3 storied programs

[TrueOrange]

well on the one hand, TX and UF both have awesome in-state recruiting, prestige, etc....all the makings of a top 5 program, competing for the big dance on an annual basis.....I would venture that UF has a tougher schedule ON A YEAR IN, YEAR OUT BASIS....UF will play FSU, South Carolina, UGA every year, and they could see LSU/Bama in the cross divisional game....TX see's OK every year but thats the toughest one normally....so maybe their conference schedule is more conducive/easier to 10 plus wins, at least in most years

UF sees LSU in cross-divisional play each season; since UF is going to be playing Bama again in 2014 it most likely means they don't see each other in season again until 2020.

Also another factor that might possibly warrant inclusion (not saying it necessarily does, just that it possibly should be given consideration be) is that one conference has a round-robin scheduling setup while the other is organized into divisions with a championship game.

 

[Grand Vol]

I could see them going after Strong though, yeah.

I agree it's a win-win for Texas and for Strong as well.

Having said that, I hate Texas these days since I've come to the conclusion their fans are even worse than ours.

I would probably pop a vein over laughing so hard if he publicly turned them down.

 

[TrueOrange]

I agree it's a win-win for Texas and for Strong as well.

Having said that, I hate Texas these days since I've come to the conclusion their fans are even worse than ours.

I would probably pop a vein over laughing so hard if he publicly turned them down.

Not sure we're really in a laughing position if it's regarding signing Charlie Strong to head coaching contracts.

 

[TrueOrange]

I think the only huge overrated year was obviously the 2005 one. 2008 was based on the fact we somehow were a TD from beating LSU, which I can't really argue with because it at least had some logic behind it. As for 2000 I can't say much about, I was only ten haha.

I was also including 2002 along with 2005. We were pretty overrated that year.

2000 could be debated (though I'm not taking either side here)...yes the team was breaking in a new QB (well QBs) right after Tee Martin left, but at the same time the team did start off ranked #13 and end the season unranked.

 

[Grand Vol]

Not sure we're really in a laughing position if it's regarding signing Charlie Strong to head coaching contracts.

Potentially not, but Texas fans are under the same delusional thinking that some of our fans were last year:

"We'll pay whatever it takes to get a good coach."

"Nobody could turn down the chance to coach at UT."

"We have a long tradition of having a great football program, nobody can resist that."

"Recruits will pile on top of each other if we get Coach X."

Etc. We saw how it turned out for us when it came to Gruden. But I think we ended up with a good coach in the end.

Texas fans think they can wave a big contract and the Texas banner and get any coach in the country to come running. List of coaches I've heard so far from Texas fans that "would be easy to get:"

Saban, Miles, Stoops, Meyer, Muschamp, Gruden, or "we'll just go into the NFL and get a head coach since nobody can resist the chance to coach at Texas."

And on Charlie Strong: "He's not a big enough name for Texas."

As if Mack Brown was when they hired him. Anyway...

Problem is, their program is in about the same state we were in when it comes to remembering the glory days and facing right now reality. And according to some "we'll pay $10M for a good coach no matter what." Problem is, while Texas can afford $10M, I don't see any program paying low to mid eight figures for their football staff and taking a chance of being utterly wrong in the end, even if it is Texas. They have to get an ace in the hole on the first shot here or they'll end up just like we have been the last five years.

USC is in the same boat. They can pay for top quality, but who they pick depends on if they want to go and pick up the shambles of that program, face the sanctions they are now under and un-Kiffin the players.

Nebraska on the other hand...biggest mistake they made? Moving to the Big 10. They could have and probably would have dominated the Big 12 the past three or four years and gotten that automatic BCS bid. So sometimes you make the bed you lie in. Can't blame the coach for moving from a conference they could have easily been winning to a conference where each year they face some pretty stiff competition.

 

[TrueOrange]

Potentially not, but Texas fans are under the same delusional thinking that some of our fans were last year:

"We'll pay whatever it takes to get a good coach."

"Nobody could turn down the chance to coach at UT."

"We have a long tradition of having a great football program, nobody can resist that."

"Recruits will pile on top of each other if we get Coach X."

Etc. We saw how it turned out for us when it came to Gruden. But I think we ended up with a good coach in the end.

