Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Irish in SEC country

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Irish in SEC country

  1. I don't care for the Big XII as presently constructed, but I have no desire to see UT head to the confederacy. I am concerned with some talk I'm hearing about the SEC being very interested in OU, and that interest being reciprocated. IF OU were to leave the Big XII, UT would have no reason to stay in this conference, and every reason to look west to the PAC. IF OU makes a move to the SEC, UT could put a group together of Tech, OSU, and perhaps KU and move west. I think that no matter what happens concerning OU, Patterson is gonna have to take a close look at UT's conference affiliation in no more than five years, and I do NOT see a move to the confederacy in UT's future.



    Of course the SEC is very interested in OU. The SEC wanted OU with A&M and had to settle for Missouri. The SEC does not want Oklahoma State.


    Does anybody think OU can or would go SEC without little Cowpoke as a package?


    Would Texas really go Pac with the crew you named, without even OU? A Pac East without OU would be worse than the Big 12.

  2. Two points:


    1. UT would've been chosen by the SEC over Mizzery OR A&M if we were interested in being there. Moot point. It's possible that Mike Slive is retarded, but I doubt it.


    2. IMHO, our next move will be an arrangement similar to what Notre Dame or BYU has. Football independence with conference affiliation for every other sport.


    1. True


    2. All but a given - If Texas makes a move, it will be to join ND

  3. And the fact you had no clue I was jacking you around shows your ignorance.


    The Director's Cup awards a school points for a national championship regardless of the sport. Last year, North Dakota State got the same points for winning hockey as Alabama did for winning football. That alone indicates its stupidity.


    The model Deloss brought to UT was that we don't compete in sports we can win championships in. We play 7 men's and 10 women's sports. Stanford competes in probably twice that many sports. They want every student to be a student athlete, as do real military academies, ND and a few other.


    At Texas we don't give a crap about sports like meat judging. Thatis for schools who compete against North Dakota State. No UT alum has evber complained about our showing in the Director's Cup. We care about championships. REAL championships, not fake ones we claim from when the Wright brothers were still building planes.


    What I find funny about this post and your others along this line is that you sound exactly like a 'mouth breather' from the SEC who cares about, in order, football, spring football, football signing day, basketball, baseball, and nothing else. The average dolt from Mississippi State or LSU or Arkansas or Auburn says exactly the same.

  4. So, in the last 32 years (1980 to now), the SEC has won 12 NCs, with the last 7 in a row.

    Everything is cyclical. They won't make it to an even 10. The traditionally strong powers will be back and some may already be back (FSU, Ohio State, etc).

    Oregon and Stanford are knocking on ther door, Texas will win again with a new coach, Penn State will rebound some, Nebraska can compete again with anyone other than Pelini, Clemson and Oklahoma can be contenders, as possibly Miami if Golden sticks around.


    The SEC is great right now. But they won't maintain this current dominance forever, probably even for the next 3 years. Too many good coaches out there right now, and not all in the SEC.


