- 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
1
Posted on 6/12/10 at 10:51 am to xiv
quote:
Current ACC (for comparison) in the BCS standings:
2009: 9 GT, 11 VT, 15 Miami
2008: 14 GT, 19 VT, 24 BC
2007: 3 VT, 14 BC, 15 Clemson, 20 Virginia
2006: 14 WF, 15 VT, 24 BC
My proposed Big 12 is better than the current ACC.
They look fairly even to me. Slight edge to new Big12 in 2008 and 2009 with the ACC better in 2006 and 2007. The real comparison would be the average computer score of all 12 members over those four years. Much better than arbitrairly picking just top 25 teams. Strength of a conference is depth, not quality at the top. 7-12 ACC > 7-12 this new conference
Posted on 6/12/10 at 10:54 am to coldhotwings
quote:Let's look at what really matters.
Boise State beat Oklahoma the last time they played. I would put a paycheck on Oklahoma winning 4 out of 5 times.
Head to head, past four years:
TCU > TT
TCU < TX
TCU < OK
BSU > OK
BYU > OK
UH > OSU
UH < OSU
UH > OSU
UH > TT
Tulsa < OK
Tulsa < OK
AF/BSU/BYU/UH/TCU/Tulsa/Utah: 6
CO/NE/OK/OSU/TX/A&M/TT: 5
If the current Big 12 is better than my proposed Big 12, why do they lose most of the time to them (almost always at home)?
Posted on 6/12/10 at 10:55 am to The Easter Bunny
quote:Excellent point. Lemme dig into my system. Give me 10 minutes or so.
They look fairly even to me. Slight edge to new Big12 in 2008 and 2009 with the ACC better in 2006 and 2007. The real comparison would be the average computer score of all 12 members over those four years. Much better than arbitrairly picking just top 25 teams. Strength of a conference is depth, not quality at the top. 7-12 ACC > 7-12 this new conference
ETA:
2006
Hypothetical Big 12: .53544
ACC: .50156
2007
Hypo Big 12: .55151
ACC: .51973
2008 (best ever year for the ACC)
Hypo Big 12: .56091
ACC: .54411
2009 (worst ever year for the ACC)
Hypo Big 12: .55856
ACC: .49381
My proposed Big 12 is considerably better than the current ACC every year, top to bottom.
This post was edited on 6/12/10 at 11:12 am
Posted on 6/12/10 at 10:59 am to COTiger
It would be the new MWC. Good conference but not good enough to keep their bid for long. Although, the Big East kept there's long enough to get better. It's a chicken or the egg situation. The BCS $ makes conferences better
Posted on 6/12/10 at 11:04 am to xiv
Interesting question here. Without giving an opinion of the quality of football in this conference, there are other points of interest to consider.
1. If Big 12 remained viable, does that mean every school that left -- Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Okie State, Texas Tech, Nebraska, and Colorado -- have to pay 9 million dollars as an exit fee. That is 63 million dollars. That eases the pain somewhat.
2. If they kept the BCS bid, if I were Texas A&M, I might stay in the Big 12 and be a big fish in a little pond rather than a small but growing fish in a pond filled with sharks.
If NCAA tried to pull the BCS bid of the Big 12 after realignment, it would stink to high heaven as far as Congress thinks. What does Congress have to do with it? Ummm, plenty. First, in July hearings have already been called to discuss these kinds of issues. I don't think NCAA would pull the BCS bid. Too much fire.
Wow, this Big 12 alignment is a potential gang buster, literally. Would give Boise State membership in a BCS conference, along with all the other wanna be s.
You never know.
1. If Big 12 remained viable, does that mean every school that left -- Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Okie State, Texas Tech, Nebraska, and Colorado -- have to pay 9 million dollars as an exit fee. That is 63 million dollars. That eases the pain somewhat.
2. If they kept the BCS bid, if I were Texas A&M, I might stay in the Big 12 and be a big fish in a little pond rather than a small but growing fish in a pond filled with sharks.
If NCAA tried to pull the BCS bid of the Big 12 after realignment, it would stink to high heaven as far as Congress thinks. What does Congress have to do with it? Ummm, plenty. First, in July hearings have already been called to discuss these kinds of issues. I don't think NCAA would pull the BCS bid. Too much fire.
Wow, this Big 12 alignment is a potential gang buster, literally. Would give Boise State membership in a BCS conference, along with all the other wanna be s.
