- 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
2
Posted on 9/17/11 at 2:31 pm to jcole4lsu
FWIW, I'd rather go to Dallas than Morgantown
Posted on 9/17/11 at 2:31 pm to jcole4lsu
UVa always has a hot new coach that will turn the program around. And year after year, they are still UVa. Anyway...
I'm not opposed to a second Texas team after A&M. Add A&M, Mizzou, WVU, and random Texas school and the conference still works. If you're adding random Texas school, your options are:
TCU
Baylor
Houston
Texas Tech
Rice
Of those five, honestly, Baylor and TCU are the best selections (Baylor delivers Dallas just as much as TCU -- which is not very much). Which says everything about how weak the second Texas school would be. I'm not rejecting it out of hand (it's better than adding Louisville), but it's a pretty poor add.
I'm not opposed to a second Texas team after A&M. Add A&M, Mizzou, WVU, and random Texas school and the conference still works. If you're adding random Texas school, your options are:
TCU
Baylor
Houston
Texas Tech
Rice
Of those five, honestly, Baylor and TCU are the best selections (Baylor delivers Dallas just as much as TCU -- which is not very much). Which says everything about how weak the second Texas school would be. I'm not rejecting it out of hand (it's better than adding Louisville), but it's a pretty poor add.
Posted on 9/17/11 at 2:31 pm to Lithium
quote:
FWIW, I'd rather go to Dallas than Morgantown
well its a hell of a lot easier to get to dallas thats for sure
Posted on 9/17/11 at 2:35 pm to jcole4lsu
quote:
TCU isn't even popular in Dallas.
i live in dallas.
You live in Dallas doesn't mean much. Are you saying you live and Dallas and I'm wrong or you live in Dallas and I'm right? They have a small stadium and they don't even fill it up.
Posted on 9/17/11 at 2:35 pm to Baloo
quote:
UVa always has a hot new coach that will turn the program around. And year after year, they are still UVa. Anyway...
1982–2000 George Welsh
2001–2009 Al Groh
2010–Present Mike London
uhh ok?
quote:
Baylor and TCU are the best selections
baylor has zero shot after this bullshite they have put up. the only reason baylor was in the big 12 over other teams is politics, which have changed a bit. baylor no longer has the political clout in austin it had back in the formation of the big 12.
Posted on 9/17/11 at 2:36 pm to arwicklu
quote:
They have a small stadium and they don't even fill it up.
have you read any of my posts? they are expanding it and shite the stadium will be bigger than the other schools in texas not named UT or aTm.
mizzou isnt happening at 14. 16 probably but not 14.
Posted on 9/17/11 at 2:37 pm to jcole4lsu
quote:
have you read any of my posts? they are expanding it and shite the stadium will be bigger than the other schools in texas not named UT or aTm.
Right... but they don't fill up the one they have now.
Posted on 9/17/11 at 2:40 pm to jcole4lsu
Al Groh was supposed to change things around because of his NFL ties. OVer and over again, thats all we heard. And UVa sucked because UVa sucks. It's just the natural order of things. UVa will likely never be a football power.
I'm just tired of rebutting this lie, so just go through my post history. Baylor certainly used politics, but they got in the Big 12 because they were clearly the best option after UT and A&M. The politics made the Big 8 expand by 4 instead of 2.
Keep repeating something enough, everyone believes it.
But that's also wholly irrelevant. Right now, look at those five programs who could conceivably be added from Texas. Which is the best add on their own merits right now and going forward?
quote:
baylor has zero shot after this bullshite they have put up. the only reason baylor was in the big 12 over other teams is politics, which have changed a bit
I'm just tired of rebutting this lie, so just go through my post history. Baylor certainly used politics, but they got in the Big 12 because they were clearly the best option after UT and A&M. The politics made the Big 8 expand by 4 instead of 2.
Keep repeating something enough, everyone believes it.
But that's also wholly irrelevant. Right now, look at those five programs who could conceivably be added from Texas. Which is the best add on their own merits right now and going forward?
