- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Is Texas an overrated program?
Posted on 8/2/10 at 10:16 pm to makinskrilla
Posted on 8/2/10 at 10:16 pm to makinskrilla
quote:
the SWC is LONG GONE.
just because the programs that were in it are not 2nd tier does not mean it was always that way. People see the gap that exists between elite and 2nd tier now and act like it was always that way. It was not. Texas A&M, Baylor, UH and SMU all had runs there they were good programs. No they did not win NC but they were good. One of the by products of seeing everything short of a title as failure is you lose sight of good teams from the past. Back in the day the Big 10 was called the Big 2 and the little 8, the Big 8 was the Big 2 and the little 6. The SWC was actually more competitive.
1
Posted on 8/2/10 at 10:18 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
As for cupcakes, please provide some thing resembling proof that Texas played a weaker schedule than other power house teams over the years.
Well, the fact that the SWC folded 15 years ago, and UTEP, Rice, Houston, TCU, SMU aren't in BCS confereces and are mediocre to poor mid conference teams isn't proof enough??
Baylor is a joke... A&M is historically a weak football school. TX Tech has only recently had any major success.
Those teams were weak then... and (aside from Tech and TCU) they are still weak now.
Put Texas in the SEC, and their W-L comes down dramatically, as does this mythical "elite" status the media puts on the 3 time Big XII champions (since 1996.)
Yeah, that's an elite program alright..
Posted on 8/2/10 at 10:20 pm to JoBoo
quote:
That's not elite. Not even close.
hey man, join the 21st century. we arnt talking about a college football museum here. programs can rise and fall in a few seasons this day in age and unfortunately, in the year 2010, Texas is the big kid on the block, along with fla and bama.
Posted on 8/2/10 at 10:20 pm to JoBoo
quote:
Yep, but they were a member for 40+ years, inflating their W/L record against cupcakes.
no more so than anyone else. The SEC in the 60's and 70's was not like it is today.
quote:
They've been in the Big XII for ...what ... 14 seasons now. Since they "usually play in the Big XII championship game, how many times in their 14 seasons have they played in it? FIVE TIMES. Whoopdee fricking do.
How many times have they won? THREE
That's not elite. Not even close.
Since 1996 Alabama has only won the SEC 2 times, guess they aren't elite either.
You can't judge elite status like that, Texas has been a top 5-10 program over the last 10-12 years. Over that same time OU was also a top 5-10 team in the same division.
Posted on 8/2/10 at 10:23 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Texas A&M, Baylor, UH and SMU all had runs there they were good programs
They all had individual runs, but year in/year out, Texas was pretty much guaranteed a 10 win season. Texas was the bully. Plain and simple.
At least the Big 8 and Big Ten had state flagship schools competing against each other. Not regional small schools playing against the big boy.
Oh, and did I mention that Texas is trying to revert back to this? Yes... they are.
Posted on 8/2/10 at 10:27 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
The SEC in the 60's and 70's was not like it is today.
Waaaaay more parity in the SEC historically. Similar schools in size, resources, recruiting bases, revenue, prestige, etc.
Posted on 8/2/10 at 10:29 pm to JoBoo
quote:
Well, the fact that the SWC folded 15 years ago, and UTEP, Rice, Houston, TCU, SMU aren't in BCS confereces and are mediocre to poor mid conference teams isn't proof enough??
first of all, UTEP was not in the SWC and no, the way things are in 2010 does not prove how they were in 1990 for example in 1990 the Oakland A's had a bigger payroll than the Yankees, is that the case now? No, you know way? Things can and do change. The SWC folded because CFB was changing, there was more money to be made by merging with the Big 8 for the schools that did, the SWC was an outdated model.
quote:
Baylor is a joke.
Today yes. Always, well if you think so, you just expose your own hatred based ignorance.
quote:
A&M is historically a weak football school
again you show you have no clue what you are talking about and apparently are unaware that there was FB played prior to 2000.
The CFBwarehouse ranking I posted above (not perfect, but not bad) ranks Texas A&M #20, all time, that is not historically weak.
quote:
Those teams were weak then... and (aside from Tech and TCU) they are still weak now.
Clueless moron, go back to the poli board cess pool.
quote:
Put Texas in the SEC, and their W-L comes down dramatically
yeah, its so fricking hard to win 10 games in the SEC a couple of teams do it every year. The problem with SEC tards is you don't realize teams do play history, they play teams each year.
Posted on 8/2/10 at 10:31 pm to makinskrilla
quote:
hey man, join the 21st century. we arnt talking about a college football museum here.
The OP asked if they were an overrated program.. I said yes.. Based primarily on the fact that they have padded their overrall W/L record by beating up on inferior opponents in a weakass conference.
I'm not saying that the 2010 team is overrated. I am saying that the program has historically been the most overrated program in college football, based on an vastly inflated W/L record.
Posted on 8/2/10 at 10:33 pm to JoBoo
quote:
ey all had individual runs, but year in/year out, Texas was pretty much guaranteed a 10 win season
how can you guarantee 10 wins playing 10 and 11 game schedules?
quote:
At least the Big 8 and Big Ten had state flagship schools competing against each other. Not regional small schools playing against the big boy.
