..
This post was edited on 12/20/13 at 2:42 pm
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:35 pm to TK421
quote:
The perception is that the Big 12 is down because the perennial powers are down, when in reality the bottom tier of that conference has gotten much better recently.
Do yourself a favor and research the last 20 years of the Southwest Conference (1976-1995). Here are the members:
Arkansas (left in 1991)
Baylor
Houston
Rice
SMU
TCU
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
When you think of the history of the Big 12, don't think of it as the "Big 12". Think of it as the "Big 8 + 4", which is exactly what it was.
This post was edited on 12/20/13 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:37 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
Do yourself a favor and research the last 20 years of the Southwest Conference (1976-1995).
I'm looking for a point. I don't see a point. This is pointless.
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:40 pm to TK421
quote:
I'm looking for a point. I don't see a point. This is pointless.
The current Big "12" is basically the new SWC.
West Virginia = Arkansas
Oklahoma State = 80's SMU
Texas = Texas
Oklahoma = Texas A&M
Baylor = Houston
Texas Tech = Texas Tech
TCU = TCU
Iowa State = Rice (without the grades part)
Kansas = 90's Baylor
Kansas State = 85-95 Texas
This post was edited on 12/20/13 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:42 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
Ok? Still looking for a point.
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:45 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
They're "interviewing" on the 3rd, announcing on the day of the BCS NC game. Assistant coaches have already been told they won't be retained. They have their guy.
This post was edited on 12/20/13 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:48 pm to TK421
quote:
Ok? Still looking for a point.
Conferences don't fold when they're perceived as strong.
The problems with the Big 12 are the same problems that the SWC had in the last 10 years of its life, with one team dominating the conference (A&M), one former power falling apart (Texas), the bottom falling out of two potential powers (SMU, Baylor), a one-hit wonder (Houston), and an unappreciated school ready to leave (Arkansas), plus the remainder of teams who never were (TCU, Rice, Texas Tech)
The last SWC Champion to win a Cotton Bowl? Texas A&M in 1988.
If the Big 12 keeps getting exposed by better opponents in bowl games (Oklahoma State 2011 nonwithstanding...absolutely stupid coaching move by David Shaw at the end of that game), they will suffer the same fate as the SWC = Top teams getting CRUSHED in major games.
Oklahoma State and Oklahoma must win in January or the perception will continue.
This post was edited on 12/20/13 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:50 pm to GEAUXmedic
1st Tier HC? 2nd Tier HC? Is it gonna make MONSTER HEADLINES? Or is it just a Briles ride down the Highway?
Posted on 12/20/13 at 2:51 pm to TheRoarRestoredInBR
i can't wait til all the dusk settles, 8 man commitee, home run hire, all the money in the world and they hire franklin 
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News