If the Big 12 does fall apart, they offer a school that they should have never gotten - West Virginia. They could swap divisions with Missouri.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Big 12 perception continues to sink
- Thread starter Redwood Forrest
- Start date
I think Texas and Oklahoma join the PAC 12 at some point. The remaining 8 teams scramble to find a landing spot, possibly in a Group of 5 conference. That would leave 4 major conferences with 14 teams each. At some point these 4 conferences may expand to 16 teams which would represent half of what is now FBS membership.
That wasted Saturday, which I will agree with you from the fan's standpoint, sends a million bucks their way to educate people and pay professors.
PASSING OFFENSE RANKINGS OF ALABAMA OPPONENTS
5 - W Kentucky
7 - Clemson
13 - Ole Miss
32 - Arkansas
41 - Washington
46 - Texas A/M
And Ole Miss would be higher if Chad Kelly hadn't missed the back half of the season. We played six of the top 46 passing teams in the country. WKU had 216 yards passing but 59 of that was on one play and Eddie Jackson's 55-yard return pretty much offset that yardage wise. Yes, Chad Kelly lit us up for 400-plus yards but I seem to recall Minkah and Eddie both missing most, if not all, of the fourth quarter, and he had 153 yards of that in a five-minute span with both those guys out and when our defense played three straight possessions with no rest. In Oxford.
Arkansas passed for 400 yards and still got blown off the field....and our defense had a meeting afterwards because they felt they'd played poorly.
Washington's gunslinger played us without us having either Eddie Jackson or Shon Dion Hamilton playing. Browning was ranked seventh in the country in passing efficiency and got 150 yards.
We faced six of the top 38 quarterbacks in the country and went 5-1, and only two of those games were really all that close.
So I don't think the data supports what you're saying here.
True, LSU and Auburn could not pass, but I think it's an overstatement to claim they made our schedule tougher. No team in the SEC other than Alabama had less than four losses, so how can we say those two made the schedule tough?
What made the schedule immensely harder was the final three games and the fact USC recovered after an early slump.
Whom?
Watson? Okay, but he's a dual threat and has a lot of material around him.
Kelly? Five turnovers had more to do with that one.
Cardale Jones was hardly a gunslinger.
Wallace? Not really a gunslinger and again, we lost because of turnovers.
Knight? Yes, he ate us up that one game but again - without multiple turnovers, he still loses.
Marshall? Auburn killed us with the run in that game.
Manziel? OK, up to a point.
So the data is mixed. However, how many pregame stories have given us that nonsense about "this quarterback might beat Alabama?"
In October, it was Trevor Knight, who had an added credential - "he's actually beat Nick Saban!" I was there, and that game was nowhere as close as the final score showed, which was still a wipeout.
In September, it was the same thing with Chad Kelly. Close, but he did lose.
Last year (2015), it was going to be Greyson Lambert and then Kyle Allen and then Dak Prescott. None succeeded.
In 2014, Nick Marshall was going to light us up (and did - but still lost) and before that Kenny Hill.
To beat Alabama - run it, stop us from running it, win the turnover battle.
Watson may have been the exception to the rule, but he was the exception precisely BECAUSE he could....run the ball himself.
I'm going to assume this is talking about the last year or so since two quarterbacks from the SEC West won the Heisman in a three-year span.
You're correct about it being a pretty much useless game in terms of national perception, etc, but it enables our guys to have what amounts to a scrimmage and sends UTC home with big bucks for the school. So it DOES have a larger purpose than athletics.
Selma already fleshed it out but those cupcake games serve a major purpose for us and for the cupcake school.
One facet that hasn't been mentioned is that the SEC - rightfully, IMO - is not going to put conference games on the weekend before Thanksgiving. There are no Power 5 or Group of 5 schools who will play that weekend, as they've all got conference games and are trying to get bowl eligible.
One facet that hasn't been mentioned is that the SEC - rightfully, IMO - is not going to put conference games on the weekend before Thanksgiving. There are no Power 5 or Group of 5 schools who will play that weekend, as they've all got conference games and are trying to get bowl eligible.
Look, I'm with JaxTider on this in that I hate those games, too. I may buy season tickets from someone again this year, but I'm pained at the notion of trying to dump the Mercer game tickets. Let's face it: nobody wants that game other than Mercer's financial folks, I can't sell it for much if anything, and do you really think I want to drive 609 miles one way to watch a scrimmage and then have to drive back 609 the other way? (I'd go if I lived close, which is why I usually give them to someone who couldn't go otherwise).
I'd prefer an off week to be honest with you, especially with how many games we've played in recent years.
Do you guys realize that any senior who just finished at Alabama (potentially) played FIFTY-SEVEN football games at the collegiate level? Keep in mind that a few generations ago with Coach Bryant, freshmen couldn't play and there were ten or at most 11 games per season? Bryant's 1961 national championship team's seniors would have played a total of 33 games of college football, starting inn 1959. And think about this: if Griffith's kick goes in at Auburn and Kiffin doesn't relax with the 21-6 lead against Ohio State, we not ony play TWO MORE games during the last four years, but we play two games against HIGHLY RANKED and talented foes (Mizzou and Oregon).
That would have been 59 football games in college. This is why the rumor has been our guys have miles on them - because some do.
Be that as it may, the games aren't going anywhere. Instead of whining about not playing better games, I wish our fans - and the media - would consider why we end up having such games on the schedule when we do, and what the positive effect is for the schools that come in to play us.