Texas fans think they can wave a big contract and the Texas banner and get any coach in the country to come running. List of coaches I've heard so far from Texas fans that "would be easy to get:"

Saban, Miles, Stoops, Meyer, Muschamp, Gruden, or "we'll just go into the NFL and get a head coach since nobody can resist the chance to coach at Texas."

And on Charlie Strong: "He's not a big enough name for Texas."

As if Mack Brown was when they hired him. Anyway...

Problem is, their program is in about the same state we were in when it comes to remembering the glory days and facing right now reality. And according to some "we'll pay $10M for a good coach no matter what." Problem is, while Texas can afford $10M, I don't see any program paying low to mid eight figures for their football staff and taking a chance of being utterly wrong in the end, even if it is Texas. They have to get an ace in the hole on the first shot here or they'll end up just like we have been the last five years.

USC is in the same boat. They can pay for top quality, but who they pick depends on if they want to go and pick up the shambles of that program, face the sanctions they are now under and un-Kiffin the players.

Nebraska on the other hand...biggest mistake they made? Moving to the Big 10. They could have and probably would have dominated the Big 12 the past three or four years and gotten that automatic BCS bid. So sometimes you make the bed you lie in. Can't blame the coach for moving from a conference they could have easily been winning to a conference where each year they face some pretty stiff competition.

That school (Nebraska) is also now making a ton more money in the Big 10 than it ever did in the Big 12 (or would have made, had they stayed).

I think a lot of people at that school would disagree with you about that move being a mistake (well they did lose their AAU accreditations after, but it wasn't really related).

 

[Grand Vol]

That school (Nebraska) is also now making a ton more money in the Big 10 than it ever did in the Big 12 (or would have made, had they stayed).

I think a lot of people at that school would disagree with you about that move being a mistake (well they did lose their AAU accreditations after, but it wasn't really related).

I agree it was the money aspect that made them leave, but if you recall, there was some serious rift in the Big 12 when they left. Texas had come up with the idea of the Longhorn Network which Dan Beebe (Big 12 commissioner at the time) just thought was a grand idea and everyone in the Big 12 has to come on board with the decision even though the revenues would go directly to Texas and nobody else even when the games were broadcast. Nebraska was tired of being in the Texas dominated conference where anything that had the Longhorn symbol on it was well and good and forget the other 11 teams.

When it comes to money, sure, it was a good move. In athletics...not sure as of yet since they are still in a tough conference and nobody saw the decline of Texas and Oklahoma like they have.

 

[TrueOrange]

I agree it was the money aspect that made them leave, but if you recall, there was some serious rift in the Big 12 when they left. Texas had come up with the idea of the Longhorn Network which Dan Beebe (Big 12 commissioner at the time) just thought was a grand idea and everyone in the Big 12 has to come on board with the decision even though the revenues would go directly to Texas and nobody else even when the games were broadcast. Nebraska was tired of being in the Texas dominated conference where anything that had the Longhorn symbol on it was well and good and forget the other 11 teams.

When it comes to money, sure, it was a good move. In athletics...not sure as of yet since they are still in a tough conference and nobody saw the decline of Texas and Oklahoma like they have.

Actually, Nebraska (same as Colorado) left a year before the Longhorn Network strife started up that drove A&M and Missouri away.

Their (Nebraska's and Colorado's) moves both came from better conferences (either more prestigious, having a much higher payout per team, or both) seeking additional membership. Now, it was as a result of these moves that the conference shifted further into Texas having power and the main say that's there today, as well as the Longhorn network fiasco that would push another two teams out (one for that reason, the other for want of stability).

But Nebraska's move came more (a lot more) out of the Big 10 wanting a 12th member than getting out, say, a Texas-run conference... if anything, it came from the unequal revenue distribution, the fact that - to the school itself - the Big 10 was a much more prestigious conference for the school to have all its ties to (especially as an AAU member), and that they would be getting a number more than $10 mil more a season than they would playing/staying in the Big 10...mainly the latter two; it's the same reason Missouri tried to put itself out to receive that same invite at that exact time, not some escape at that point in time.


