PDA

View Full Version : Big 12 should extend invitations to Boise State & TCU


IDEXAN
08-23-2010, 08:41 AM
Of course this is wishful thinking on my part, even though it would be the way the conference could restore some credibilty and the competitive-level
and national respect from its peers.
The problem of course is what it always is - UT doesn't want to be challenged by any other teams(s), with the exception of Oklahoma and who knows how long they stay in the Big 12 ? UT got Nebraska out (BTW, the Cornhuskers are going to cream UT in Lincoln this fall - they want them like Tennessee wants USC/Kiffin in Knoxville). UT "thrives" on those schedules that start with Rice, would wouldn't ?

MojoMan
08-23-2010, 09:10 AM
That would mean playing on a blue football field during away games in Idaho.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:cqvmpB1LbVvlHM:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4533016270_59fdabb14a_o.jpg&t=1

Also, Idaho is a geographically undesirable location for most of the schools in the Big 12.

However, if these objections can be managed, then I think adding these two teams would be a great idea.

Dutchrudder
08-23-2010, 09:15 AM
Boise State is already going to the Mountain West. There are rumors that Conference USA will merge with the Mountain West and make a 16 team conference. Not sure yet how they get 16 doing that, but I'm assuming a few teams are going to be left out.

IDEXAN
08-23-2010, 09:49 AM
That would mean playing on a blue football field during away games in Idaho.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:cqvmpB1LbVvlHM:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4533016270_59fdabb14a_o.jpg&t=1

Also, Idaho is a geographically undesirable location for most of the schools in the Big 12.

However, if these objections can be managed, then I think adding these two teams would be a great idea.
The plane ride from Austin or College Station to Boise would be maybe 60-75 minutes longer than to Boulder or Ames or Lincoln. And Boise is not in the mountains, it's high desert with less snow than Boulder, Ames, & Lincoln. So there shouldn't really be any geographical issues.
Can't help you with the blue field though and I know plety of people don't like it, but personally I do.

Blake
08-23-2010, 10:46 AM
Personally I dont think Texas OU or anyone else wants to add 2 really tough opponents like TCU or Boise because that hurts their BCS chances. Not to mention TCU would be getting more Dallas tallent that would normally go to OU or Texas if TCU were in the Big 12.

The blue field just needs to go. Awful awful awful.

Dan B.
08-23-2010, 12:00 PM
Of course this is wishful thinking on my part, even though it would be the way the conference could restore some credibilty and the competitive-level
and national respect from its peers.
The problem of course is what it always is - UT doesn't want to be challenged by any other teams(s), with the exception of Oklahoma and who knows how long they stay in the Big 12 ? UT got Nebraska out (BTW, the Cornhuskers are going to cream UT in Lincoln this fall - they want them like Tennessee wants USC/Kiffin in Knoxville). UT "thrives" on those schedules that start with Rice, would wouldn't ?

Lolz Nebraska left. UT didn't force them to go anywhere. They didn't hold a gun to Osborne's head and make him pay the Longhorns money. Nebraska got tired of getting their ass kicked every year, so they ditched schools they have been associated with for over a century and scampered off to be OSU's ***** instead. Good riddance.

BTW UT has been consistently adding quality non conference opponents, such as Notre Dame, BYU, UCLA, and others.

No way NU beats UT. Not without Suh. I don't care how pumped they are or how bad they want UT -- every team is pumped to play Texas. Nebraska has been pumped every time they played Texas for the last 20 years. They're still 1-8 against em.

Stemp
08-23-2010, 12:13 PM
Lolz Nebraska left. UT didn't force them to go anywhere. They didn't hold a gun to Osborne's head and make him pay the Longhorns money. Nebraska got tired of getting their ass kicked every year, so they ditched schools they have been associated with for over a century and scampered off to be OSU's ***** instead. Good riddance.

BTW UT has been consistently adding quality non conference opponents, such as Notre Dame, BYU, UCLA, and others.

No way NU beats UT. Not without Suh. I don't care how pumped they are or how bad they want UT -- every team is pumped to play Texas. Nebraska has been pumped every time they played Texas for the last 20 years. They're still 1-8 against em.

UCLA? Seriously? This is football, not basketball. This is the same UCLA that went 7-6, 6-7, 4-8, and 7-6 the last 4 years. Are you seriously bragging about "quality" opponents and using UCLA as an exmple?

NU, and CU left because of the disparity in the Big XII and the arrogance of Texas. Same reason Mizzou and it's St. Louis TV market will bolt if/when the Big 10 invites ND and Mizzou and why A&M wants to go to the SEC. OU would also bail on the Big XII if it could rid itself of Ok. St. It can't, so it let tu get the OSU a place in the PAC 10.

Hookem Horns
08-23-2010, 12:19 PM
Idaho State? No, I don't even recognize them as a real team because of that dreadful blue field. If they are on TV and playing at home I always turn the channel. Yes, I hate that thing that bad. It doesn't even look like real football. No thank you.

I can live with TCU and I would prefer to see Houston in the Big 12.

Dan B.
08-23-2010, 12:28 PM
UCLA? Seriously? This is football, not basketball. This is the same UCLA that went 7-6, 6-7, 4-8, and 7-6 the last 4 years. Are you seriously bragging about "quality" opponents and using UCLA as an exmple?

They are a major school from a quality conference (that kicked the snot out of defending Rose Bowl representative OU in that 7-6 year, right?) They are unquestionably better than Rice (as are Notre Dame and BYU), thus it is should obviously follow that UT is not loading their schedule with sub par programs like Rice. They just finished a home and home with Ohio State for crying out loud. Every single major school schedules weak OOC. If you don't think non conference schedule that includes Notre Dame, BYU, UCLA, and some other school in a given year beats 90% of the non conference schedules in this country, you need to take a closer look at who schools schedule.

NU, and CU left because of the disparity in the Big XII and the arrogance of Texas. Same reason Mizzou and it's St. Louis TV market will bolt if/when the Big 10 invites ND and Mizzou and why A&M wants to go to the SEC. OU would also bail on the Big XII if it could rid itself of Ok. St. It can't, so it let tu get the OSU a place in the PAC 10.

Umm Nebraska voted for that disparity and was a beneficiary of it. How did it cause them to leave? Unless you are talking about Nebraska allowing partial qualifiers or holding the CCG in Dallas, when they were the only school in the conference to vote the way they did. It wasn't just UT. They are just the big scapegoat that whiny programs like to blame when they can't accept their own bad coaching hires and poor decisions. It was Nebraska losing votes 11-1 and getting humiliated by UT on the field to top it off.

And A&M doesn't want to go to the SEC. A&M FANS do. Big difference. If A&M wanted to go, they allegedly had an invite. Just like Nebraska, A&M voted for the same economic disparity they are decrying, they benefited from it, and are still doing so, in fact.

IDEXAN
08-23-2010, 12:31 PM
BTW UT has been consistently adding quality non conference opponents, such as Notre Dame, BYU, UCLA, and others.
No way NU beats UT.
BTW I see they open up this season playing that Sunbelt monster of the gridiron down in H-Town, the Rice Owls. And that's your idea of a "quality non conference opponent" ?
And up in Lincoln, the clocks only got 60 minutes on 'em.

IDEXAN
08-23-2010, 12:36 PM
Idaho State? No, I don't even recognize them as a real team because of that dreadful blue field. If they are on TV and playing at home I always turn the channel. Yes, I hate that thing that bad. It doesn't even look like real football. No thank you.

I can live with TCU and I would prefer to see Houston in the Big 12.
Idaho State ? Hey man, that's downright hurtful !
But the thing is you gatta see that blue-field in person. It's a thing of beauty !

Dan B.
08-23-2010, 12:39 PM
BTW I see they open up this season playing that Sunbelt monster of the gridiron down in H-Town, the Rice Owls. And that's your idea of a "quality non conference opponent" ?

In their opening games:

Florida plays Miami. The one in Ohio, not the one in Florida.
Alabama plays San Jose State
OSU plays Marshall
Oklahoma plays Utah State, not Utah.
Nebraska plays Western Kentucky
A&M plays SFA, and will probably lose

Rice will probably be better than any of these opponents. What was your point again?

And up in Lincoln, the clocks only got 60 minutes on 'em.

Yeah for some reason Nebraska fans didn't used to mind when referees actually paid attention to the clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Orange_Bowl):

Aided by a kickoff out of bounds, FSU took over with excellent field position at their own 35 yard line. FSU's Heisman trophy winning quarterback Charlie Ward drove the Seminoles all the way to the Nebraska 3 yard line. The Huskers held and forced Bentley to kick his fourth field goal of the night, which was good, and FSU led 18-16 with just 21 seconds remaining.

Florida State players and coaches went wild on the sidelines, and were penalized for excessive celebration, costing them 15 yards on the ensuing kickoff. As a result, the Huskers were able to get a decent return and began their final possession at their own 43 yard line.

As time ran down, Frazier hit tight end Trumaine Bell for a 29 yard gain to the FSU 28 yard line. The clock ticked down to 0:00, setting off more chaos on the FSU sideline, complete with the compulsory Gatorade bath given to FSU coach Bobby Bowden.

However, referee John Soffey ruled that Bell was down with 1 second left on the clock, and ordered the field cleared, allowing Nebraska placekicker Byron Bennett an opportunity to kick the game winning field goal. But the 45 yard kick sailed wide left, preserving the 18-16 win for the Seminoles.

Yet again they demand that they be held to a different standard than everyone else. The only difference in the 1994 Orange Bowl and the Big 12 Championship was that Texas can hit a kick in the clutch while Nebraska couldn't. In both cases the refs made the correct call. The ball went out of bounds (or the player was down) with a second left. This is staggeringly obvious -- just watch the video.

