****The official NEW new conference realignment thread.****

[Saul Good]

the second thread has been pronounced dead.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

8-4 would be a disappointment after this start, but still might be enough to get a Gator Bowl slot against a Big Ten opponent.

Before the season started, any of us would have called that a successful season.

Given the injury, I still would. It would stink to sit through 4 losses and only two more wins, but that very easily could happen with a freshman QB. I hope I'm wrong.

[warpaint*]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

True.





True. But I'm only speaking to quality of play, not reputation. If someone argues the perception weakened then of course it did. But surely you'd agree that Nebraska and Colorado are bigger names than they are quality programs right now.





I'm not certain the perennial bottom feeders in the SEC have good "perception" - I'd argue it's terrible. They are welfare queens feeding off the popularity and success of your Big 6.





True but we'll wait and see on that. USC is terrible with the best players.






True. But we are talking only quality of football, which vis-a-vis the programs that left, isn't much of a drop.




Couldn't, Fox dictated the WVU selection.





They are going to have a long, tough slog now given their travel situation esp for basketball. I don't know where they recruit but they really don't have any new pipeline to Texas opened up since they're so remote. They're a really odd duck in the Big 12.





Realignment has happened since the beginning of time, there's no reason for anyone to assume it's ever over because technology, population shifts, etc always change.

Sure but taking snapshots of football programs is always a bad idea. Over the long haul Neb/CU/aTm/MU is a heck of a lot better than TCU/WVA. They are down but Neb was a critical loss and the most damaging of all. The fact they aren't doing as well as they have historically at this moment is irrelevant. It was a bad move for them to boot as far as football is concerned. They effectively are out of Tx now and resigned to recruiting slow white guys w/ an excessive amount of consonants in their last name. They'll compete in the Big Ten long term w/ the other blue bloods in that league & get embarrassed in bowl games against the Pac12/SEC.

WVA will work to get into Tx the same way MU did. Whether they are successful remains to be seen that will come down to coaching. That takes time regardless. Much to the same token MU is hitting the SE heavier than ever before.

The problem is depth, there aren't any more helmet schools to step in when OU/Tx are down. Perception eventually becomes reality over the long haul as it pertains to the effect on recruiting and the on field product. But when they are both up again which is more often than not things will be alright.

Looking around many Tx fans already have buyers remorse over what's transpired. Nothing scientific, I'm just seeing an increasing # of comments to that effect reading fan boards. There was nary a one two years ago they were a unified camp as it pertains to that issue.

My comment about adding TCU was w/ respect to Louisville. I would have added Louisville & WVA. If Fox was responsible or whatever, I still view it as a mistake nonetheless.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

And it's equally hard to argue with 1-16 from the SEC bottom feeders.

Who are these "bottom feeders"? Last year, you called Auburn a bottom feeder two years after they won a national title. Today, they are top 25.

Last year, you called Mizzou a bottom feeder after going 5-7 and barely missing out on a bowl game for the first time in nearly a decade. Now, they are 6-0 and ranked 14th. Hard to call that a bottom feeder.

You continue to call Ole Miss a bottom feeder less than a month after they crushed Texas in Austin. They've also got the number 1 recruiting class in the country.

You call Vanderbilt a bottom feeder, but they won 9 games last year including a bowl game.

You call Tennessee a bottom feeder, but they won a national title in the BCS era and have the number 2 recruiting class next year.

You call Arkansas a bottom feeder, but they just finished off a top 5 season two years ago by blowing out KSU in a bowl game. After a terrible season last year, the coach who just took Wisconsin to three straight Rose Bowls jumped at the opportunity to coach in the big leagues.

There are 14 teams in the SEC, and someone has to come in 13th and 14th place every year. This is a mathematical fact.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because you finish 10th in the Big 12 you aren't a bottom feeder. Not having enough teams to have anyone finish 11th and 12th in the Big 12 is not a testament to the strength of your conference. It's a tribute to years of mismanagement.

The Big 12 is a dying mall. Just because you got a youth group and a Dippin' Dots vendor in WVU and TCU to lease a couple of spots, that doesn't make you Rodeo Drive.

[warpaint*]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Who are these "bottom feeders"? Last year, you called Auburn a bottom feeder two years after they won a national title. Today, they are top 25.

Last year, you called Mizzou a bottom feeder after going 5-7 and barely missing out on a bowl game for the first time in nearly a decade. Now, they are 6-0 and ranked 14th. Hard to call that a bottom feeder.

You continue to call Ole Miss a bottom feeder less than a month after they crushed Texas in Austin. They've also got the number 1 recruiting class in the country.

You call Vanderbilt a bottom feeder, but they won 9 games last year including a bowl game.

You call Tennessee a bottom feeder, but they won a national title in the BCS era and have the number 2 recruiting class next year.

You call Arkansas a bottom feeder, but they just finished off a top 5 season two years ago by blowing out KSU in a bowl game. After a terrible season last year, the coach who just took Wisconsin to three straight Rose Bowls jumped at the opportunity to coach in the big leagues.

There are 14 teams in the SEC, and someone has to come in 13th and 14th place every year. This is a mathematical fact.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because you finish 10th in the Big 12 you aren't a bottom feeder. Not having enough teams to have anyone finish 11th and 12th in the Big 12 is not a testament to the strength of your conference. It's a tribute to years of mismanagement.

The Big 12 is a dying mall. Just because you got a youth group and a Dippin' Dots vendor in WVU and TCU to lease a couple of spots, that doesn't make you Rodeo Drive.

