Texas' future

[TheContractor]

The absolute best thing that could happen for Texas and the Big 12 is for Texas and OU to become national powers again.  Once that happens - no one is having this discussion.If you 

We need to look at more than just UT/Ou bc in this century with the way CFB works now conference is important. 

On other conference has just 2 historically revenant teams. Thats why Osu got left out in 2011 and Bu/Tcu this year. No, it would not happen to Texas/Ou but nationally our conference is "perceived" to be at the bottom. Its all about how she looks. 

It will matter bc at some point in the future we will can screwed.

Assume: 

Ohio St 12-0, USC 12-0, Lsu 12-0, Bama 10-2 Texas 10-2. Who is getting that 5th spot? It could be us it could be Bama. If this happened in 2015 i think it would be bam a bc of recent history. 

Looking at just Texas, while we most often will get the benefit of the doubt of other teams, is very selfish and shot sighted. 

 

[hornag]

I would much prefer to get a waiver for each Big 12 member to be able to add another OOC game that would equate to 12 regular season games.  Since we play each conference member, I think this would be a much more beneficial avenue to take. The Big 12 could pass a resolution that would establish a minimum level of quality required for an opponent.

 

[Hiphopopotamos]

We need to look at more than just UT/Ou bc in this century with the way CFB works now conference is important. 

On other conference has just 2 historically revenant teams. Thats why Osu got left out in 2011 and Bu/Tcu this year. No, it would not happen to Texas/Ou but nationally our conference is "perceived" to be at the bottom. Its all about how she looks. 

It will matter bc at some point in the future we will can screwed.

Assume: 

Ohio St 12-0, USC 12-0, Lsu 12-0, Bama 10-2 Texas 10-2. Who is getting that 5th spot? It could be us it could be Bama. If this happened in 2015 i think it would be bam a bc of recent history. 

Looking at just Texas, while we most often will get the benefit of the doubt of other teams, is very selfish and shot sighted.

Its not 'just looking at Texas', but it is a fact that the viability of the conference depends on Texas and OU.  If Texas had been a power and a top 25 ranked school when TCU put that thrashing on us - is there any doubt they would have gone to the playoff?  Even without a CCG I think they would have gone.  This conference needs Texas and OU as powers because its the only way that the perception of the relative strength of the conference is going to change.

We're not going to change perception by adding Memphis and UCF and playing a CCG.

Texas and OU being good again is the only real way to cure the Big 12.

 

[Dieselprime]

Its called brand building. Right now we have a weak commissioner who should probably be fired and replaced with a Luck type. Someone who is nationally respected and will promote our teams and Heisman candidates nationally. TCU and Baylor need to win and win big. Texas and Oklahoma need to turn the corner and start to become relevant again. 5 years ago no one took Baylor or TCU seriously, now were all talking about what an outrage it is that they're not in the playoffs. My point is it takes time to build up the brands of two non traditional powers but their brands are both on the rise. IF TCU and Baylor both win big and next year Texas comes out the gate and beats Notre Dame, then all the sudden the media is talking about all the good teams in BIG12.

The second thing to look at is how Florida State and Ohio State both play. If both of those teams get blown out of the water and Tcu and Baylor beat their B1G and SEC opponents by a large margin, all the sudden the perception of the Big 12 changes and its going to make the playoff committee look bad and bias. The last thing that committee wants is to look corrupt.  I guarantee you if all those things happen, next year if and when things are close the Big 12 gets the benefit of the doubt.

TCU and Baylor win big, Texas and Oklahoma make their comebacks. and we will be fine.

 

[streettopeschel]

The absolute best thing that could happen for Texas and the Big 12 is for Texas and OU to become national powers again.  Once that happens - no one is having this discussion.

 true. or if tcu hadn't spit the bit in waco, or if wisconsin hadn't no-showed vs osu. nobody's hitting the panic button if one of our teams had made the playoffs. talk of adding the cincinnatis of the world reeks of panic. 'we have to get to 12, we have to have a CCG!' we're one year in and had 2 teams in the hunt untl the very end. let's tap the breaks.
like you implied, nothing else really matters until WE get our house in order.

 

[J.B. TexasEx]

Unfortunately they're having to battle against the ESPN/SEC hype machine that would lead you to believe that at one point Alabama, Auburn, A&M, Georgia, LSU, Miss St., Ole Miss were all top 8.  The ACC has the defending National Champs and the Pac 12 has everyones darlings/favorite in Oregon.  And now, because of Ohio St's thumping of Wisconsin (and ESPN's advocacy) there are people who actually believe the B1G is the better conference.