Sorry, but displaced anger because a referee did what referees are supposed to do does not automatically mean your team will win the next game. They can get as upset about the right call being made all they want. It was still the right call.

Stemp
08-23-2010, 12:46 PM
Umm Nebraska voted for that disparity and was a beneficiary of it. How did it cause them to leave? Unless you are talking about Nebraska allowing partial qualifiers or holding the CCG in Dallas, when they were the only school in the conference to vote the way they did. It wasn't just UT. They are just the big scapegoat that whiny programs like to blame when they can't accept their own bad coaching hires and poor decisions. It was Nebraska losing votes 11-1 and getting humiliated by UT on the field to top it off.

The disparity is in influence and revenue sharing. Texas was/is the big moneymaking program in the Big 12. As a result, they can pretty much do whatever they want and can get most of the South schools to go along. Why do you think Texas negotiated the PAC 10 agreement for 5 schools and then was shocked when A&M decided to look in the SEC and threatened to blackball them.


And A&M doesn't want to go to the SEC. A&M FANS do. Big difference. If A&M wanted to go, they allegedly had an invite.

A&M still has an invite, but it also has threats from Texas to blackball them and from the state legislature to pull state funding if they moved (which is ridiculous, but whatever). Bill Byrne doesn't want to move. The Board of Regents were in favor till Perry made it known he'd prefer to Texas and A&M to stick together and they complied. The major donors at A&M have made it very clear that if something doesn't change in the next 3-4 years, then they will be upset and pull their donations (yes, it's that serious).

The Big 12 is still very close to collapsing if another major conference makes a bold move. ESPN and FoxSports have promised increased payouts (but nothing in writing) to prevent them from having to renegotiate with an expanded SEC and Big 10, but if a major move is made, Beebe will be out of job.

Dutchrudder
08-23-2010, 12:56 PM
In their opening games:

Florida plays Miami. The one in Ohio, not the one in Florida.
Alabama plays San Jose State
OSU plays Marshall
Oklahoma plays Utah State, not Utah.
Nebraska plays Western Kentucky
A&M plays SFA, and will probably lose



Hey now, we aren't that bad. I'd bet good money or good beer the Aggies win that game!

Dan B.
08-23-2010, 12:58 PM
The disparity is in influence and revenue sharing. Texas was/is the big moneymaking program in the Big 12. As a result, they can pretty much do whatever they want and can get most of the South schools to go along. Why do you think Texas negotiated the PAC 10 agreement for 5 schools and then was shocked when A&M decided to look in the SEC and threatened to blackball them.

Well, that's what I am talking about. A&M and Nebraska both voted for a disparity in revenue sharing. It's like the Cubs or Red Sox bitching about the Yankees having too large of a payroll. You serious Clark?



A&M still has an invite, but it also has threats from Texas to blackball them and from the state legislature to pull state funding if they moved (which is ridiculous, but whatever). Bill Byrne doesn't want to move. The Board of Regents were in favor till Perry made it known he'd prefer to Texas and A&M to stick together and they complied. The major donors at A&M have made it very clear that if something doesn't change in the next 3-4 years, then they will be upset and pull their donations (yes, it's that serious).

The Big 12 is still very close to collapsing if another major conference makes a bold move. ESPN and FoxSports have promised increased payouts (but nothing in writing) to prevent them from having to renegotiate with an expanded SEC and Big 10, but if a major move is made, Beebe will be out of job.

See, I guess I'm just strange. I value tradition and history in college sports. I think that wherever UT or A&M goes they should stick together, just like OU and OSU or KU and KSU. UT will have their down years. When they do, games against OU and A&M will still mean something. Will Nebraska versus Purdue or Northwestern resonate the same way when the Huskers are going through a mediocre season?

Would have thought an Aggie especially would feel the same way. :shrug:

Dan B.
08-23-2010, 01:04 PM
Hey now, we aren't that bad. I'd bet good money or good beer the Aggies win that game!

Just needling Stemp. A&M might eke out a 3 point victory or so. Hopefully it's not on a last second FG or a bunch of bandwagon conspiracy theorists will claim the refs handed it to A&M.

Better watch out next year if that happens. SFA will be mighty upset, and might topple the Ags if they run into each other again. After all, we all know that emotional frustration is way more important than top 3 recruiting classes every year when it comes to winning football games.

All Nebraska managed to do in the offseason was lose one of the greatest D Lineman in CFB history. They took a step back and are not a top 10 team this year IMO. I think Muschamp's defense will score almost as many points as Nebraska's offense in that game. They were absolutely horrible offensively last year, and they didn't improve.

IDEXAN
08-23-2010, 01:08 PM
What was your point again?


And TCU opens vs Oregon State and BSU @ Virginia Tech, which are both quality opponents, while Rice isn't. That's my point. Again !

Stemp
08-23-2010, 01:11 PM
See, I guess I'm just strange. I value tradition and history in college sports. I think that wherever UT or A&M goes they should stick together, just like OU and OSU or KU and KSU. UT will have their down years. When they do, games against OU and A&M will still mean something. Will Nebraska versus Purdue or Northwestern resonate the same way when the Huskers are going through a mediocre season?

Would have thought an Aggie especially would feel the same way. :shrug:

I think A&M is in a place where they need to go their own way. No matter how good A&M is and how bad Texas is, A&M has been seen as the "little brother". Just look back at the 80's. Plus, there is a LOT of money to be made by both schools for annual out of conference games between them instead of being under the conference TV contract, especially in football and basketball. Plus, I think Texas would prefer to be a Big fish in a smaller pond.

Honestly, I see the Big 10 inviting ND and Mizzou to start this off. Then A&M bolts to the SEC, unless the legislature ties them together in the next session. If OU can shake lose of OSU, they go to the SEC as well. Texas then goes to either the PAC 10 or wrangles an invite from the Big 10 as well. If they go PAC 10 they drag along Texas Tech and possibly OSU. All the rest will get picked up by mid-major conferences, which will suck for KU because of their basketball tradition.

Dan B.
08-23-2010, 01:13 PM
And TCU opens vs Oregon State and BSU @ Virginia Tech, which are both quality opponents, while Rice isn't. That's my point. Again !

Holy Lord look at Boise State's entire schedule. VT is the only decent team they play:

Virginia Tech
@Wyoming
Oregon State
@ New Mexico State
Toledo
@San Jose State
Louisiana Tech
Hawaii
@Idaho
Fresno State
@ Nevada
Utah State

I'm thinking their schedule will be below UT's next year.

Fun fact -- out of Bama, Florida, and UT, Texas had the strongest strength of schedule last year (http://collegefootballpoll.com/2009_archive_computer_rankings.html)

Stemp
08-23-2010, 01:19 PM
Just needling Stemp. A&M might eke out a 3 point victory or so. Hopefully it's not on a last second FG or a bunch of bandwagon conspiracy theorists will claim the refs handed it to A&M.

Better watch out next year if that happens. SFA will be mighty upset, and might topple the Ags if they run into each other again. After all, we all know that emotional frustration is way more important than top 3 recruiting classes every year when it comes to winning football games.

All Nebraska managed to do in the offseason was lose one of the greatest D Lineman in CFB history. They took a step back and are not a top 10 team this year IMO. I think Muschamp's defense will score almost as many points as Nebraska's offense in that game. They were absolutely horrible offensively last year, and they didn't improve.

I think NU is down as well, but Texas lost a lot of weapons as well and has a QB played well in the NC game but lost his receivers and much of his OL. Tech is going to lose games they should win and win a game or 2 they should lose. The Big 12 is really a mystery this year with no clear front-runner. It SHOULD be A&M with Johnson making a run at the Heisman, but the defensive is still a questions mark with a new DC.

Dan B.
08-23-2010, 01:21 PM
I think A&M is in a place where they need to go their own way. No matter how good A&M is and how bad Texas is, A&M has been seen as the "little brother". Just look back at the 80's. Plus, there is a LOT of money to be made by both schools for annual out of conference games between them instead of being under the conference TV contract, especially in football and basketball. Plus, I think Texas would prefer to be a Big fish in a smaller pond.

Honestly, I see the Big 10 inviting ND and Mizzou to start this off. Then A&M bolts to the SEC, unless the legislature ties them together in the next session. If OU can shake lose of OSU, they go to the SEC as well. Texas then goes to either the PAC 10 or wrangles an invite from the Big 10 as well. If they go PAC 10 they drag along Texas Tech and possibly OSU. All the rest will get picked up by mid-major conferences, which will suck for KU because of their basketball tradition.

I don't know that Notre Dame will ever go to the Big 10. They want their independence. They don't want to have to subsidize 8-10 other programs. Going to the Big 10 is a no brainer for Nebraska (even if they have to flip flop on their long held stance wrt revenue sharing to do so). They make more money. It's not so simple for Notre Dame. The Irish would be bringing more to the table. They have a lot more clout.

I agree that the SEC will not be the conference to start expansion off. They are happy with the status quo, because they are the biggest dog. If the Big 10 or someone does try to go mega conference, than the SEC will react how they have to to stop it. Honestly I think that was their intent wrt A&M. They didn't want A&M -- they wanted to stop the Pac 10 from owning every state west of the Mississippi.

Stemp
08-23-2010, 01:24 PM
I don't know that Notre Dame will ever go to the Big 10. They want their independence. They don't want to have to subsidize 8-10 other programs. Going to the Big 10 is a no brainer for Nebraska (even if they have to flip flop on their long held stance wrt revenue sharing to do so). They make more money. It's not so simple for Notre Dame. The Irish would be bringing more to the table. They have a lot more clout.


Except that ND makes less being an independent than a Big 10 school does. Independence at this point only make sense for keeping tradition. Joining the Big 10 would make it a financial juggernaut and ND would still be seen on TV sets nationwide.