Oh, and did I mention that Texas is trying to revert back to this? Yes... they are.
so now we get to the heart of it, you are probably just another Texas hater. Who cares about flagships schools from different states, if they suck, they suck.
Posted on 8/2/10 at 10:36 pm to JoBoo
quote:
The OP asked if they were an overrated program.. I said yes.. Based primarily on the fact that they have padded their overrall W/L record by beating up on inferior opponents in a weakass conference.
I'm not saying that the 2010 team is overrated. I am saying that the program has historically been the most overrated program in college football, based on an vastly inflated W/L record.
you simply don't know what you are talking about. You are looking at the current status of former SWC teams and claiming Texas played a weaker schedule than other big programs. Show some evidence other than the fact several old SWC teams are now in non-BCS conferences. I'm willing to bet Texas has no more padding than other powerhouse programs historically.
Posted on 8/2/10 at 10:37 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Baylor is a joke.
Today yes. Always, well if you think so, you just expose your own hatred based ignorance.
Baylor has an overall losing record and all of 5 conference titles... in their history.
Posted on 8/2/10 at 10:41 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
so now we get to the heart of it, you are probably just another Texas hater.
Nope. They beat up on little guys for years.. and have won all of 3 conference championships in the mighty Big XII.
Elite, I tell ya.
Posted on 8/2/10 at 10:44 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Show some evidence other than the fact several old SWC teams are now in non-BCS conferences. I'm willing to bet Texas has no more padding than other powerhouse programs historically.
Well that should be proof enough. They weren't teams good enough or with enough prestige when the SWC folded to warrant invitations from BCS conference. And they haven't improved enough since then to warrant an invitation. There's some evidence for you.
Posted on 8/2/10 at 10:53 pm to JoBoo
quote:
Baylor has an overall losing record and all of 5 conference titles... in their history.
that doesn't mean they didn't have good teams from time to time.
quote:
They beat up on little guys for years
no more so than any other big time program including Alabama.
quote:
have won all of 3 conference championships in the mighty Big XII.
Elite, I tell ya.
Only 1 team has won more Big 12 titles, its 1 more Conf title than Alabama has over the same time period. When you win 10 + games every year for a decade, are 3-1 in BCS bowls and have 1 NC and 1 other NC appearance there ain't a lot of programs that are better. You can not judge elite status by # of what ever titles you want. Elite means among the best. I'd be willing to bet over the 14 years of the Big 12 only OU, USC, Ohio State and Florida have won more conference titles.
Posted on 8/2/10 at 10:56 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
no more so than any other big time program including Alabama.
Alabama played LSU, Auburn, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Miss State, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech as conference opponents. You really trying to equate those teams with: Houston, Rice, TCU, Baylor, SMU, TCU, Tx Tech?
You lose, bro.
Posted on 8/2/10 at 11:01 pm to JoBoo
quote:
Well that should be proof enough. They weren't teams good enough or with enough prestige when the SWC folded to warrant invitations from BCS conference
What its proof of is your stupidity. What you are saying is because in 1995 certain programs were not attractive to big conferences then those programs could not have been good in the past when the CF landscape was vastly different.
quote:
And they haven't improved enough since then to warrant an invitation. There's some evidence for you.
more evidence you are a blithering idiot. Conference expansion has very little to do with on field success. Its about financial considerations. TCU, Rice, UH and SMU do not bring enough to the table financially for BCS conferences in 2010. Adding them would mean splitting the pie into smaller pieces. The fact that that is the case in 2010 does not prove UH did not have good teams in the 1970's and 1980's.
Posted on 8/2/10 at 11:07 pm to JoBoo
quote:
Alabama played LSU, Auburn, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Miss State, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech as conference opponents. You really trying to equate those teams with: Houston, Rice, TCU, Baylor, SMU, TCU, Tx Tech?
Ga Tech hasn't been a conference foe of Alabama since the 1950's. But that aside I was not directly comparing the programs you listed. You have created a classic straw man argument, its easy to win those. Texas has played OU every years since the the 1920's at least. OU is a top 4 all time program. Alabama does not have an annual game against a program ranked that high. Over time all the teams you listed for Alabama have had up and down years. Not all of them were good every single year. I bet you would not find all that much difference between the relative sos between the 2 over time.
Posted on 8/2/10 at 11:26 pm to Ross
quote:
Mack seems to only have his true success when Oklahoma is somewhat having a down year. But that's just my perspective.
So when Mack and the Horns took OU out when the Sooners were #1 in 08' was nothing? Texas also got them in 06', when UT wasn't THAT great of a team.
Posted on 8/2/10 at 11:30 pm to TexasTiger08
T-shirt fan
Posted on 8/2/10 at 11:30 pm to TexasTiger08
quote:
Texas also got them in 06', when UT wasn't THAT great of a team.
Neither was Oklahoma at that point in the year with their wide receiver quarterback.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News