    2012 Alabama BCS

    2011 Alabama BCS

    2010 Auburn BCS

    2009 Alabama BCS

    2008 Florida BCS

    2007 Louisiana State BCS

    2006 Florida BCS

    2005 Texas BCS

    2004 Southern California BCS

    2003 Louisiana State, Southern California BCS, AP, FWAA

    2002 Ohio State BCS

    2001 Miami (Fla.) BCS

    2000 Oklahoma BCS

    1999 Florida State BCS

    1998 Tennessee BCS

    1997 Michigan, Nebraska AP, FWAA, NFF, USA/ESPN

    1996 Florida AP, FWAA, NFF,USA/CNN

    1995 Nebraska AP, FWAA, NFF, USA/CNN, UPI

    1994 Nebraska AP, FWAA, NFF, USA/CNN, UPI

    1993 Florida St. AP, FWAA,NFF, USA/CNN, UPI

    1992 Alabama AP, FWAA, NFF, USA/CNN, UPI

    1991 Washington, Miami (Fla.) FWAA, NFF, USA/CNN, UPI,AP

    1990 Colorado, Georgia Tech FWAA, NFF, USA/CNN, AP, UPI

    1989 Miami (Fla.) AP, FWAA, NFF, USA/CNN, UPI

    1988 Notre Dame AP, FWAA, NFF, USA/CNN, UPI

    1987 Miami (Fla.) AP, FWAA, NFF, USA/CNN, UPI

    1986 Penn St. AP, FWAA, NFF, USA/CNN, UPI

    1985 Oklahoma AP, FWAA, NFF, USA/CNN, UPI

    1984 Brigham Young AP, FWAA, NFF, USA/CNN, UPI

    1983 Miami (Fla.) AP, FWAA, NFF, USA/CNN, UPI

    1982 Penn St. AP, FWAA, NFF, USA/CNN, UPI

    1981 Clemson AP, FWAA, NFF, UPI

    1980 Georgia


    The SEC will not continue to dominate football national titles as it has this century, but the southeast and the 2 conferences associated with it may dominate the rest of the country. That is the football reason we Domers made the deal with the ACC. It makes ND an honorary southeastern school for football recruiting. That is the final piece of the puzzle for us to get back to winning national titles.

  5. That wouldn't surprise me at all, lacrosse seems to be gaining quite a bit of popularity here in the Houston area. The Spring Branch Memorials Sports Association, where my boys play most of their sports, has added a lax program that seems to be growing exponentially every season and I know that some of the schools have added lax programs.


    Lacrosse will be added by Texas because the people who run the university want it to be seen in the same class as elite eastern universities, and no team sport says Elite Eastern University half as well as lacrosse.

  6. Yes, but it is the ACC and the ACC still sucks a fat one.


    Is that in comparison to your beloved Big Ten? How many football national titles since 1970 does that make it? Oh yeah, Big Ten - 2 and ACC - 5.


    Here's the good news: for the foreseeable future, ND national titles in football won't be added to the ACC totals. Of course, they still will be shots right at the Big Ten, exposing it even more.


    The only value in your response is the word Yes. ND is about to lead the ACC into an era in which it probably becomes second best to the SEC in football and, discounting water polo, swimming and diving, is the best conference overall.

  7. Bad phrasing on my part.


    Right now lacrosse isn't a viable sport for UT. I predict that will change in the next decade. LHN needs more content too.


    Well, the place to go to become taken seriously in lacrosse the year you step up is the ACC. If that move gets you a relationship with ND as well all that east coast basketball and a better baseball conference, as well as one of the top two major conferences in academic rankings, then you have something almost impossible to pass on.


    Think football makes the idea less appealing? Consider this year's awards:


    BCS Champ: FSU


    Orange Bowl Champ: Clemson


    Walter Camp Coach of the Year: David Cutcliffe, Dook


    Heisman Trophy: Jameis Winston, QB, Florida State


    Doak Walker Award: Andre Williams, Boston College


    Davey O'Brien Award: Jameis Winston, Florida State


    Outland Trophy: Aaron Donald, Pitt


    Rimington Trophy: Bryan Stork, Florida State


    Bronko Nagurski Award: Aaron Donald, Pitt


    Lou Groza Award: Roberto Aguayo, Florida State


    All of that is before ND starts playing as a half member in football. That deal is going to help ND take the next step and help the ACC's full football members recruit better against both the SEC and Big Ten. It shouldn't be too long before half of the playoff field is ND and the ACC champ.

  8. Athletically SEC is a good fit, but the "academics lobby" at UT prefers the Pac-12 and ACC. They believe we have more in common with those universities than SEC members.


    I do not see the University of Texas joining the SEC, ever. The main reason is that those who lead the university would greatly prefer to have it be associated with as many elite universities as possible.


    Well, you rightly say, with Missouri and A&M now in the SEC, the SEC is at least as impressive academically as the remaining Big 12. While true, that misses the issue. Texas has inherited the Big 12, which fits its regional needs and desires very well. Those who run the university will not leave the Big 12 to make a lateral move in terms of academic rankings - no matter how much football might gain.


    In addition, there is pride. The University of Texas is not going to follow the lead of A&M. The only way that Texas will be the newbie under A&M in anything as important as conference affiliation is if Texas has no other choice.


    Texas may well prefer to keep the Big 12. But if it is going to leave, it is going to do so in large measure to affiliate with a larger number of elite schools. That means 3 options: ACC, Big Ten, Pac.


    The Pac would mean Texas would take 3 other Big 12 schools. That would be a plus. The downsides start with playing games to your left in time, which is draining. It is much easier to go east than west in those terms. 2 members of the Pac Inland would be in Mountain Time, and then there is the 2 hour difference to Pacific time. The Pac is now #5 in national TV viewers in both revenue sports. Texas would lift the number in football, but not in basketball. The only 3 schools that would all help the Pac are Texas, OU, and Kansas. Would OU dump Ok St to make such a move work its best? While the Pac plays good baseball, nobody goes to games or watches on TV.