Dan B.
08-23-2010, 01:25 PM
I think NU is down as well, but Texas lost a lot of weapons as well and has a QB played well in the NC game but lost his receivers and much of his OL. Tech is going to lose games they should win and win a game or 2 they should lose. The Big 12 is really a mystery this year with no clear front-runner. It SHOULD be A&M with Johnson making a run at the Heisman, but the defensive is still a questions mark with a new DC.

Oh, I think UT is overrated as well. Their OL will be bad, but it has been for years now. They will lose at least 2 games, and I am pretty much certain one of them will be OU. They might be a top 10 team, but more likely 10-15. Top 5 is way too high for them IMO.

I think OU wins the Big 12. I agree that there are a few other dangerous teams, but A&M isn't one of them IMO. I think they could win 5 of their first 6 or so, because they start off with a very soft schedule. But the end of the season is just brutal. They'll be 7-5 or 8-4 at the absolute best. Hello, Alamo Bowl!

Dan B.
08-23-2010, 01:34 PM
Except that ND makes less being an independent than a Big 10 school does. Independence at this point only make sense for keeping tradition. Joining the Big 10 would make it a financial juggernaut and ND would still be seen on TV sets nationwide.

Wait till their contract is up. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if BYU outearns individual Big 10 teams in the near future. They have total control of their own network on Dish with a worldwide reach. All those missions are going to reap a nice profit. Imagine what Notre Dame would earn if the Vatican literally owned the school.

Tailgate
08-23-2010, 05:10 PM
Oh, I think UT is overrated as well. Their OL will be bad, but it has been for years now. They will lose at least 2 games, and I am pretty much certain one of them will be OU. They might be a top 10 team, but more likely 10-15. Top 5 is way too high for them IMO.

I think OU wins the Big 12. I agree that there are a few other dangerous teams, but A&M isn't one of them IMO. I think they could win 5 of their first 6 or so, because they start off with a very soft schedule. But the end of the season is just brutal. They'll be 7-5 or 8-4 at the absolute best. Hello, Alamo Bowl!

OU lost 4 first rounders, 3 of the first 5 picks in the draft. Mack has already stated that this could be the best Defense the Horns have had in his tenure. I think its wide open and very difficult to pick a winner.

Hookem Horns
08-23-2010, 05:23 PM
Holy Lord look at Boise State's entire schedule. VT is the only decent team they play:

Virginia Tech
@Wyoming
Oregon State
@ New Mexico State
Toledo
@San Jose State
Louisiana Tech
Hawaii
@Idaho
Fresno State
@ Nevada
Utah State

I'm thinking their schedule will be below UT's next year.



Don't overlook Toledo, you can never count out a UT team.

ESAD2-14
08-23-2010, 08:13 PM
NU, and CU left because of the disparity in the Big XII and the arrogance of Texas. Same reason Mizzou and it's St. Louis TV market will bolt if/when the Big 10 invites ND and Mizzou and why A&M wants to go to the SEC. OU would also bail on the Big XII if it could rid itself of Ok. St. It can't, so it let tu get the OSU a place in the PAC 10.

Nebraska took it's toys and went to play with the other kids. They sure did not seem to mind the Big XII when they were dominating in the late 90's and 2000 and 2001. Solich went a paltry 7-7 then followed that up with a 9-3 record and promptly got fired, as that was not up to the standards envisioned by NU. After that they have not been anywhere near as competitive as they once were. Perhaps they pulled the trigger to early on Frank?
The Huskers were way more competitive under him then they have been for the last 8 years. Using UT and the disparity between the North and South divisions as a reason for leaving the Big XII is not a good argument for NU. CU may have a better argument in that regard, as they had their best days before they joined the Big XII. Right now the balance of power is in the South, there was a time when it absolutely belonged to the North Division. The Huskers did not seem to mind the Big XII to much at that time.

IDEXAN
08-24-2010, 07:23 AM
1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Boise State
4. Oregon
5. Texas
6. Florida
7. TCU
8. Iowa
9. Nebraska
10. Wisconsin
11. Georgia Tech
12. Southern California
13. Penn State
14. Virginia Tech
15. Miami FL
16. Oklahoma
17. Oregon State
18. Cincinnati
19. North Carolina
20. Arkansas
21. Louisiana State
22. Utah
23. Florida State
24. West Virginia
25. Georgia
http://www.nationalchamps.net/2010/earlybird/index.htm
&&
With BSU & TCU in the Big 12, the conference has a legit argument that
they're comparble to the best, the SEC. Without them, there's only 1 Big 12 team in the top 15 and the conference is way behind the SEC, PAC 10, Big 10, ACC, and perhaps others. Without an infusion of new blood and talent the Big 12 will soon be on lifesupport as it's only a matter of time before the
Missouris, OKlahomas, & A&M bolt. It's no fun and there's no future living with a tyrant.

Tailgate
08-24-2010, 10:41 AM
Nebraska took it's toys and went to play with the other kids. They sure did not seem to mind the Big XII when they were dominating in the late 90's and 2000 and 2001. Solich went a paltry 7-7 then followed that up with a 9-3 record and promptly got fired, as that was not up to the standards envisioned by NU. After that they have not been anywhere near as competitive as they once were. Perhaps they pulled the trigger to early on Frank?
The Huskers were way more competitive under him then they have been for the last 8 years. Using UT and the disparity between the North and South divisions as a reason for leaving the Big XII is not a good argument for NU. CU may have a better argument in that regard, as they had their best days before they joined the Big XII. Right now the balance of power is in the South, there was a time when it absolutely belonged to the North Division. The Huskers did not seem to mind the Big XII to much at that time.

Exactly, the disparity was Nebraska's own fault. They couldnt dominate the Big 12 North? Really? They were supposed to be the big boys in the North and didnt hold their end of the bargain up. And they leave because of disparity?

Dan B.
08-24-2010, 12:34 PM
1. Alabama
2. Ohio State
3. Boise State
4. Oregon
5. Texas
6. Florida
7. TCU
8. Iowa
9. Nebraska
10. Wisconsin
11. Georgia Tech
12. Southern California
13. Penn State
14. Virginia Tech
15. Miami FL
16. Oklahoma
17. Oregon State
18. Cincinnati
19. North Carolina
20. Arkansas
21. Louisiana State
22. Utah
23. Florida State
24. West Virginia
25. Georgia
http://www.nationalchamps.net/2010/earlybird/index.htm
&&
With BSU & TCU in the Big 12, the conference has a legit argument that
they're comparble to the best, the SEC.

No. No, they don't. The SEC is still better.

Without them, there's only 1 Big 12 team in the top 15 and the conference is way behind the SEC, PAC 10, Big 10, ACC, and perhaps others. Without an infusion of new blood and talent the Big 12 will soon be on lifesupport as it's only a matter of time before the
Missouris, OKlahomas, & A&M bolt. It's no fun and there's no future living with a tyrant.

This is Texas. Teams get infusions of new talent all the time. That's how Missouri and OSU were able to get to the big time, on Texas players like Chase Daniel and Dez Bryant.

2 years ago 3 of the top 6 teams in the nation were in the Big 12 (UT, OU, and TTU). You really and truly think that every other program in the Big 12 other than Texas is doomed?

Funny how BSU went to the "new and improved" MWC (minus Utah and BYU), but it's Texas who is the only good program in a weak conference. Baylor would be the third best team in the sorry MWC these days.

By the way the Pac 10 is gonna be awful too. Of the only two top programs in the conference, one lost their QB and the other lost their coach and went on probation.

Texan_Bill
08-26-2010, 12:09 PM
That would mean playing on a blue football field during away games in Idaho.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:cqvmpB1LbVvlHM:http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4533016270_59fdabb14a_o.jpg&t=1

Also, Idaho is a geographically undesirable location for most of the schools in the Big 12.

However, if these objections can be managed, then I think adding these two teams would be a great idea.

NOPE!! Can't do the Blue Field thing. I don't mind watching Boise play... as long as they're playing on the road.

eriadoc
08-26-2010, 12:59 PM
The blue field really is just awful. And I've been told it grows on you, but then, so does fungus.

Stemp
08-26-2010, 01:32 PM
TCU and Boise St. bring no new markets to the Big 12 so it would just be taking money out of the current teams' pockets.

HoustonFrog
08-26-2010, 03:08 PM
TCU and Boise St. bring no new markets to the Big 12 so it would just be taking money out of the current teams' pockets.

How is Dallas/FW not a new market? You can say that UT and others already have alot of the Texas market but if you are looking at specific schools in that area that bring that interest, etc then TCU is a new market.

IDEXAN
08-26-2010, 04:26 PM
TCU and Boise St. bring no new markets to the Big 12 so it would just be taking money out of the current teams' pockets.
I think the FTW/Arlington area alone is > 1 million, and besides are there really any other serious college football programs in North Texas besides TCU ? It seems that TCU should be able to deliver quite a few fans.
And BSU could bring 1.5 million fans, oh wait that's the whole states population. Well BSU is probably the most popular team in the state, and then the Big 12 would get the bragging rights of being the conference with that beautiful blue field.

ATXtexanfan
08-26-2010, 09:24 PM
TCU is a market already owned by OU and UT. big 12 hopes to one day snag ND and that is worth waiting for over TCU. arkansas is the other school the big 12 would prefer.

IDEXAN
09-20-2010, 08:38 AM
Any doubt now who is best team in the Big 12 ? I don't think so and we know they are going to be in the Big 10 soon, leaving both TCU and Boise State as probably better than the next best team in the Big 12, whoever that is ?
Poor ole Texas seems to struggle against anybody they play, include that
powerhouse in H-Town, the Rice Owls.
Time to extend those invittions before they get a better offer elswhere, otherwise there may be no top tier teams in the Big 12.

pbat488
09-20-2010, 08:56 AM
Big 12 is dead in a few years anyways. A&M and OU go SEC, UT-Austin goes independent with Pac - 10 for everything other than football.