This.  Anybody out there who doesn't believe Vanderbilt would've gotten screwed with BU's and TCU's credentials?  

Best way to overcome perception is to kick some serious ass OOC and in bowl games.  Baylor hasn't done that and has nobody to blame but themselves for their weak OOC schedule.  We've gotta make things happen in big games to expose the SEC myth.

 

[Hiphopopotamos]

This.  Anybody out there who doesn't believe Vanderbilt would've gotten screwed with BU's and TCU's credentials?  

Best way to overcome perception is to kick some serious ass OOC and in bowl games.  Baylor hasn't done that and has nobody to blame but themselves for their weak OOC schedule.  We've gotta make things happen in big games to expose the SEC myth.

Exactly.  SEC very smartly took control of their conference bowl assignments and in doing so gave themselves the opportunity to make the most favorable matchups for their teams.  Its going to be an uphill battle, but the best thing the Big 12 can do is win those SEC battles when they come up.

 

[Juan]

A lot of divorces in this family. 

LOL, a little dysfunction in all of them

 

[castlebravo1]

This.  Anybody out there who doesn't believe Vanderbilt would've gotten screwed with BU's and TCU's credentials?  

Best way to overcome perception is to kick some serious ass OOC and in bowl games.  Baylor hasn't done that and has nobody to blame but themselves for their weak OOC schedule.  We've gotta make things happen in big games to expose the SEC myth.

I assure you if Vanderbilt were 11-1, beating S Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Miss State, and Ole Miss during the season, and then beating Alabama in the championship game, they would be in the playoff.

That's the problem with the Big XII.  There are not enough high profile teams to beat to beef up your resume for the committee.  You can schedule high profile OOC games to help with that.  But doing this to beef up your SOS just proves that your conference SOS is substandard, and by definition, the conference is substandard. 

Big XXI schools are just not high profile except for UT and OU.  And high profile is what counts in this ESPN hype era.

 

[doc longhorn]

Schools that traditionally bring down the football reputations of conferences - modern era

Big 12

Kansas

Iowa State

Texas Tech.

SEC

Vandy

Kentucky

PAC 12

Colorado

Utah

ACC

Boston College

Duke

Pittsburg

Wake Forest

So, the Big 12 and the ACC have the most number of duds.  But this statistic is even skewed as the ACC has 4 more members than the Big 12.

So, lets now consider Cincy and BYU.  Do they add relevance to the conference?  Would you take either of them over our three duds?

Or, better yet, are the duds of the other conferences more attractive than our clunkers and which ones of those would you prefer over ours?

 

[streettopeschel]

i wouldn't have tech as a dud, certainly not in the ku or iowa st level. during leach's time, they were fairly relevant and always entertaining.

five years ago, the biggest dud historically in the league was baylor. for the last five years, WE'VE been a dud. stuff happens.

 

[Hiphopopotamos]

Schools that traditionally bring down the football reputations of conferences - modern era

Big 12

Kansas

Iowa State

Texas Tech.

SEC

Vandy

Kentucky

PAC 12

Colorado

Utah

ACC

Boston College

Duke

Pittsburg

Wake Forest

So, the Big 12 and the ACC have the most number of duds.  But this statistic is even skewed as the ACC has 4 more members than the Big 12.

So, lets now consider Cincy and BYU.  Do they add relevance to the conference?  Would you take either of them over our three duds?

Or, better yet, are the duds of the other conferences more attractive than our clunkers and which ones of those would you prefer over ours?

Can we trade Iowa State and Kansas for Cincy and BYU?  Straight up?

 

[doc longhorn]

i wouldn't have tech as a dud, certainly not in the ku or iowa st level. during leach's time, they were fairly relevant and always entertaining.

five years ago, the biggest dud historically in the league was baylor. for the last five years, WE'VE been a dud. stuff happens.

It's true there are borderline teams that could swing either way - ASU, AZ, Miss State, N Carolina State, etc.

I guess it is all in the eyes of the beholder. 

Also, I forgot to add the Big 10 teams, to wit:

Big 10

Minnosota

Northwestern

Rutgers

Maryland

Which brings up an interesting question.  Would you take BYU and Cincy over the Big 10's recent additions - Maryland and Rutgers?

 

[J.B. TexasEx]

Which brings up an interesting question.  Would you take BYU and Cincy over the Big 10's recent additions - Maryland and Rutgers?

Yes, absolutely.
 
BYU is a better "get" than any of them.  

 

[castlebravo1]

Yes, absolutely.
 
BYU is a better "get" than any of them.  