You never know.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 11:05 am to xiv
6-5 is winning "most of the time" against the big 12? Thats interesting math.
Again, having a decent record in CUSA doesnt impress anyone. The fact that you somehow think losing Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Colorado and replace with the teams you listed and thats going to leave the big 12 in better shape?
Thats odd to say the least imo. The university of Houston would have been lucky to be in the top half of the big 12 last year or any year for that matter. They would top out at 7 wins every single season
Again, having a decent record in CUSA doesnt impress anyone. The fact that you somehow think losing Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Colorado and replace with the teams you listed and thats going to leave the big 12 in better shape?
Thats odd to say the least imo. The university of Houston would have been lucky to be in the top half of the big 12 last year or any year for that matter. They would top out at 7 wins every single season
Posted on 6/12/10 at 11:12 am to bullard21k
What you say is absolutely true; however, CUSA does not have an automatic BCS bid like Big 12 does. And as long as Big 12 has a BCS bid, it's got value to its members.
And I don't see Big 12 being stripped of BCS bid because of the ruckus it was cause with Congress and all the other schools looking to bet on board with the big time.
The realignment of conferences is an interesting chess match involving a lot of chips worth a lot of power and money.
And I don't see Big 12 being stripped of BCS bid because of the ruckus it was cause with Congress and all the other schools looking to bet on board with the big time.
The realignment of conferences is an interesting chess match involving a lot of chips worth a lot of power and money.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 11:12 am to xiv
What's the proposed new conferences vs bcs win/loss record over you 4 year time horizon? Showing their overall record without thus distinction is lacking. I would do it but I'm out for a while and only on my iPhone..
Posted on 6/12/10 at 11:13 am to mrbayoublu
quote:Interesting. Hadn't thought of that.
1. If Big 12 remained viable, does that mean every school that left -- Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Okie State, Texas Tech, Nebraska, and Colorado -- have to pay 9 million dollars as an exit fee. That is 63 million dollars. That eases the pain somewhat.
quote:Excellent point.
2. If they kept the BCS bid, if I were Texas A&M, I might stay in the Big 12 and be a big fish in a little pond rather than a small but growing fish in a pond filled with sharks.
quote:The BCS wouldn't pull the bid. The conference would have actually improved on the field.
If NCAA tried to pull the BCS bid of the Big 12 after realignment, it would stink to high heaven as far as Congress thinks. What does Congress have to do with it? Ummm, plenty. First, in July hearings have already been called to discuss these kinds of issues. I don't think NCAA would pull the BCS bid. Too much fire.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 11:16 am to TROLA
quote:
What's the proposed new conferences vs bcs win/loss record over you 4 year time horizon?
While this is certainly interesting from a competitive stand point, the proposed "new conferences" would "technically" not be new, just realigned. That may seem like it's splitting hairs, but Big 12 not dissolving but simply realigning would certain to keep their BCS bid. This would be a glaring loop hole all schools like Boise State would scoop up with all the tenacity of dog holding on to its bone.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 11:16 am to bullard21k
quote:Yes. Considering that 6 is more than half of 11, that's the exact definition of the word "most."
6-5 is winning "most of the time" against the big 12?
Aggies.
quote:Does having a decent record vs. the Big 12 and Pac-10 impress anyone? Because they have that too.
Again, having a decent record in CUSA doesnt impress anyone.
quote:On the field, yes, and I have the numbers to prove it. Off the field, no--money is big.
The fact that you somehow think losing Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Colorado and replace with the teams you listed and thats going to leave the big 12 in better shape?
quote:They went 2-0 vs. the Big 12 last year (OSU/TT).
The university of Houston would have been lucky to be in the top half of the big 12 last year or any year for that matter.
I think you're doing a lot of talking, but you don't really have too much evidence to back up your opinion. Some folks look at stadium size and enrollment numbers and checkbooks and they think that means better football. It doesn't.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 11:17 am to mrbayoublu
quote:I don't think it's a loophole. As long as you put a team in the top 16, you keep your bid. The Hypo-Big 12 would put multiple teams in the top 16 annually.
While this is certainly interesting from a competitive stand point, the proposed "new conferences" would "technically" not be new, just realigned. That may seem like it's splitting hairs, but Big 12 not dissolving but simply realigning would certain to keep their BCS bid. This would be a glaring loop hole all schools like Boise State would scoop up with all the tenacity of dog holding on to its bone.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 11:17 am to xiv
quote:
Past four years:
Houston 36-18 (.667)
TCU 42-10 (.808)
Tulsa 34-19 (.642)
Air Force 29-22 (.569)
BSU 49-4 (.926)
BYU 43-9 (.827)
Utah 40-12 (.769)
There's not a single bad football program in there. You've been pwn3d. Sit down and shut up.