BigBull17
09-20-2010, 09:18 AM
TCU and Boise St. bring no new markets to the Big 12 so it would just be taking money out of the current teams' pockets.

They would also be a threat to actually beat UT. No can do. UT would only play them if they could insure that they come to Austin. Can't do that if they play in the Lil 12.

Dutchrudder
09-20-2010, 09:48 AM
Big 12 is dead in a few years anyways. A&M and OU go SEC, UT-Austin goes independent with Pac - 10 for everything other than football.

I think this will more than likely be the outcome in 2015 or so. I'm fine with it too.

IDEXAN
09-20-2010, 11:33 AM
Big 12 is dead in a few years anyways. A&M and OU go SEC, UT-Austin goes independent with Pac - 10 for everything other than football.
Definitely a scenario with some real probability of occuring. UT could play in Texas in front of the familys of their players with a schedule composed of teams like Rice, Sam Houston, North Texas at Denton, etc. and finish with an unbeated or 1 loss season and get a BCS invitation. Apparently that's what UT fans really want, not an honest schedule with real woth competition but a phoney-balaoney W-L record.

Dan B.
09-20-2010, 11:48 AM
Definitely a scenario with some real probability of occuring. UT could play in Texas in front of the familys of their players with a schedule composed of teams like Rice, Sam Houston, North Texas at Denton, etc. and finish with an unbeated or 1 loss season and get a BCS invitation. Apparently that's what UT fans really want, not an honest schedule with real woth competition but a phoney-balaoney W-L record.

Not like those Broncos, playing the biggest teams every week. Wouldn't be shocked if big bad Nevada knocks y'all off (I think you beat OSU this week). Hey, at least UT is actually playing Nebraska this year. The Huskers tried to schedule Boise, but BSU demanded a million dollar extortion to do it, which kinda shows how hollow their "we'll play anyone, any time" bs really is.

Course after your one last real game you get to get pumped for the likes of New Mexico State, Toledo, and San Jose State while UT plays OU, Nebraska, and UCLA. Hmm I wonder whose SoS will be higher at the end of October?

Careful throwing around comments about weak schedules. There's a pretty good chance that when the rankings come out at the end of the year Boise won't have played a single ranked team. You gave up 30 to a team that barely scored half that in a loss against I-AA competition. No matter what shakes down UT is certain to have played 2 teams (OU and Nebraska) better than anyone Boise faces all year.

Dan B.
09-20-2010, 12:09 PM
test post. I think I broke TTalk again.

IDEXAN
09-20-2010, 12:40 PM
Not like those Broncos, playing the biggest teams every week. Wouldn't be shocked if big bad Nevada knocks y'all off (I think you beat OSU this week). Hey, at least UT is actually playing Nebraska this year. The Huskers tried to schedule Boise, but BSU demanded a million dollar extortion to do it, which kinda shows how hollow their "we'll play anyone, any time" bs really is.

Texas has it's schedule because that's what it chose, it's be design. And I guarantee you that BSU or TCU would jump at the chance to play them on the road, home, or at a neutral site. But BSU and TCU can't get the competition. UT is too busy avoiding serious competition except what it has play in it's own conference.
Please give me more details, a link or whatever about the chance that Boise had to play Nebraska ?

Stemp
09-20-2010, 12:46 PM
It's not like Boise St. was negotiated and came with a huge number.
They just know that a game they play against a good and/or ranked BCS opponent will bring in a ton of media and publicity and want their fair share of the revenue.

As the great debate continues to rage over which automatic qualifying schools are turning Boise State, Lincoln Journal Star columnist Steve Sipple put to rest any notion that Nebraska could be the Broncos huckleberry in 2011.

Nebraska does have an open date on Sept. 3, 2011, the same date that’s open for the Broncos, but as Sipple writes in his blog, the Huskers already have games against Fresno State, Washington and Wyoming scheduled that season. It’s unlikely that the Huskers would add a likely ranked Boise State team to that mix. It wouldn’t be smart scheduling.

Besides, the Huskers might not be able to pony up the kind of guarantee that Boise State is requesting. Athletic director Gene Bleymaier said that $900,000 to $1 million would be a fair market price for guarantee game with Boise State. According to the Florida Atlantic and Louisiana-Lafayette athletic departments, the Huskers shelled out just $650,000 and $700,000 respectively to play those teams this year. Nebraska won both games handily.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/12690/nebraska-not-likely-to-add-boise-state-in-2011

IDEXAN
09-21-2010, 05:04 PM
Besides, the Huskers might not be able to pony up the kind of guarantee that Boise State is requesting. Athletic director Gene Bleymaier said that $900,000 to $1 million would be a fair market price for guarantee game with Boise State. According to the Florida Atlantic and Louisiana-Lafayette athletic departments, the Huskers shelled out just $650,000 and $700,000 respectively to play those teams this year.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for the reference Stemp. The other poster made it as if BSU was trying to avoid a confrontation on the field vs the Cornhuskers, while the
info you've provided seems more like a reasonable request for fair value by Boise ? Is not a highly ranked Boise a substantially more impressive and more worthy opponent than a team like LA at Lafayette ?
The simple truth is Boise is dealing from a position of weakness compared to legendary gridiron powerhouses like the 'Huskers or Horns.

Dan B.
09-21-2010, 06:15 PM
Sure, and 10 years ago they paid Boise 800k too. Boise invested those payouts wisely and CLAIMS to field an elite CFB team.

Elite teams don't need million dolly checks cut to play someone. Texas didn't demand their fair share of game revenue from games scheduled in Columbus South Bend.

BTW you should take a peek at future OOC schedules for UT and BSU. Texas scheduled Notre Dame, USC, BYU, Arky, and Cal in the next few years. Meanwhile BSU has managed to scare up a home and home against Toledo.

IDEXAN
09-22-2010, 07:33 AM
BTW you should take a peek at future OOC schedules for UT and BSU. Texas scheduled Notre Dame, USC, BYU, Arky, and Cal in the next few years. Meanwhile BSU has managed to scare up a home and home against Toledo.
Boise State can only dream about scheduling the likes of ND, USC, and yes Texas, while UT can schedule anybody it wants to. But usually it chooses to run and hide from real competition like new conferences members in the PAC 10.
But the last time I checked the Broncos did OK against big-time competition.
Last year vs TCU ? NP. The Fiesta bowl vs Oklahoma ? NP.
Hey coach don't be afraid, just put 'em in the game, they'll make you proud !

Blake
09-22-2010, 08:42 AM
Boise State can only dream about scheduling the likes of ND, USC, and yes Texas, while UT can schedule anybody it wants to. But usually it chooses to run and hide from real competition like new conferences members in the PAC 10.


Thats right. Boise is powerless to schedule decent opponents. Its everyone elses fault!

But the last time I checked the Broncos did OK against big-time competition.
Last year vs TCU ? NP. The Fiesta bowl vs Oklahoma ? NP.
Hey coach don't be afraid, just put 'em in the game, they'll make you proud !

How did Boise fair against those bohemoths i 07? Hawaii? Washington? East Carolina?

Oh thats right. They lost. :lol:

And TCU in 2008? How did that game go?


Boise State is a decent team. There is no denying that. But when you only schedule 2 quality opponents a year, it makes it easy to run the table. And I am being generous calling VT a quality opponent after last week. Pathetic.

Stemp
09-22-2010, 09:44 AM
Elite teams don't need million dolly checks cut to play someone. Texas didn't demand their fair share of game revenue from games scheduled in Columbus South Bend.
.

That's because Texas makes $20M a year being on TV and in a BCS conference. Boise State doesn't. Money doesn't make you elite, but it sure helps.

Dan B.
09-22-2010, 11:15 AM
That's because Texas makes $20M a year being on TV and in a BCS conference. Boise State doesn't. Money doesn't make you elite, but it sure helps.

I'd umm recommend that they quit trying to extort money from their opponents and act like any other school that goes to the BCS every other year. Cry me a river -- Boise has probably made 50 million off of its bowl games this decade, and it's not like they are ignored on TV either. Their games are always on ESPN cuz they play on any random night. Where'd all that money go?

IDEXAN
09-22-2010, 11:31 AM
That's because Texas makes $20M a year being on TV and in a BCS conference. Boise State doesn't. Money doesn't make you elite, but it sure helps.
The Boise State guys are, well gotta say it, they're just small potatoes.
But they are trying to claw their way up the latter, but the fat cats like
UT keep stomping on their fingers.
Now when it comes to big-time programs, certainly in the Big 12, clearly the most admirable is Nebraska. They told UT to take the money and stuff it.
They've got too much pride, too much class to be treated like the plantation "boys" as UT is treating the Aggies, Baylor, Tech, Mizzou, etc.
I'm gonna enjoy that ass-stompin the Huskers deal to Texas in Lincoln later this fall almost as much as the NU fans in Lincoln will.

Stemp
09-22-2010, 11:41 AM
I'd umm recommend that they quit trying to extort money from their opponents and act like any other school that goes to the BCS every other year. Cry me a river -- Boise has probably made 50 million off of its bowl games this decade, and it's not like they are ignored on TV either. Their games are always on ESPN cuz they play on any random night. Where'd all that money go?

Are you just completely ignorant about BCS bowl money and conference revenue sharing? There is no more guarenteed amount anymore and all the BCS Bowl money earned by a team gets split up by the conference (except ND).

Changes in Bowl Championship Series revenue distribution and the elimination by the NCAA in the last three years of a minimum payout have helped make it possible for teams playing in the same game to receive different amounts.