But the whole realignment mess that year with Colorado and Nebraska was what led to the Texas-run conference mess (& LHN overstepping bounds mess) that would drive off 2 more teams a year later (and almost more)


(Sorry, I kept up with this stuff almost religiously during the 1st and 2nd years of realignment )

 

[Grand Vol]

(Sorry, I kept up with this stuff almost religiously during the 1st and 2nd years of realignment )

No, I appreciate the edgamucation on it. I always knew there was a rift in the Big 12 (which Dan Beebe didn't help with at all) starting around 2010 or so and thought the LHN was the straw that broke the camel's back where Nebraska was concerned. I knew A&M punched not long after it started and probably was better for it.

What was curious was that Oklahoma went along so easily with it. It's not like they have a program that isn't popular enough out here (trust me, it's all red out here until OSU starts winning lol) and should have been the power block to the whole idea of the LHN representing the Big 12. That they went along with the concept was very strange.

But even with the addition of TCU and West Virginia, I think the Big 12 was/is a conference in decline and could lose more members as the playoff system is incorporated. Just like the Big East imploded, the Big 12 could be next.

 

[TrueOrange]

No, I appreciate the edgamucation on it. I always knew there was a rift in the Big 12 (which Dan Beebe didn't help with at all) starting around 2010 or so and thought the LHN was the straw that broke the camel's back where Nebraska was concerned. I knew A&M punched not long after it started and probably was better for it.

What was curious was that Oklahoma went along so easily with it. It's not like they have a program that isn't popular enough out here (trust me, it's all red out here until OSU starts winning lol) and should have been the power block to the whole idea of the LHN representing the Big 12. That they went along with the concept was very strange.

But even with the addition of TCU and West Virginia, I think the Big 12 was/is a conference in decline and could lose more members as the playoff system is incorporated. Just like the Big East imploded, the Big 12 could be next.

The conference likely isn't going anywhere unless Texas were to decide to leave. The schools left in the conference (save OU and Texas itself) don't really have any potential value to the other conferences, so there's really no threat of instability as long as 1) everyone's 3rd tier rights are locked up (which they are until 2025 now) and 2) Texas is still there...and it's extremely unlikely they're going anywhere as their current situation has them getting their own, unshared major television deal (which most of the other conferences wouldn't allow them to do) and having more a say in conference affairs than other members.

In short though, the Big 12 likely isn't going anywhere (at least until 2025 at the earliest).


As far as Oklahoma, they did try earlier to get out of the conference twice when stability was waivering and seemed as though it would be a major issue. First off, Slive talked to the school during the 2011 realignment (he had talks with both A&M and OU)...which is worth note, but nothing really came out of it; OU wasn't interested in joining this conference, let him know, and hadn't changed their stance on it since.

They did try to get into the Pac-10/12, with Oklahoma State in tow (they don't have to be in the same conference or anything, but the two clearly want to be/feel it's in each other's best interest). The more notable attempt was in 2012 when OU (with Ok St) tried to get invited into the Pac-12, saying they would be able to bring them Texas (along with Tech) as well. Clearly interested with Texas in tow, the conference made it as far as talks with Texas about sharing their Longhorn Network revenue, on which Texas promptly refused to cave. The deal then fell apart, and with Texas out of the deal, the Pac-12 told OU that they were no longer interested.

OU then seemingly did a 180 and invested its interest in preserving the big 12. It seems, as far as OU goes in all this, they're just fine having the second most say in that conference, along with security that their conference won't fold any time soon. It also seems that the only other place they would have any interest of even considering moving to is the Pac-12 (who, again, isn't interested in them on their own)

 

[Chattanooga Butchslappers]

UF sees LSU in cross-divisional play each season; since UF is going to be playing Bama again in 2014 it most likely means they don't see each other in season again until 2020.

Also another factor that might possibly warrant inclusion (not saying it necessarily does, just that it possibly should be given consideration be) is that one conference has a round-robin scheduling setup while the other is organized into divisions with a championship game.

very true....the SEC title game normally means an additional game against a top 10ish team....which could propel you to the BCS, or it could knock you out of contention.

 

[rocketskates]

Fisher won't go to college ball. It's like Gruden said, when you get used to being given the tools and all you have to do is coach them it's tough to go back to recruiting for your talent.

 

[oldsmokey67]

What's the Jeff Fisher connection to SC? I honestly don't know that back story? Is there one?

he played there.

 

[volfanhill]

USC definitely has the $$$ required to land him. IMO, it's just whether or not they want to pony up. After the Kiffin experiment I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

USC ended up with Kiff the same we ended up with Dooley. They were told no a whole bunch and settled