You are high! There is not a team listed above that could consistently compete year end and year out in the SEC! It's easy to win games against shitty teams in a shitty conference! So now you GTFO, PIIHisB and
Posted on 6/12/10 at 11:25 am to TROLA
quote:Air Force 1-4
What's the proposed new conferences vs bcs win/loss record over you 4 year time horizon? Showing their overall record without thus distinction is lacking.
Boise State 4-1
Brigham Young 7-5
Houston 4-4
Texas Christian 6-2
Tulsa 0-3
Utah 6-3
TOTAL 28-22
As expected, Tulsa and Air Force are the weaker links in this group of seven; in fairness to me and that group, I only included them to plug the geographic holes and make the conference contiguous. UTEP and SMU, for example will be stronger programs in the next decade.
But, the numbers show it, and I'll say it again: my proposed Big 12 is better than the current Big 12 on the football field.
This post was edited on 6/12/10 at 11:28 am
Posted on 6/12/10 at 11:26 am to Cabby
quote:This is cute and all, but maybe you can post some numbers to back up your opinions.
You are high! There is not a team listed above that could consistently compete year end and year out in the SEC! It's easy to win games against shitty teams in a shitty conference! So now you GTFO, PIIHisB and
Posted on 6/12/10 at 11:30 am to Cabby
Again, you fail to recognize as many of us have pointed out multiple times that if you stick any of those teams into the big 12 with the schedule I pointed out to you those teams would get crushed in a week to week grind.
Why dont you take some of these teams and stack them up against the schedule I outlined for you on page 2?
6-5 isnt winning most of the time. 8-3 , 9-2 is being dominant and winning the majority of the times. Being 1 game over the .500 mark isnt exactly some sort of dominance. If your only litmus test on a group of teams being better then another is a single head to head game against 1 opponent....thats the most flawed logic I have ever seen
I guess Utah belongs in the SEC because they beat Alabama a few years back right? Again Utah would get absolutely SMOKED in the SEC on a week to week basis within a conference schedule....the fact that they beat Alabama with a month of time to prepare and scheme for them doesnt change that fact either.
Why dont you take some of these teams and stack them up against the schedule I outlined for you on page 2?
6-5 isnt winning most of the time. 8-3 , 9-2 is being dominant and winning the majority of the times. Being 1 game over the .500 mark isnt exactly some sort of dominance. If your only litmus test on a group of teams being better then another is a single head to head game against 1 opponent....thats the most flawed logic I have ever seen
I guess Utah belongs in the SEC because they beat Alabama a few years back right? Again Utah would get absolutely SMOKED in the SEC on a week to week basis within a conference schedule....the fact that they beat Alabama with a month of time to prepare and scheme for them doesnt change that fact either.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 11:33 am to bullard21k
quote:
6-5 isnt winning most of the time.
Yes it is.quote:You have interesting opinions. Do you have any evidence to back the numbers up?
I guess Utah belongs in the SEC because they beat Alabama a few years back right? Again Utah would get absolutely SMOKED in the SEC on a week to week basis within a conference schedule....the fact that they beat Alabama with a month of time to prepare and scheme for them doesnt change that fact either.
The Little 12 has a winning record vs. the Big 12 in the past four years, mostly on the Big 12's home field. That cannot be disputed. If you think that the Big 12 is better than the Little 12, you're going to have to show your work.
Posted on 6/12/10 at 11:36 am to xiv
If they get all of these teams, over time, this will be a better conference than the big east and possibly as good as some of the other big conferences...IMHO
Posted on 6/12/10 at 11:37 am to xiv
quote:
This is cute and all, but maybe you can post some numbers to back up your opinions.
Look you can throw all the numbers you want out there. You are comparing apples to oranges and the only way you can compare wins is if the teams being compared play the same teams. Your argument would hold water if you were speaking within a conference or comparing wins against each other. If you look at just straight numbers then a Boise State 13-0 is equal to Bama 13-0? It may be my opinion but I feel that a 13-0 Bama had a much harder road and is 10 times more impressive, and I would say that anyone who knows and watches College football would agree with me! So take you calculator and your stats and have fun while the big boys play football.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News