Champions from the six major conferences will generate $17 million apiece for their leagues in BCS games. Boise State and Notre Dame, also in the BCS, will make vastly different amounts: $9 million by Boise for five other I-A leagues to share and $4.5 million for independent Notre Dame to keep.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2006-12-06-bowl-payouts_x.htm

Per an agreement struck four years ago, the five nonautomatic qualifying conferences -- Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt and WAC -- split a 9 percent share of the overall BCS revenue, which in the past couple years has come out to about $9.6 million.

That BCS revenue share is split in half and each of the five conferences is given an equal portion, which comes out to $964,800 per conference. The other half is split into 15 shares and handed out based on performance. The top non-AQ conference earns five shares, the second-best earns four, the third earns three, and so on.

The Mountain West earns the most from this pool because it had the top BCS qualifier and two other teams ranked in the Top 25. Its payout from that pool is about $1.6 million, while the WAC, which had the second-highest BCS ranked team, earns just under $1.3 million.

The conferences also split about $9.8 million for TCU’s guaranteed spot in the Fiesta Bowl. The Mountain West gets $6 million of this because it has the BCS bowl qualifier and the five conferences split the remaining $3.7 million based on the performance tier system noted above.

Now, here’s where the numbers differ from a year ago. Because Boise State entered the BCS as an at-large, the WAC earns an extra $4.5 million. This money is for the WAC and will not be shared with the rest of the five-conference coalition. Boise State earns $3 million of that total and the rest is split evenly amongst the WAC’s member schools.

Because of this, the WAC is the only conference that makes more money than it did a year ago. If the payouts remain approximately the same as they did last year, which is expected, the Mountain West will lead the non-AQ conferences with a total revenue of $9.8 million and the WAC will earn $7.8 million. Both of these figures are before bowl expenses.

Last season, the WAC earned $3.2 million.


http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/15793/breaking-down-the-non-aqs-bcs-money

So to compare, Iowa State, possibly the weakest Big 12 team, earned 4.5M million from the conference last year, including it's share of BCS Bowl money for being a bottom feeder in the Big XII, while Boise State, a BCS contender from an non-AQ conference, got 3.9M.

Dan B.
09-22-2010, 11:57 AM
Are you just completely ignorant about BCS bowl money and conference revenue sharing? There is no more guarenteed amount anymore and all the BCS Bowl money earned by a team gets split up by the conference (except ND).


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2006-12-06-bowl-payouts_x.htm


http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/15793/breaking-down-the-non-aqs-bcs-money

So to compare, Iowa State, possibly the weakest Big 12 team, earned 4.5M million from the conference last year, including it's share of BCS Bowl money for being a bottom feeder in the Big XII, while Boise State, a BCS contender from an non-AQ conference, got 3.9M.

OK, so they've earned 40 million in the past decade, not 50. Doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't need a million dollar check to go on a road trip. Iowa State doesn't.

Is Boise State a legitimate top 10 contender, or a patsy? Only patsies get paid to play in a game. No big name school is going to pay Boise money to play them. Why would they? They wouldn't do it for any other dangerous opponent either. You shell out checks to rent an opponent when you need someone to fill up the stands and an easy win. You don't pay money to big name programs that stand a better than even chance of beating you.

Dan B.
09-22-2010, 02:23 PM
The Boise State guys are, well gotta say it, they're just small potatoes.
But they are trying to claw their way up the latter, but the fat cats like
UT keep stomping on their fingers.
Now when it comes to big-time programs, certainly in the Big 12, clearly the most admirable is Nebraska. They told UT to take the money and stuff it.
They've got too much pride, too much class to be treated like the plantation "boys" as UT is treating the Aggies, Baylor, Tech, Mizzou, etc.
I'm gonna enjoy that ass-stompin the Huskers deal to Texas in Lincoln later this fall almost as much as the NU fans in Lincoln will.

Careful what you wish for. What if they finish #2 in the country and play Bama over an undefeated BSU? If I were a hardcore Boise fan I'd be praying for Nebraska to lose. They are primed to leap over you guys when the computer rankings using strength of schedule are factored in.

Hervoyel
09-25-2010, 07:31 PM
UCLA? Seriously? This is football, not basketball. This is the same UCLA that went 7-6, 6-7, 4-8, and 7-6 the last 4 years. Are you seriously bragging about "quality" opponents and using UCLA as an exmple?

NU, and CU left because of the disparity in the Big XII and the arrogance of Texas. Same reason Mizzou and it's St. Louis TV market will bolt if/when the Big 10 invites ND and Mizzou and why A&M wants to go to the SEC. OU would also bail on the Big XII if it could rid itself of Ok. St. It can't, so it let tu get the OSU a place in the PAC 10.

Well, as it turns out maybe UCLA was more of a quality opponent than you thought at the time. Interesting though that UH did about as well against them on the road and got laughed at by many for losing that game.

I wonder how many teams see UT as a "quality opponent" by the end of this season.

Hookem Horns
09-25-2010, 09:55 PM
I wonder how many teams see UT as a "quality opponent" by the end of this season.

Probably not many. They are going to be a train wreck this year. The offense is clueless as to what they are doing.

Honestly this is season is going to be a well deserved karma for all those UT morons rooting for the Titans. At least I can draw some comfort in that when the Horns lose. :)

JB
09-25-2010, 10:08 PM
Probably not many. They are going to be a train wreck this year. The offense is clueless as to what they are doing.

Honestly this is season is going to be a well deserved karma for all those UT morons rooting for the Titans. At least I can draw some comfort in that when the Horns lose. :)

This may be the season that finally sees Davis fired...

Mr. White
09-25-2010, 10:46 PM
This may be the season that finally sees Davis fired...

One could only hope.

Any half-ass DC knows how to exploit a Greg Davis offense. He was lucky he had Vince Young and Colt McCoy to cover his ineptitude all those years.

JB
09-25-2010, 11:04 PM
One could only hope.

Any half-ass DC knows how to exploit a Greg Davis offense. He was lucky he had Vince Young and Colt McCoy to cover his ineptitude all those years.

Yep! And I think that Gilbert will be a very good qb, but they have to have a better system. They can't run a power running scheme with a light weight OL

Blake
09-26-2010, 11:18 AM
Probably not many. They are going to be a train wreck this year. The offense is clueless as to what they are doing.

Honestly this is season is going to be a well deserved karma for all those UT morons rooting for the Titans. At least I can draw some comfort in that when the Horns lose. :)

You said it brother. I thought we would end up 9-3 this year. And after our offense sucked it up against UCLA, it is looking very likely. The running game is horrendous. The receiving core is good as usual. The running backs are all going to be out of a job when true freshman Malcolm Brown comes in next season. The only RB I like is Cody Johnson. And he hasnt gotten the ball since the first game when he got banged up. Also where the hell is Malcom Williams? Dude is crazy good yet plays second fiddle to Davis, Childs, Goodwin and Kirkendoll. I dont understand that one.

But lets be honest. Despite starting in the top 10, who saw Texas as a title contender? Not me. I really like Alabama with their vet QB, strong running game and defense. Oregon is crazy good on offense. And Arizona is my sleeper. Ill throw a bone to Boise that they have looked good. Just wish they mixed in a few more solid programs like a Big 10, Big 12 or SEC team in addition to OSU and VT.

This may be the season that finally sees Davis fired...

He has made it this far. What makes you think one down season with a new QB will make it his last? Until there is a new head coach, I doubt we see a new OC. JMHO.

Dan B.
09-26-2010, 11:25 AM
You said it brother. I thought we would end up 9-3 this year. And after our offense sucked it up against UCLA, it is looking very likely. The running game is horrendous. The receiving core is good as usual. The running backs are all going to be out of a job when true freshman Malcolm Brown comes in next season. The only RB I like is Cody Johnson. And he hasnt gotten the ball since the first game when he got banged up. Also where the hell is Malcom Williams? Dude is crazy good yet plays second fiddle to Davis, Childs, Goodwin and Kirkendoll. I dont understand that one.

But lets be honest. Despite starting in the top 10, who saw Texas as a title contender? Not me. I really like Alabama with their vet QB, strong running game and defense. Oregon is crazy good on offense. And Arizona is my sleeper. Ill throw a bone to Boise that they have looked good. Just wish they mixed in a few more solid programs like a Big 10, Big 12 or SEC team in addition to OSU and VT.

Texas is in a rebuilding year and is definitely a 3 or 4 loss team. Top 10 was way too high for them. At best they are a top 20 team, and even then just barely. OU, Nebraska, A&M, and KSU are all going to be extremely difficult for UT. I think in addition to the teams you listed Nebraska and Ohio State have looked superb so far. It's obviously unlikely that all go undefeated but I could see any of them running their schedule.



He has made it this far. What makes you think one down season with a new QB will make it his last? Until there is a new head coach, I doubt we see a new OC. JMHO.

Yup. Greg Davis isn't going anywhere while Mack Brown is the head coach. They are a package and have been since both got to UT.

awtysst
09-26-2010, 03:33 PM
Texas is in a rebuilding year and is definitely a 3 or 4 loss team. Top 10 was way too high for them. At best they are a top 20 team, and even then just barely. OU, Nebraska, A&M, and KSU are all going to be extremely difficult for UT. I think in addition to the teams you listed Nebraska and Ohio State have looked superb so far. It's obviously unlikely that all go undefeated but I could see any of them running their schedule.



Yup. Greg Davis isn't going anywhere while Mack Brown is the head coach. They are a package and have been since both got to UT.


I am hoping we only lose 1 more game(to OU or Nebraska) but if we lose 3-4 I will not be surprised.