I understand that many people don't like these games, and I certainly understand that you wouldn't want to drive that far to watch them; however, I still say these games are great for college football. The bands still play. The people still show up, and many times it is the people who can't afford the big games, so they often bring extra enthusiasm to campus. The kids from the smaller schools get jacked up with the chance to showcase their talent and maybe impress some scouts, which the draft always reveals there are some late bloomers who were missed by the marquee programs. Often times, the second and third teamers get some needed experience. I just don't understand why people dislike these games so much. First, you made an excellent point about these guys needing a break. Now, you mentioned that you would rather have an off date, but we all know that isn't going to happen. Second, if people don't like these games, don't watch them. Do something else. Hang with the family. Go for a hike. Do some yard work. I mean, really, you don't have to watch. Third, even in the NFL, where every team is supposed to be great or at least have the same opportunity to be great, blowouts still happen. Fourth, we all know that we love it when we see a smaller school upset one of the powerhouses, as long as it isn't us, of course.
Edit- Sticking to the original post, the Big 12 stinks.
Last edited:
Well, if the SEC would man up like the Big 10 does then I wouldn't have to whine. Maryland plays Towson and Rutgers plays Morgan State. The other 12 teams don't HAVE TO PLAY FCS teams.
The SEC evidently can't do what the B1G can. We play FOURTEEN FCS while making excuses why we can't do the Big Ten thingy.
O.K., so Oklahoma and Texas go west. Now we have eight Power Five teams left in B12. If they invite four more teams to join, then we still have Five Power Five conferences, don't we? When W Virginia and TCU joined a Power Five conference they automatically became Power Five schools. So I think we would still have Five Power Five schools. I can see BYU, Houston, Memphis and Navy joining the other eight and we still have a Big 12. Or Houston, Memphis, UCF and USF.
It won't just be the perception this year that sinks. It will be the Big 12 itself. The schedule is absolutely brutal. They are used to having two byes per year. The second is gone with the last week left open for the reinstated CG. And the one bye is in September for every team except Baylor and Oklahoma State who will have 10/7 off prior to their game against each other on 10/14.
Texas Tech's bye is 9/9 so they will play eleven straight games. Six of them on the road.
http://cdn.fbschedules.com/helmets/2017-big-12-helmet-schedule.pdf
Texas Tech's bye is 9/9 so they will play eleven straight games. Six of them on the road.
http://cdn.fbschedules.com/helmets/2017-big-12-helmet-schedule.pdf
Not really, at that point we're basically playing out a scenario like we saw with the Big East. They simply won't be considered a power conference anymore than the AAC is considered one now. Also, there is incentive for the teams leaving to want the conference to blow up behind them (that would prevent them from incurring any penalties).
Also, I really don't see just Texas and Oklahoma making a break for it. It seems more likely they are saddled with Texas Tech and Oklahoma St. respectively. The loss of those four programs wouldn't outright kill the conference, but it would be close to it. Either way it would spell the end as a power football conference.
You are right, I had forgotten about the old Big East limping along. I wonder if the Pac 12 will stop at 14 teams? If they think the B1G, SEC and ACC will add two more, then they may add six and become the first 16 team super conference. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Kansas State would add the basketball power. Give them Colorado back along with Utah and you have the Pac 16 East.
Purely from a viewership stance, the ACC or B1G would add a hunk of T.V. set by adding TCU and Baylor.
I see Texas going independent and signing with NBC before I see them going to another conference. Oklahoma needs to make friends or drop okie lite by the wayside because no one outside the ACC will go with that deal without a lot of persuading
The Oklahoma AD didn't do the Big 12 any favors Friday when he said "at the moment" we are not looking to leave the Big 12 ....."but we are keeping our options open for a few years." LOL. We are waiting till the contracts get close to ending. That sure made the other members nervous, I'll bet, or feel threatened actually.
I really believe the Big 10 is trying to save their remaining slots for a bigger addition. I imagine they still have their eyes on Texas for example, so I really doubt they'd sink to adding a middle-tier Texas team. The ACC on the other hand? They're the second most endangered Power 5 conference, it is within reason that they make some additions just to solidify what they have. Along those lines though, I could easily imagine Kansas going to the ACC if the Big 12 falls apart.
It really seems like the days of independents is a thing of the past. Having said that, I could imagine some scenario in which Texas made a Notre Dame like deal with ACC (the ACC is the only one of the other four conferences willing to make a deal like that). Texas doesn't play well with others, doesn't want to share revenue, etc... but why would they have that deal now with the Big 12 and can probably maintain it as long as they're around. So, I see some incentive to leaving for the Pac-12, but there doesn't seem to be much to gain from going independent.
The Big 12 expansion, or lack thereof really played out in a strange way. The reason to expand served three purposes. A: It solidified the conference by adding another couple of members. B: It gave them a conference championship game (let's take a moment to reflect on the fact that pretty much any NCAA rule can be waived or ignored now) and C: It could either add a couple of programs that could provide decent ratings, or could expand their households which would strengthen them in the case of an eventual network.
The choice not to expand really showed how bad things must be behind the scenes. In the very least there are competing priorities. They had a lot of directions they could have gone. They could have added households with Cincinnati and UCF, they could have added fairly recognizable brands with BYU and Memphis, and even Houston made some sense if they were trying to hold onto the state in the event that Texas left. The fact that they needed to expand, and didn't says a lot. Now, the risk returns that if Texas and/or Oklahoma does end up leaving, the whole thing could easily fall apart.
It may be just me, but I cannot see national or even regional viewing audiences wanting to watch, Iowa State, KState, Kansas, TTU, TCU, Baylor, OSU or WVU on any regular basis with Beth Mowins doing the play by play. That is why, IMO, take away Texas and OU and what is left is just slightly better than CUSA or the MAC. I agree with KrAzY, I would not be in favor of either UT or OU to the SEC.
Latest threads
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
I'd like to hear about some actual prayer requests that have been answered the way it made sense to answer them.- Started by Labrador
- Replies: 14