    The Prince-like named B1G is the most homogeneous conference. It is the original conference about the largest state universities. Even Northwestern, its one private school, is very large by private school standards. The B1G, because of the size of the schools and the historic wealth of their states, is the wealthiest conference. But B1G football is historically a hot air balloon - all puffed up and easily burst when it encounters any meaningful opposition. Fans of every other conference see B1G football use similar labels for B1G football - boring, slow, predictable, dull, overrated, living on fumes from past glory. As can be seen by looking at B1G teams in bowls and against non-midwestern teams OOC and by seeing the demise of the MAC, midwestern football is on a continuing downward cycle, that I think will bottom, but never turn up significantly. That is the football reason ND is beginning the process ending its rivalries with B1G teams. We need to play in the south much more. The B1G cannot escape the midwest - ND can and will.


    The ACC was third last year in the number of national TV viewers for football, ahead of the Big 12 and Pac. That is before FSU winning a national title, before ND begins play as a half member, before Pitt and Syracuse brought a decent number of northeastern viewers. What B1G people think is the huge weakness of the ACC is actually a strength that is certain to become even stronger. The ACC was second in basketball viewers. With ND (good numbers but not like football), Syracuse (easily the biggest draw in the northeast) and Pitt, ACC basketball numbers will move to number one. The ACC has the second largest number of baseball fans behind the SEC. Like the old SWC, the ACC is the most heterogenous conference, with multiple private schools as well as state schools, with very small schools and a couple of very large ones. The ACC geography would allow Texas to play directly to the southeast, northeast and midwest.

  9. on a week to week basis, those markets will tune in to watch ohio state and other B1G teams. Not cincy vs ISU, KSU, TCU, Baylor or Okie state.


    True, but is also true that if UC is in a major conference, UC vs. good teams (say, Texas or OU) will be at least roughly equal draws in the Cincinnati TV market to Ohio St vs. nobodies, including the nobodies in the Big Ten like Minnesota or Rutgers.


    UC stepped up in league affiliation and schedule will see rather significant increase in ability to draw TV viewers. What it can never hope to do, especially because of the Bengals, is become a major draw to the stadium.


    In that sense, UC is a better bet that UCF, because right now, the large state of OH has only 1 school in a major conference. FL has 3.

  10. It's a fallacy to assume that just because UCF is located in Orlando, they automatically bring the local TV ratings with them. There are studies out there with data pertaining to this (I will try to dig it up). I would assume most TV sets in Orlando won't be tuned in just to see UCF vs Kansas, TCU, KSU, Tech, etc on a weekly basis during the season. They will still watch Florida and FSU first and it won't even be close.


    The Big 12 doesn't have a conference network so adding teams for their "markets" isn't going to work either. Big 12 is dead in the water and adding Big East leftovers like UCF, Cincy, etc is probably the dumbest thing we can do. Also, the notion we need to add two teams to "get to 12" for a CCG is even worse. That's the only thing I agree with Bowlsby on. Most of the CCGs, except for the SEC, have been failures in terms of attendance, tv ratings, and cost. Playing all every team in your conference in a round robin format, then playing a CCG is going to make getting into the four team playoff a lot harder. Think people!


    If the Big 12 is going to survive over the long haul, they need to add significantly tougher and more compelling NON CONFERENCE GAMES. Look at the teams KU, Tech, KSU, WVU, Baylor and other Big 12 schools played this year in non conference. Horrible!!! The Big 12 office has encouraged the teams to keep two slots open to schedule ACC teams as part of their scheduling alliance in the future. Not great, but, I would rather have big 12 schools play ACC teams instead of adding two garbage teams and splitting back up into non-equal divisions.


    WVU has started this trend and has scheduled Pitt, Vtech and even PSU over the next few years.


    If you want the BEST for UT for ALL SPORTS, that is an associate membership with the ACC similar to Notre Dame's current set up.


    It's no coincidence UT and ND have scheduled four games vs each other and are in talks to schedule four to six more.

    No coincidence Patterson is looking at getting tamu back on the schedule

    No coincidence that Texas is looking at adding LAX and men's soccer.

    No coincidence UT is looking at building a brand new basketball facility


    Basketball would be elite

    Baseball too


    If you play ND and four other ACC teams, you will have a BIG TIME schedule to promote the Texas brand across the nation. We would keep OU, add tamu, and probably Tech.