5-7 & 2-6 in league Mizzou beating 8 win AzState OOC is a perfect example. We also came w/in an eyelash of beating another bowl team in terms of Syracuse w/o Big Shel & DGB.

Tenn who went 1-7 in the league beat an ACC bowl team in NCState by 2 tds on a neutral field.

Vandy, another school outside that top 6 hammered that same NCState team in their bowl.

And Auburn beat that same LaMonroe team that gave Baylor, an 8 win Big 12 school fits in their game.

Now we all know the ACC & Big East are terrible and all but the point is simply this, the notion that there is no depth beyond that top 6 isn't true as these schools did alright competing w/ bowl teams from other leagues. It just seems that way b/c those top SEC 6 schools were all great.

Ironically the SEC fraud last yr was Miss St who won 8 games. They dodged a buncha heavies, got hammered by everyone w/ a pulse & got further exposed in their bowl.

[Saul Good]

ESPN breaks down the SEC

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/b...eason-overview

[Saul Good]

ESPN beaks down the Big 12 (spoiler alert: it's not a glowing report)

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/b...eason-overview

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by warpaint*

Sure but taking snapshots of football programs is always a bad idea. Over the long haul Neb/CU/aTm/MU is a heck of a lot better than TCU/WVA. They are down but Neb was a critical loss and the most damaging of all. The fact they aren't doing as well as they have historically at this moment is irrelevant. It was a bad move for them to boot as far as football is concerned. They effectively are out of Tx now and resigned to recruiting slow white guys w/ an excessive amount of consonants in their last name. They'll compete in the Big Ten long term w/ the other blue bloods in that league & get embarrassed in bowl games against the Pac12/SEC.

I said then and will say now, ATM was definitely the biggest loss given where they're located. Regardless of how they struggled in the Big 12 that's a name program set up for the future better than Nebraska. If OU was still playing Nebraska every year that's one thing but when that died and when Nebraska collapsed, their appeal dropped significantly.

The problem is depth, there aren't any more helmet schools to step in when OU/Tx are down. Perception eventually becomes reality over the long haul as it pertains to the effect on recruiting and the on field product. But when they are both up again which is more often than not things will be alright.

So long as Texas & OU are excellent programs (which they'll be over the long-term that you referenced), the Big 12 will be a major player in college football. Slive isn't pairing up with them for no reason - he's not stupid.

My comment about adding TCU was w/ respect to Louisville. I would have added Louisville & WVA. If Fox was responsible or whatever, I still view it as a mistake nonetheless.

Sure. You can imagine how much Kansas fans wanted Louisville in the conference for obvious reasons.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

You can imagine how much Kansas fans wanted Louisville in the conference for obvious reasons.

And in the end, Texas got who they wanted...for obvious reasons.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

I said then and will say now, ATM was definitely the biggest loss given where they're located. Regardless of how they struggled in the Big 12 that's a name program set up for the future better than Nebraska. If OU was still playing Nebraska every year that's one thing but when that died and when Nebraska collapsed, their appeal dropped significantly.





So long as Texas & OU are excellent programs (which they'll be over the long-term that you referenced), the Big 12 will be a major player in college football. Slive isn't pairing up with them for no reason - he's not stupid.





Sure. You can imagine how much Kansas fans wanted Louisville in the conference for obvious reasons.

Called for Louisville to join back when they were banging down the door to get in. It would be great if KU had them on the conference schedule but they don't.

Not sure I understand all hate/anger towards the Big 12. It's a down year in football. Something all conferences experience from time to time. There's more money being poured into the Big 12 than ever before so if that's the goal I'm sure everyone's happy.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

And in the end, Texas got who they wanted...for obvious reasons.

Texas vetoed Louisville's invitation to the Big 12? Do you have a link for that?

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Bambi

Texas vetoed Louisville's invitation to the Big 12? Do you have a link for that?

Does he ever have a link for any of his nonsense?

[warpaint*]

I have no idea why Tx would want TCU over Louisville. Moreover I just think the league thought it needed to move fast and quickly added someone they knew would say yes to stop the bleeding so to speak. There's no question to me conference leadership (Beebe) was lacking for a time.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by warpaint*

I have no idea why Tx would want TCU over Louisville. .

They didn't, Fox did. More desirable market for them than BYU, Cinci, Louisville, etc and immediately available.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Does he ever have a link for any of his nonsense?

You referring to his posts as "nonsense" is rich.

[warpaint*]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

I said then and will say now, ATM was definitely the biggest loss given where they're located. Regardless of how they struggled in the Big 12 that's a name program set up for the future better than Nebraska. If OU was still playing Nebraska every year that's one thing but when that died and when Nebraska collapsed, their appeal dropped significantly.





So long as Texas & OU are excellent programs (which they'll be over the long-term that you referenced), the Big 12 will be a major player in college football. Slive isn't pairing up with them for no reason - he's not stupid.





Sure. You can imagine how much Kansas fans wanted Louisville in the conference for obvious reasons.

I'm not saying or will say the league's going to be irrelevant or anything like that, just that realignment hurt it. That's all. They still have anchor schools in one of the big 3 states for talent (CA/Tx/Fla) which is critical. As long as they have OU/Tx they will be fine in that sense. But when one or both are down it will hurt the league's perception more than it would have previously.

Neb was hiring bad coaches and failed to capitalize on Tx talent. We can agree to disagree about them.