Posted on 9/17/11 at 2:42 pm to arwicklu
They've been in worse conferences (before) than they will be (now). It's a dynamic situation. All of this is a dynamic situation. You have to look at the POTENTIAL for change, and look at all the other variable pieces that are moving around.
If OU and UT aren't in the same conference anymore, and then if the Red River game doesn't happen anymore, and then you add in the lure of multiple SEC games with fanbases that travel well in addition to a stronger SEC tie to the Cotton Bowl, Dallas as a market becomes firmly entrenched SEC territory. THAT is what TCU could bring, if it were to play out that way, even if they're not strongly competitive on the field.
Hell, the same logic could apply to a Tulane, except that LSU already pulls the New Orleans market. (Which is also a dynamic situation... the same could not be said 30 years ago, even in the 80s. Things change. shite happens.)
If OU and UT aren't in the same conference anymore, and then if the Red River game doesn't happen anymore, and then you add in the lure of multiple SEC games with fanbases that travel well in addition to a stronger SEC tie to the Cotton Bowl, Dallas as a market becomes firmly entrenched SEC territory. THAT is what TCU could bring, if it were to play out that way, even if they're not strongly competitive on the field.
Hell, the same logic could apply to a Tulane, except that LSU already pulls the New Orleans market. (Which is also a dynamic situation... the same could not be said 30 years ago, even in the 80s. Things change. shite happens.)
Posted on 9/17/11 at 2:42 pm to Baloo
quote:
I'm not opposed to a second Texas team after A&M. Add A&M, Mizzou, WVU, and random Texas school and the conference still works. If you're adding random Texas school, your options are:
I would try to expand my footprint as much as possible. I'd like someone that attracts the DC area, something in NC (maybe NC State), and something like Mizzou.
Mizzou obviously wants the Big 10 so I doubt that is viable.
Posted on 9/17/11 at 2:44 pm to Baloo
If they add a second texas team maybe they would start to rotate the SECCG to Houston or Dallas
Posted on 9/17/11 at 2:45 pm to CrazyTigerFan
quote:
If OU and UT aren't in the same conference anymore, and then if the Red River game doesn't happen anymore, and then you add in the lure of multiple SEC games with fanbases that travel well in addition to a stronger SEC tie to the Cotton Bowl, Dallas as a market becomes firmly entrenched SEC territory. THAT is what TCU could bring, if it were to play out that way, even if they're not strongly competitive on the field.
If A&M doesn't deliver the Dallas market, then they're not worth bringing on. People are acting like A&M isn't a big draw in the state. Texas A&M delivers most of the state which is why it is such a big deal for the SEC. Picking up teams like TCU, Houston, Baylor, TTU... wouldn't really help the situation. A&M gets the SEC firmly into the state of Texas by itself.
Posted on 9/17/11 at 2:46 pm to Baloo
UVA was 134–86–3 under Welsh. They can be pretty good, but are coach dependent. Groh was an unmitigated failure and most UVA fans wanted him out years before he finally got fired.
tech and tcu are both better options than baylor. baylor has been AWFUL outside of the last 2 years
quote:
Right now, look at those five programs who could conceivably be added from Texas. Which is the best add on their own merits right now and going forward?
tech and tcu are both better options than baylor. baylor has been AWFUL outside of the last 2 years
Posted on 9/17/11 at 2:47 pm to arwicklu
quote:
something in NC (maybe NC State),
the only option in NC is ECU
sec is not taking an acc team FOR THE ELLEVENTY BILLIONTH TIME
Posted on 9/17/11 at 3:01 pm to jcole4lsu
quote:
the only option in NC is ECU
sec is not taking an acc team FOR THE ELLEVENTY BILLIONTH TIME
I hear what you're saying, however when you look right now... everybody is talking to everybody. Pitt and 'Cuse are already trying to jump ship. They're is a bunch of uncertainty. I do agree with you that SEC won't poach from ACC, however if a team withdrew like A&M, then they would talk to them. Obviously the SEC had a deal with Aggies before they withdrew.