    Here is a sample schedule











    utsa/texas state/utep




    I am going to agree with Irishfred that your post is excellent.


    I have said for some time that as an ND fan, the thing I would most like to see now is Texas in the ACC as we are. I can see why Texas might have strong preferences to stay in the Big 12, but I also believe that all things considered, Texas would come out best in the ACC with ND.

  11. Yep. .


    I don't think you ever had any such chance. Notre Dame began talking to the ACC many years ago. And probably since BC became the ACC's 12th, the ND leadership up to Father Jenkins knew that when push came to shove with conference realignment, ND would take the ACC.


    And with ND coming aboard the ACC even as a half member in football, there is no way any of those schools would leave the ACC.

  12. Let me start by noting that I tried to warn you that UCF was for real and would be major trouble for Baylor. O'Leary is a excellent coach who gets the most from his players. He also prepares well for his foes.


    From there, I encourage you to calm down. The Big 12 is not in trouble. There is only one way the Big 12 is going to be in real trouble, and that is if Texas decides to leave. And if Texas decides to leave the Big 12, Texas will not be hurt.


    Unless it casts its lot among the Big Ten, which will drag it down with boredom.


    I don't see adding any schools the Big 12 can get (BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, Boise St, Memphis) as helping the current 10 members. There is not enough money in any of them. So I don't see the Big 12 adding any school.

  13. Not gunna be Briles. Just ain't.


    That would be such a switch in program identity it would alienate a huge portion of the fan base and a bigger percentage of the donor base.


    Think of it has going from Royal to Switzer. So, no, it won't happen. We're Texas and we can win and win big consistantly without a Coach like Briles.


    Oh, I know there is a portion of Texas fans that want to win at all costs but I believe they are a small percentage and I hope they reevaluate their priorities. Texas has always strived to do things the right way first, win secondly. That's what made the 2005 Natty so special.


    I doubt there are any win at all cost guys here..... Right?


    Royal to Switzer? That might be an apt analogy if Briles were a slime ball of epic proportions.


    Briles is a stand up guy. He might not be the best fit for Texas, but he is the kind of man I would be happy to see on the ND sidelines.

  14. Has he REALLY produced everywhere he has been? He has 2 CC. He's a Mack Brown Starter kit at this point.


    You evaluate a coach based on what he has done where he has done it, with an emphasis on what he inherited.


    For example, a coach who produces 3 consecutive 8-4 teams at Rice has done an amazing job. Rice's awful history since the 1960s means any success there is a great job.


    On the other hand, a coach who produces 3 consecutive 8-4 teams at Texas is doing a mediocre job.


    How bad was Houston before Briles arrived? How good did he make Houston? How well was Houston stocked when Briles left?


    How bad was Baylor from the start of the Big 12 until Briles arrived? How well has Briles won at Baylor?


    Was Briles' success at either school because of 1 super star player, with the program falling flat after that star left?

  15. I agree with this post 100%, but I think you'll see lacrosse at UT within the next decade or so. It has grown in popularity by leaps and bounds with suburban TX youth. It's still a club sport for now, just like hockey, but that should change soon.


    No reason the UIL can't offer league play for 5A and 6A schools. They like money, too.


    If you agree with the post 100%, then shouldn't you also agree that Texas will never have lacrosse?


    Yes, lacrosse is growing at an amazing pace in TX. Many lacrosse teams recruit TX every year. I don't think ND has any Texas kids right now, but I know the staff has recruited in the state.


    And I will bet that the powers that be at UT would love to become the lacrosse power located in the southwest, because no team sport says eastern elite like lacrosse.

  16. WOW! Vanderbilt and Florida are both pretty good academic schools. I think you need to rethink your statement on the top schools in the south. you clearly forgot two.


    I know a little about both. Vanderbilt is the SEC's only private school. Florida would be 5th on the list of most prestigious state universities in the south.


    Is your point that both those schools belong in the ACC? ND would be for Vanderbilt joining, no doubt. It is another major city to play in. But the ACC already has 2 schools in FL, so adding Florida would mean nothing to ND.

  17. Texas' most realistic home IMO is the ACC as a full time member or associate member like ND. But a lot of things need to happen first.


    Texas needs to get back to elite/top 10 status in football.

    LHN will need to gain significant distribution and expand to Direct-TV and Dish.

    Texas needs to start the capitalization projects for the new basketball facility

    Texas will start Lacrosse and men's soccer.