Hookem Horns
09-27-2010, 08:03 PM
I am hoping we only lose 1 more game(to OU or Nebraska) but if we lose 3-4 I will not be surprised.

I have them losing 4. OU, Nebraska, and either Baylor or A&M. Yes, I am serious about Baylor.

BTW, I wouldn't mind seeing Mack go. He has been a great recruiter and has done a ton for the program however I think it's time for a change. I have also never have been a big fan of his come game day. Oh, Greg Davis, if Mack goes he goes which would be a very welcomed.

Living in Austin I am just tired of hearing the same coach speak over and over again. It's pretty annoying now.

Blake
09-28-2010, 08:11 AM
I have them losing 4. OU, Nebraska, and either Baylor or A&M. Yes, I am serious about Baylor.

BTW, I wouldn't mind seeing Mack go. He has been a great recruiter and has done a ton for the program however I think it's time for a change. I have also never have been a big fan of his come game day. Oh, Greg Davis, if Mack goes he goes which would be a very welcomed.

Living in Austin I am just tired of hearing the same coach speak over and over again. It's pretty annoying now.

I wouldnt mind if Mack wanted to leave. But I am not going to ask him to leave. Like you said he has done a lot for the program, including a NCT. I think he will want to leave on his own in the next 2-3 years max.

I think how Florida State kicked Bowden out on his ass was sad. And dont want to see that at UT.

Agree 100% with Macks coach speak, and Greg Davis needing to go with Mack.

Stemp
09-28-2010, 09:09 AM
Mack Brown isn't going anywhere for 4-5 years at least.

Texas fans need to be worried about losing Muschamp at the end of the season. He is primed to be a HC and he's not going to wait for Mack Brown to retire, especially with the HC openings that will likely come about this year.

Blake
09-28-2010, 09:49 AM
Mack Brown isn't going anywhere for 4-5 years at least.

Texas fans need to be worried about losing Muschamp at the end of the season. He is primed to be a HC and he's not going to wait for Mack Brown to retire, especially with the HC openings that will likely come about this year.

Do you have anything to back up this claim? Or just your personal opinion?

Muschamp has said publicly that he is content with waiting for the UT head coach job as he sees it as the premier job in the country. He is the 2nd highest paid assistant coach in the country. And he passed on other head coach jobs like Tennessee.

It would be a shocker to see him leave. So no, I am not worried.

Stemp
09-28-2010, 09:56 AM
Do you have anything to back up this claim? Or just your personal opinion?

Muschamp has said publicly that he is content with waiting for the UT head coach job as he sees it as the premier job in the country. He is the 2nd highest paid assistant coach in the country. And he passed on other head coach jobs like Tennessee.

It would be a shocker to see him leave. So no, I am not worried.

Muschamp is primed to be a HC. He's making $1M a year, but there will be big name jobs that will open up paying 2-3X times that. I don't think Muschamp will wait around for years for Brown to retire, not without some assurance of a timeframe. He doesn't have the 5 year clause that Jimbo Fischer did in his contract at FSU.

Dutchrudder
09-28-2010, 05:15 PM
Muschamp is primed to be a HC. He's making $1M a year, but there will be big name jobs that will open up paying 2-3X times that. I don't think Muschamp will wait around for years for Brown to retire, not without some assurance of a timeframe. He doesn't have the 5 year clause that Jimbo Fischer did in his contract at FSU.

Rumor had it that Muschamp was the top candidate for the Tennessee job after Lane Kiffin left. Reports said he rejected the offer though and the speculation was that he was waiting to take Mack Brown's place after he retires.

Goldensilence
09-29-2010, 09:21 AM
Rumor had it that Muschamp was the top candidate for the Tennessee job after Lane Kiffin left. Reports said he rejected the offer though and the speculation was that he was waiting to take Mack Brown's place after he retires.

There's no speculation, he's the HC in waiting.

I really like Mack and appreciate all he's done in bringing UT back to national relevance, including a title, but Greg Davis is his albatross.

Blake
09-29-2010, 09:46 AM
Muschamp is primed to be a HC. He's making $1M a year, but there will be big name jobs that will open up paying 2-3X times that. I don't think Muschamp will wait around for years for Brown to retire, not without some assurance of a timeframe. He doesn't have the 5 year clause that Jimbo Fischer did in his contract at FSU.

What makes you think that Mack Brown hasnt assured him that he will leave after year X? You have no idea. None of us do.

You are basing your claims off opinion not facts.

So again, please explain your claim that Muschamp's "not going to wait for Mack Brown to retire."

Fact. Muschamp has said that UT is the premier job in the country.

Fact. He passed on the Tennessee job and "2-3x the pay" to stay in his current position.

Would he leave for Georgia? Maybe. But I wouldnt claim that he is gone if Mack doesnt leave soon.

Goldensilence
09-29-2010, 10:11 AM
What makes you think that Mack Brown hasnt assured him that he will leave after year X? You have no idea. None of us do.

You are basing your claims off opinion not facts.

So again, please explain your claim that Muschamp's "not going to wait for Mack Brown to retire."

Fact. Muschamp has said that UT is the premier job in the country.

Fact. He passed on the Tennessee job and "2-3x the pay" to stay in his current position.

Would he leave for Georgia? Maybe. But I wouldnt claim that he is gone if Mack doesnt leave soon.

A program like Georgia doesn't worry me. If he didn't bolt for Tennessee, granted Kiffin left it in a contractual cluster****, I doubt he'd go to Georgia.

I think if for some reason Florida's job came open I'd be worried. I don't think that'll happen soon now though.

The job possibly opening up this next year that worries me is Michigan.

Blake
09-29-2010, 10:17 AM
A program like Georgia doesn't worry me. If he didn't bolt for Tennessee, granted Kiffin left it in a contractual cluster****, I doubt he'd go to Georgia.

I think if for some reason Florida's job came open I'd be worried. I don't think that'll happen soon now though.

The job possibly opening up this next year that worries me is Michigan.

the only reason I said Georgia, is that Georgia is his Alma Mater, and he is from Georgia.

Stemp
09-29-2010, 10:21 AM
What makes you think that Mack Brown hasnt assured him that he will leave after year X? You have no idea. None of us do.

You are basing your claims off opinion not facts.

So again, please explain your claim that Muschamp's "not going to wait for Mack Brown to retire."

Fact. Muschamp has said that UT is the premier job in the country.

Fact. He passed on the Tennessee job and "2-3x the pay" to stay in his current position.

Would he leave for Georgia? Maybe. But I wouldnt claim that he is gone if Mack doesnt leave soon.

The timeframe isn't in his contract. Maybe Mack gave him private assurances, but he's also publicly stated he not even thinking about retiring soon and isn't interested in the AD job, which is where people thought he would slide into.

Texas may be a top coaching spot, but I think Muschamp wants to make his bones and be a HC and won't wait forever for Mack to retire. If a big name school has a vacancy, you can bet that Muschamp will listen and will move for the right price and situation.

Goldensilence
09-29-2010, 10:58 AM
The timeframe isn't in his contract. Maybe Mack gave him private assurances, but he's also publicly stated he not even thinking about retiring soon and isn't interested in the AD job, which is where people thought he would slide into.

Texas may be a top coaching spot, but I think Muschamp wants to make his bones and be a HC and won't wait forever for Mack to retire. If a big name school has a vacancy, you can bet that Muschamp will listen and will move for the right price and situation.

I thought Mack was slated to move into the AD role?

I do agree that given the right price and situation Muschamp would make a move. Just looking around right now though I don't see a better possibility than moving into the HC role at UT.

There's a few spots that do worry me though as I've pointed out, with Michigan being the most prominent. I thought Rodriguez was a bad fit from the word go and anything short of a BCS game will likely cost him his job, especially with the injuries at QB last game right before the start of the Big 10 schedule.

Dan B.
09-29-2010, 11:03 AM
If UGa or possibly LSU opens up I think Muschamp is out. I think Michigan goes a different direction.

awtysst
09-29-2010, 04:37 PM
I have them losing 4. OU, Nebraska, and either Baylor or A&M. Yes, I am serious about Baylor.

BTW, I wouldn't mind seeing Mack go. He has been a great recruiter and has done a ton for the program however I think it's time for a change. I have also never have been a big fan of his come game day. Oh, Greg Davis, if Mack goes he goes which would be a very welcomed.

Living in Austin I am just tired of hearing the same coach speak over and over again. It's pretty annoying now.

Mack's strength is in recruiting. I would love to see him slide into AD/head football recruiter and let Muschamp be the head coach/coach the D with a solid top notch Offensive football (ie NOT Greg Davis coaching) on the other side of the ball.

JB
09-29-2010, 05:14 PM
Mack's strength is in recruiting. I would love to see him slide into AD/head football recruiter and let Muschamp be the head coach/coach the D with a solid top notch Offensive football (ie NOT Greg Davis coaching) on the other side of the ball.

Do you think Applewhite is ready to take over as OC?

awtysst
09-29-2010, 06:47 PM
Do you think Applewhite is ready to take over as OC?

I don't know, but I have to believe he is better than Greg Davis. I mean, he tries to force fit a game plan on players rather than scheme for their strengths. Trying to make Texas into a running team is ridiculous when they don't actually have a running back. GG is clearly a QB that needs to roll out and throw down the field. Instead Davis decides to try to pound the ball with 3 subpar backs on first and second down. Then GG is forced to throw on third down with the opposing D pinning their ears back.

JB
09-29-2010, 06:52 PM
I don't know, but I have to believe he is better than Greg Davis. I mean, he tries to force fit a game plan on players rather than scheme for their strengths. Trying to make Texas into a running team is ridiculous when they don't actually have a running back. GG is clearly a QB that needs to roll out and throw down the field. Instead Davis decides to try to pound the ball with 3 subpar backs on first and second down. Then GG is forced to throw on third down with the opposing D pinning their ears back.