Posted on 9/17/11 at 3:06 pm to arwicklu
why would anyone from the ACC withdraw, pay $20m, go to a conference you cant really compete in when the alternative is stay where you are in a SAFE conference (now with 14 teams) make plenty of money and compete?
i dont see any options available in north carolina other than ECU
i dont see any options available in north carolina other than ECU
Posted on 9/17/11 at 3:08 pm to vegas-tiger
frick no. SEC would say get outta here with that weak bullshite.Posted on 9/17/11 at 3:16 pm to jcole4lsu
Let's put it like this: we can all agree that Baylor shouldn't be in the SEC. It comes nowhere near the minimum requirements of what we're looking for in a member.
So, given that fact, I compare teams against Baylor. and if they don't have a significantly more compelling case than Baylor, then that team, too, falls short of SEC minimum standards. IT's a good metric.
Tech fails miserably at this metric. They are currently in their Golden age, yet still haven't won a division title. Historically, they have 0 conference titles, to Baylor's 4. They have less wins in their history (though less games). They stink at other sports, have marginal athletics, have a crappy endowment (smaller than Baylor's), and Lubbock is a pit near nothing. Sure Tech's got more alumni in terms of people, but they have less money. Tech is an awful choice.
TCU has a better case than Baylor, but not dramtaically so. TCU's been a great mid-major, but they were awful for the last 40 years in the SWC, much worse than Baylor. They are decent at other sports, but not great. They have a better media market.
So, given that fact, I compare teams against Baylor. and if they don't have a significantly more compelling case than Baylor, then that team, too, falls short of SEC minimum standards. IT's a good metric.
Tech fails miserably at this metric. They are currently in their Golden age, yet still haven't won a division title. Historically, they have 0 conference titles, to Baylor's 4. They have less wins in their history (though less games). They stink at other sports, have marginal athletics, have a crappy endowment (smaller than Baylor's), and Lubbock is a pit near nothing. Sure Tech's got more alumni in terms of people, but they have less money. Tech is an awful choice.
TCU has a better case than Baylor, but not dramtaically so. TCU's been a great mid-major, but they were awful for the last 40 years in the SWC, much worse than Baylor. They are decent at other sports, but not great. They have a better media market.
Posted on 9/17/11 at 6:19 pm to Baloo
quote:
TCU has a better case than Baylor, but not dramtaically so. TCU's been a great mid-major, but they were awful for the last 40 years in the SWC, much worse than Baylor. They are decent at other sports, but not great. They have a better media market.
To say TCU has a better media market than Baylor is a ridiculously egregious understatement.
TCU also had a rough few decades in football from about 1960 to 1997, but they're now working on a 14 year stretch where they've had 2 bad years, and they've been to two straight BCS bowls, and before that a bowl that ESPN referred to as the 6th BCS bowl that year (the Poinsettia Bowl between #9 Boise and #11 TCU), as well as three straight top 7 finishes. TCU has committed to success in athletics and is spending their asses off to ensure continued success. Baylor doesn't spend money on shite, which is why their stadium is in worse shape than the Cotton Bowl--I would say that I guess that's what happens when you start a health network and tie it to your university coffers, but they didn't spend on athletics even before that. All of the spending by TCU occurred with a TV contract that paid out a measly couple of million dollars a year, and less than that by quite a bit prior to a few years ago.
I've never much followed other sports, but i would at the very least refer to TCU's Baseball team as great (7 straight postseasons, 2010 CWS) and their Women's Basketball isn't shabby (I think they've made the post-season 11 of 12 seasons). IIRC, track frequently gets some individual national championship contenders, and we've won a few national championships in things that nobody cares about like rifle team and equestrian. TCU also has the best tennis facilities in the NCAA and a brand new soccer complex and baseball stadium, plus a new 150M football stadium under construction and plans to renovate the basketball arena after.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News