    Texas is talking to ND about adding four to six more games

    This will be about 5-7 years in the making.


    The ACC is best option for Texas for several reasons. First, there is the fact that Texas is one of the four most elite state universities in the south. The other three are in the ACC - Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia Tech. Texas belongs with that group as an institution.


    Second, Texas' athletic history features rivalries with multiple private schools. For years, the SWC was majority private schools. The ACC has Duke, Wake Forest, BC, Miami, Syracuse and now Notre Dame.


    Third, the ACC would take Texas as it has ND, as a half member in football.


    Fourth, the Texas leadership would love to become the southwestern version of an ACC school in terms of having multiple non-revenue sports that are nationally competitive, including sports that exude 'eastern elite'. There is no better way to do that than to be in the ACC. Just look at Florida State's entire athletics department, which is no longer 85% football, 9% basketball, 5% baseball, and 1% women's sports. It is a nationally powerful all around athletics department that before joining the ACC was a rubber stamp for a football factory.


    Fifth, nothing would bother and even frighten the SEC like Texas joining ND in the ACC.

  18. Ok...here goes:


    You can blame DeLoss Dodds for not being at 12. Louisville was on its knees to get in this conference and he rejected them. Now they are laughing all the way to the ACC at our expense.


    In a nutshell, if you HAD to expand now, the most viable options are going to be Cincinnati and Central Florida. Gets you TV sets in Ohio/Kentucky and TV sets/recruiting foothold in Florida. Neither school is locked into its conference like the Power 5 schools are with GOR agreements.


    BYU would be a longshot since they seem to be going ok so far being independent. UC and UCF give WVU a couple travel partners to make them feel better about the decision they made to join the Big 12.


    Houston adds nothing to the conference. Its a school in a market already pretty saturated. Arkansas wont leave the SEC.


    That is where things are right now.


    Notre Dame is glad that Dodds and Texas did not want the Big 12 to get back to 12 members. Our basketball rivalry with Louisville has become smoking hot, and the baseball rivalry is set to become as hot. We also will like playing football at Louisville, because the location makes it a nearly perfect trade off for not playing Big Ten teams.


    Now if we can get Texas to join the ACC as we did, partial in football with the pair of us playing each other annually in football, we'll have things right.

  19. I get what you are saying on your last question, but it is not as simple as that. It would be one thing to take over at Alabama, if Nick left, as he has been there around the politics and the daily duties that would be required of him. So while he would not have the HC experience, he would not be trying to learn all of the "other" stuff along with HC.


    At Texas he would be thrown into one of the most politically charged area in the sport. HC at Texas is so much more than just an HC. Not to mention while Mack Brown lacked plenty on the field he was a genius at the glad handing and political side of the game. Throwing someone with no experience in that will be hard enough and then adding in someone with zero HC experience into a VERY HUNGRY fan base would be a bad recipe. I think the HC at Texas could break the wrong guy. It is also what makes finding the right guy so hard.


    That makes sense. ND is unique as well, and a man with head coach experience at all, added to no ND experience, might be overwhelmed even if he could go to a Wisconsin or Missouri and succeed very well.


    And the uniqueness of Texas, the state as much as the university, is a reason I would be looking very closely at Briles. He oozes state of Texas football. What he lacks in Longhorn and Austin ties, he more than makes up for in head coaching successes in TX, first in high school and then college.

  20. Saban kept Muschamp with him also and I think Florida fires him next year.


    Muschamp left Saban to go to Auburn after 1 year in Miami. Perhaps if he had not made that move, instead becoming Bama DC under Saban for a couple of years, he now would be a much more successful head coach.


    There is no way to know for certain if anyone will be successful at any job. Even proven head coaches can flop at the next job. That uncertainty goes up with coordinators getting their first top job.


    But Smart seems to be Saban's anointed one. That would make me as AD seriously interested.


    Remember that Bob Stoops was Florida DC. OU is his only head coaching gig. Spurrier was very big on Stoops.


    If Smart is to Saban as Stoops was to Spurrier, then whoever gets Smart is going to get a great deal.

  21. Smart is probably pissed at us for screwing up the Saban stuff bc that job would have been his.


    Put this post with the ones asserting that texas would never hire Smart because he has no head coach experience.


    Is Bama football beneath Texas football so that Bama would hire Smart if Saban were to leave but Texas would not hire Smart away from Saban?


    If Bama would be willing to hire Smart, why wouldn't Texas?

Our Affiliation


Quick Links

  • Create New...