Totally agree with you about Davis. I know it is time for him to be gone, and I think Applewhite may be a good fit.

Mr. White
09-29-2010, 09:57 PM
I don't know, but I have to believe he is better than Greg Davis. I mean, he tries to force fit a game plan on players rather than scheme for their strengths. Trying to make Texas into a running team is ridiculous when they don't actually have a running back. GG is clearly a QB that needs to roll out and throw down the field. Instead Davis decides to try to pound the ball with 3 subpar backs on first and second down. Then GG is forced to throw on third down with the opposing D pinning their ears back.

The reason that I keep hearing that they can't run is because the O-Line can't run block....and this isn't a "players or coaching" question like we've been debating for years with the Texans.

It damn sure ain't the players. Texas gets 99% of the recruits they want. The fact that they can't open up running lanes is on the coaches. Every DC in the nation has Greg Davis' number. He just doesn't have Vince Young, Colt McCoy or Jordan Shipley to cover up how weak the offensive coaching anymore.

To answer JB's question....I think Major is ready for the promotion. He damn sure can't be any worse than Greg Davis. He's been groomed for it ever for almost 10 years.

BTW....anyone who agrees with me and thinks it's time for Davis to go should join the The Fire Greg Davis (http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Fire-Greg-Davis-Page/243676082139) group on Facebook. It had 90 members when I joined on Saturday. Now it's up to 282.

Dutchrudder
09-30-2010, 09:30 AM
The reason that I keep hearing that they can't run is because the O-Line can't run block....and this isn't a "players or coaching" question like we've been debating for years with the Texans.

It damn sure ain't the players. Texas gets 99% of the recruits they want. The fact that they can't open up running lanes is on the coaches. Every DC in the nation has Greg Davis' number. He just doesn't have Vince Young, Colt McCoy or Jordan Shipley to cover up how weak the offensive coaching anymore.

To answer JB's question....I think Major is ready for the promotion. He damn sure can't be any worse than Greg Davis. He's been groomed for it ever for almost 10 years.

BTW....anyone who agrees with me and thinks it's time for Davis to go should join the The Fire Greg Davis (http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Fire-Greg-Davis-Page/243676082139) group on Facebook. It had 90 members when I joined on Saturday. Now it's up to 282.

Yes they get the players they want, but for the last 5 or so years they have been running a pass-heavy spread offense. They don't recruit the monster Olineman that are needed for a power running game, they recruit the guys who are great at dropping back and pass protecting. That's why they can't run right now and why it makes no sense to switch to a run based team. They don't get the interior push required to open big holes at the LOS, nor do they have any exceptional RBs because the best ones know to go elsewhere if they want to showcase their skills for the NFL.

Dan B.
09-30-2010, 11:46 AM
Yes they get the players they want, but for the last 5 or so years they have been running a pass-heavy spread offense. They don't recruit the monster Olineman that are needed for a power running game, they recruit the guys who are great at dropping back and pass protecting. That's why they can't run right now and why it makes no sense to switch to a run based team. They don't get the interior push required to open big holes at the LOS, nor do they have any exceptional RBs because the best ones know to go elsewhere if they want to showcase their skills for the NFL.

They are switching to a run based team because that's what their new hotshot RB insisted they do (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/football/news/story?id=5475462) for him to come to UT (you know, the latest in a decades long line of exceptional RB's to come from Texas):


However, unlike the case with many Lone Star State products, Brown was hardly a given for Texas. According to Mike Jinks, Brown's coach at Cibolo Steele High, the move by UT coach Mack Brown this offseason to go to more of a running game and away from the spread scheme UT operated while Colt McCoy was the Longhorns' quarterback was a key factor in the back's decision-making process. In 2009, Texas ranked 61st in the country in rushing and the team's leading rusher, Tre Newton, ran for 552 yards.

I kind of suspect that Muschamp is a helluva lot more comfortable with a run first offense too. I've never known a DC turned HC that suddenly turned into Mike Leach. Will is going to want an offense that chews up the clock and doesn't turn it over -- basically one that doesn't hinder his defense.

pbat488
09-30-2010, 12:06 PM
I highly doubt Malcolm Brown called Mack Brown and said "hey coach, if you don't switch to a power running scheme I'm not gonna go there, so man up and drop that spread bs". I would believe instead that Mack, Greg Davis, and Muschamp got together and realized that Gilbert Grape and the current personnel on offense are more suited to a pro-style run oriented offense instead of the spread and I'm sure Muschamp was 100% in agreement as it helps his defense stay off the field.

Also, the way you added... you know, the latest in a decades long line of exceptional RB's to come from Texas

...is annoyingly self-aggrandizing and serves no purpose in the context of the discussion/post.




Edit: By the way, future Big 12 schedules released today...

Link here: http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=10410&ATCLID=1522978

Dan B.
09-30-2010, 12:16 PM
I highly doubt Malcolm Brown called Mack Brown and said "hey coach, if you don't switch to a power running scheme I'm not gonna go there, so man up and drop that spread bs". I would believe instead that Mack, Greg Davis, and Muschamp got together and realized that Gilbert Grape and the current personnel on offense are more suited to a pro-style run oriented offense instead of the spread and I'm sure Muschamp was 100% in agreement as it helps his defense stay off the field.

Also, the way you added...

...is annoyingly self-aggrandizing and serves no purpose in the context of the discussion/post.

Huh? The history of UT's running backs has zero context when discussing the history of UT's run game?

It's more than a little annoying for someone to say that UT misses out on the best RB's due to Davis' offense. Ever heard of Jamaal Charles? Ced Benson? I could keep going through the decades I referred to, but trust me, it won't improve the argument that elite RB's choose to skip UT.

I'm not saying that Brown necessarily held a sword over their head. But do you think that he would have gone to Texas if UT hadn't transitioned? I am saying that the UT coaching staff recruited Brown with the idea of transitioning to a power run game. This year is a rebuilding year. They are not playing to win a MNC this season. They are instituting a system for future years.

Also, I think that a team's RB core can make an OL look a lot different than they really are. UT's line isn't up to the standards they've had in previous years, but a huge part of the problem, as mentioned, is Newton and CJ. Look at the difference with the Texans once they got Foster (a RB that fit their system) in the lineup. The entire OL looks twice as good on running plays, just from changing RB's.

Edit: By the way, future Big 12 schedules released today...

Link here: http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=10410&ATCLID=1522978

Well that is much more relevant wrt Muschamp's future...

pbat488
09-30-2010, 12:39 PM
Huh? The history of UT's running backs has zero context when discussing the history of UT's run game?

Correct, it doesn't have any context, especially when nobody else is discussing the history of UT-Austin running backs or running game beyond 1998.

It's more than a little annoying for someone to say that UT misses out on the best RB's due to Davis' offense. Ever heard of Jamaal Charles? Ced Benson? I could keep going through the decades I referred to, but trust me, it won't improve the argument that elite RB's choose to skip UT.

Yes, I have heard of them. I actually played against Jamaal Charles in high school as he was in my district and ran all over us (though I was only PK.. thank God).. but I don't understand why going through the decades would be relevant to talented RB recruits skipping UT-Austin because of Davis' offense? He came with Mack in '98, so any RB before then is a moot point, yes?


I'm not saying that Brown necessarily held a sword over their head. But do you think that he would have gone to Texas if UT hadn't transitioned? I am saying that the UT coaching staff recruited Brown with the idea of transitioning to a power run game. This year is a rebuilding year. They are not playing to win a MNC this season. They are instituting a system for future years.

I'm not claiming he would or wouldn't have committed. I just said that I highly doubt they made the switch just because he wanted them to, which is what you said in the post before: They are switching to a run based team because that's what their new hotshot RB insisted they do for him to come to UT




Well that is much more relevant wrt Muschamp's future...

Finally, I added that edit just to post the Big 12 schedules in this thread that has morphed from an idea of adding Boise State and TCU to the Big 12 into a Big 12 hodgepodge of all sorts-thread. It didn't have anything to do with Muschamp or Mack or Malcolm or anyone else, just didn't feel like making another post when I could just add a post-script on that last one. It's just there for people who wander into this thread and are curious so they can see what the Big 12 conference schedule will look like.

Dan B.
09-30-2010, 12:47 PM
Umm Jamaal Charles went to UT from 2005-2008. That's within the last five years. He didn't predate Davis. I'd say he's relevant when someone says UT hasn't produced a good RB in the last five years "because the best go elsewhere to showcase their abilities for the NFL." Not sure how you can claim he isn't. He is one of the best in the NFL right now, is he not?

I don't think you have to be a UT homer to admit that they produce some pretty fine RB's. I think the only people that can't admit that have a serious bias that precludes their judgement. Is there any other school that produced as many of the NFL's current RB's (since history is irrelevant in this discussion)? Maybe Cal (Best/Arrington/Lynch) or Miami (Gore/McGahee/Portis) have produced as many quality RB's recently. Anyone else?

pbat488
09-30-2010, 12:55 PM
Umm Jamaal Charles went to UT from 2005-2008. That's within the last five years. He didn't predate Davis. I'd say he's relevant when someone says UT hasn't produced a good RB in the last five years. Not sure how you can claim he isn't.

/sigh

I PLAYED against Charles in high school while he was at Port A!! I think I know that he went to UT-Austin when he did and while Davis was there.

You brought up "the history of UT running backs" when you said "you know, the latest in a decades long line of exceptional RB's to come from Texas", alluding to the days of yore with Earl and Ricky and whoever else you want to throw in. I don't consider 3 years ago this type of history that you're talking about. Therefore, I then said why bring up the history (in this instance, anyone before Davis' tenure) of the UT-Austin running backs when you're specifically talking about the Greg Davis era?