Yep

 

[castlebravo1]

Schools that traditionally bring down the football reputations of conferences - modern era

Big 12

Kansas

Iowa State

Texas Tech.

SEC

Vandy

Kentucky

PAC 12

Colorado

Utah

ACC

Boston College

Duke

Pittsburg

Wake Forest

So, the Big 12 and the ACC have the most number of duds.  But this statistic is even skewed as the ACC has 4 more members than the Big 12.

So, lets now consider Cincy and BYU.  Do they add relevance to the conference?  Would you take either of them over our three duds?

Or, better yet, are the duds of the other conferences more attractive than our clunkers and which ones of those would you prefer over ours?

IIRC, Pitt and Colorado have both won MNC's in the last 40 years.  From a "football reputation" standpoint, I think you have to have a longer horizon than 20 years.  In that case, I would assert that in the Big 12, only Texas an OU have a positive football reputation.  K-State was a doormat before Snyder (and after).  No one outside of the Big 12 footprint would consider OSU, Tech, Baylor, TCU, Kansas, or Iowa State to be a football power.  None of those schools have the resources to maintain their programs over a long enough timespan to be considered a power.

 

[J.B. TexasEx]

I assure you if Vanderbilt were 11-1, beating S Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Miss State, and Ole Miss during the season, and then beating Alabama in the championship game, they would be in the playoff.

True, but what if Vandy lost a SEC East game to UGA or UF, lost a tie-breaker, and didn't beat Bama in the CCG?  11-1 up against a 12-1 tOSU?

My money is on tOSU getting in.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

Schools that traditionally bring down the football reputations of conferences - modern era

Big 12

Kansas

Iowa State

Texas Tech.

SEC

Vandy

Kentucky

PAC 12

Colorado

Utah

ACC

Boston College

Duke

Pittsburg

Wake Forest

So, the Big 12 and the ACC have the most number of duds.  But this statistic is even skewed as the ACC has 4 more members than the Big 12.

So, lets now consider Cincy and BYU.  Do they add relevance to the conference?  Would you take either of them over our three duds?

Or, better yet, are the duds of the other conferences more attractive than our clunkers and which ones of those would you prefer over ours?

Since you said "traditionally" then you have to add Miss State and Ole Miss to the SEC list. Winning is outside their realm, which makes what they're doing now such a novelty.

I could earn a very good living every year by simply putting a ton of money on Georgia being ranked high and Georgia finishing not ranked high. It's their peach tree thing. It's what they do.

Same for S Carolina.

And if you want to get rich fast, put every cent you have on the SEC West champ winning the SEC. Their title game is but a formality, a display of lopsidedness. A ceremonial 3.5 hour group praise-a-thon of the SEC West representative.

 

[Matt Cotcher]

Since you said "traditionally" then you have to add Miss State and Ole Miss to the SEC list. Winning is outside their realm, which makes what they're doing now such a novelty.

I could earn a very good living every year by simply putting a ton of money on Georgia being ranked high and Georgia finishing not ranked high. It's their peach tree thing. It's what they do.

Same for S Carolina.

And if you want to get rich fast, put every cent you have on the SEC West champ winning the SEC. Their title game is but a formality, a display of lopsidedness. A ceremonial 3.5 hour group praise-a-thon of the SEC West representative.

It's interesting how the pendulum has swung to the opposite end in the SEC. For years, the SECE disparaged the West just like the West is doing to them now.

1993-2002 the SECE was 8-2 in the CCG

2003-2008 the divisions were tied 3-3

2009-present the SECW is 5-0

 

[Bear19]

true. or if tcu hadn't spit the bit in waco, or if wisconsin hadn't no-showed vs osu. nobody's hitting the panic button if one of our teams had made the playoffs. talk of adding the cincinnatis of the world reeks of panic. 'we have to get to 12, we have to have a CCG!' we're one year in and had 2 teams in the hunt untl the very end. let's tap the breaks.

like you implied, nothing else really matters until WE get our house in order.

Well said.

Conference championship games were not designed to pick a true champion. They were designed to make money. Pure and simple.

If you believe they pick true champions then the team that loses should be rated number two in that conference. Right? If Missouri had beaten Alabama does anyone think they would've been picked in the top four? Absolutely not.

Conference divisions do not play equal schedules so there is no way that the two division champions will always be the two best teams. Quite frequently it is just the opposite. The two best teams will come from the same division.Look at Texas and Oklahoma when the big 12 had two divisions.

The mistake the big 12 made was in not clearly stating that if there is a two-way tie then head to head determines the conference champion.

I strongly believe we should not add week sisters just to get to 12 teams.