Also, where did I claim Greg Davis hasn't produced a good running back in the past five years?

Dan B.
09-30-2010, 01:11 PM
/sigh

I PLAYED against Charles in high school while he was at Port A!! I think I know that he went to UT-Austin when he did and while Davis was there.

You brought up "the history of UT running backs" when you said "you know, the latest in a decades long line of exceptional RB's to come from Texas", alluding to the days of yore with Earl and Ricky and whoever else you want to throw in. I don't consider 3 years ago this type of history that you're talking about. Therefore, I then said why bring up the history (in this instance, anyone before Davis' tenure) of the UT-Austin running backs when you're specifically talking about the Greg Davis era?

Also, where did I claim Greg Davis hasn't produced a good running back in the past five years?

I never said you claimed that about Davis. That's why I responded to Dutch. I even left his name in the quote box. Dunno why that would be so confusing for ya.

Like I said, even if we are arbitrarily limiting UT's running backs to the last five years (less than half of Davis/Brown's tenure) they've still produced one of the best RB's in the NFL (two if you count Ced, who left five years ago).

I agree that they didn't make the switch because Malcolm told them to. You are entirely correct. I shouldn't have phrased it so.

UT wanted a power running game, and Malcolm Brown was the best power RB in the country. So they switched to a power game -- both to entice him from Alabama, who you may be aware are also quite well regarded for their running game, and (my opinion) to create an offense better suited for Muschamp. Basically I'm saying that they are in the midst of doing what a ton of fans (both of the Horns and other teams) say they don't do: recruiting monster offensive linemen and huge physical RB's to institute an effective power running scheme.

Yeah, they did it a year before the recruits were in Austin. And I'm not crazy about that decision. I can see the argument for winning now rather than taking your lumps for a year while you remake yourself. But I can also see Brown/Davis' side of things. Those physical players aren't going to come to UT unless the Horns at least show them they are trying to institute the type of offense that will allow them to shine.

Regardless, Davis is here to stay. This argument was going on when I went to UT 10 years ago. People wanted Davis fired then because he was predictable. Mack isn't going to fire him. The Horns aren't going to fire Mack. Davis is staying.

And I'm still not sure why any of this means UT is currently incapable of recruiting exceptional RB's under Greg Davis (which is EXACTLY what Dutch said):

nor do they have any exceptional RBs because the best ones know to go elsewhere if they want to showcase their skills for the NFL.

Oh and final thought: Universities whose fan bases are living off of championships from before WWII don't have a lot of room to stand on when they are criticizing other schools for going through the decades and living in the past (cuz Jamal Charles was ancient history man. He's in like his third NFL year. He's irrelevant when discussing UT football under Davis). I can't think of many schools that wouldn't trade places with UT's current athletic program. Can you?

pbat488
09-30-2010, 01:50 PM
I never said you claimed that about Davis. That's why I responded to Dutch. I even left his name in the quote box. Dunno why that would be so confusing for ya.

Like I said, even if we are arbitrarily limiting UT's running backs to the last five years they've still produced one of the best RB's in the NFL (two if you count Ced, who left five years ago).


It's confusing because you were obviously responding directly to one of my posts so I assumed everything you said in that post was directed at me since you were prompted to write because of that post. Whoa, mind******.

Also, I never said anything about the NFL, so I'm assuming this is again directed at someone other than me?



I agree that they didn't make the switch because Malcolm told them to. You are entirely correct. I shouldn't have phrased it so.

UT wanted a power running game, and Malcolm Brown was the best power RB in the country. So they switched to a power game -- both to entice him from Alabama, who you may be aware are also quite well regarded for their running game, and (my opinion) to create an offense better suited for Muschamp. Not sure why this means UT are incapable of recruiting exceptional RB's under Greg Davis (which is EXACTLY what Dutch said):


The underlined is a good answer to what initially set me off to respond in this thread.


Oh and final thought: Universities whose fan bases are living off of championships from before WWII don't have a lot of room to stand on when they are criticizing other schools for going through the decades and living in the past (cuz Jamal Charles was ancient history man. He's in like his third NFL year. He's irrelevant when discussing UT football under Davis). I can't think of many schools that wouldn't trade places with UT's current athletic program. Can you?

I again assume this is directed at me since I have an A&M avatar and our last National Championship was won in 1939, so I will respond as such..

It is true, we Aggies do live in the past. We religiously uphold traditions and stories that are over 100 years old. And why most people ask? The reason we do this is because those were the greatest Aggies. People like E. King Gill, James Earl Rudder, Fowler, Hughes, and Keathley; people who dedicated their lives to Texas A&M and to the United States. We uphold our traditions because it is who we are and where we came from. We remember who came before us because we strive to live up to their example. We also remember and stand on our victories on the field because they are just cherries on top. Our last and only Heisman winner was in 1957. We have disputed National Championships from 1917, 1919, and 1927. We stand as the 12th man to this day because of something that happened in the 1920s. Our yell leaders and subsequent yells go back even further. It's true my school hasn't had as much on field success as UT-Austin and that it is a point of constant irritation for nearly all of our alumni and students. But, we still stand by our team, and want them to be the best they can be. And that is why I love this school.

Surprisingly to you probably, I do have a lot of respect for the University of Texas - Austin, as well as a lot of friends that graduated or still attend there. I don't, however, hold people in high regard who use their school's success to prop themselves up or make themselves feel better by belittling others. It is boorish and very childish in my opinion and reflects negatively on the image of whatever institution that person is representing.

Finally, no, I don't think any school's athletic department would deny being jealous of UT-Austin's, at least in terms of revenue.

Dan B.
09-30-2010, 02:12 PM
I specifically said some people in my response to you, because I wasn't directing the comment about UT lacking in RB recruits directly at you.

The NFL entered into the discussion because when you are discussing UT Rb's from the last five years you are going to be discussing RB's who recently entered the NFL. I'm not sure of a better metric for gauging exceptional Running backs than their success at football. I think that their success or failure there reflects upon whether or not UT was capable of recruiting and producing exceptional (which I read as NFL quality) RB's in the last five years. That's why I'm using Charles. He came from the time period specified.

Malcolm Brown is in the discussion because UT landing an elite RB prospect also refutes the claim that they are unable to recruit elite RB prospects under Davis. It's just not a true statement. Under Davis the Longhorns have produced several superior RB's. They continue to today.

Earl Campbell and Ricky Williams (and Ced Griffin, and Eric Metcalf, and Priest Holmes etc., etc., etc.) have a lot more to do with this discussion than James Earl Rudder. If you're going to get upset when people talk about their programs past success at a position when the program's success there was directly called into question, you can't really go on and on for paragraphs about a past that has no impact on the current state of UT's running game. You are talking about things that have zero context and even less relevance to this discussion. Why is it that when an Aggie talks about their past it's tradition but when a Longhorn does so it's arrogance?

The point is that Charles and Brown are the latest in a long string of RB's that UT has produced. I'm not sure how anyone can credibly argue that elite RB's (or any other position for that matter) skip out on UT because of Davis. UT pays their players as much as any program in the country after all.

And don't take things so personally. We're talking about college football teams. I really am an equal opportunity hater. You should see other Longhorn fan's opinion of me. I think they have the worst fans in college sports and possibly the worst in sports period. But I went there right when the Oilers left town. The combination of the NFL ripping my childhood away and me moving to a new town with their own "pro" team meant I was a UT fan for years, and still am today. I watched exactly one NFL game until we got the Texans -- the Titans loss to the Rams. No matter how douchey their fans are, no matter what their record or attendance may be -- the Longhorns are not going to move to Nashville.

I'm still hypercritical of them. I'm the same way with any team I support. I'm not a blind homer. I can't stand Davis' play calling. But I've grown resigned to it.

And as I said before I don't think it takes a blind homer to think UT is phenomenal at producing NFL caliber RB's. I think that's an objective statement based upon current RB's in the NFL.

Blake
09-30-2010, 03:36 PM
:backsout:

pbat488
09-30-2010, 05:26 PM
Take things personally? When you are responding to me and insinuate, although not directly, but taking in context, that I am able to condone your football program because what the school I support had done in years past? I just don't see how I'm the one taking it personally when I started by asking an objective question about what I thought was a misguided statement by you and then eventually turned into our mini piss-fest. It seems we're both offbase with what each other is trying to say because I tried keeping things focused on specific instances of things you said while you seemed to take statements from others and attribute to me then not respond to what I had brought up. Either way, I've had a bad day by blowing a test this morning than having a crappy day at work and it definitely came through in my posts.

Apologize to Dan B. and everyone for venting through these posts if it came out that way, been a looong bad day.

Stemp
12-11-2010, 07:53 PM
A program like Georgia doesn't worry me. If he didn't bolt for Tennessee, granted Kiffin left it in a contractual cluster****, I doubt he'd go to Georgia.

I think if for some reason Florida's job came open I'd be worried. I don't think that'll happen soon now though.


Oops.

Stemp
12-11-2010, 07:54 PM
Mack Brown isn't going anywhere for 4-5 years at least.

Texas fans need to be worried about losing Muschamp at the end of the season. He is primed to be a HC and he's not going to wait for Mack Brown to retire, especially with the HC openings that will likely come about this year.

Sorry, but I told you so.

MojoMan
12-11-2010, 08:36 PM
Sorry, but I told you so.

You are a tee-tee head for saying so.

(Just kidding. I am a Texas Alum) :)

Stemp
12-11-2010, 08:44 PM
You are a tee-tee head for saying so.

(Just kidding. I am a Texas Alum) :)

Its kinda shocking, at least at this point (before all the bowl games).
Also heard that Major Applewhite is following Muschamp to Florida. :spit: