Jimbo 2022: Balls To The Face

[Gil Bang 25897]

1 hour ago, Vertigo said:

For as big of a dickhead as he is, he did a good job recruiting, particularly early. He can always spin the reformed asshole yarn for a bit, but Herman is going to land another solid gig pretty soon. He wasn't a bad coach, just not an elite coach.

Guys like Sark...they eat some humble pie and it changes them.  Herman?  That cocksucker is so arrogant that he's 100% certain that he did everything right at Texas.   If he's given another chance, he'll behave exactly as before. 

[Burt Macklin 18997]

1 hour ago, ClubWhatever said:

We had some regrets then they had some regrets and then we didn’t get that thing and then we had them there but we didn’t do a good job on the play there at the end but we’ve just got to learn how to do that there and then we just got to coach better and play better.  

Make sure you read this at 2x speed to get the full effect. 

[Hornlover 8824]

3 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

So you think Nebraska is a top 16 job?  I'm unsure what these ratings mean.

Yeah, Nebraska is shit. Not really germane to my point, which is that when discussing the merits of coaching destinations, Miami and LSU are a whole lot closer in attractiveness than some place like Illinois. 

[SydneyCarton 47872]

1 minute ago, Hornlover said:

Yeah, I considered putting Nebraska into the dead pile. Nebraska is still a better job than Illi-fucking-nois. 

Miami still is a top destination, regardless of the significant differences with the demographics as compared to LSU.

Too destination screams (checks notes):

 

Al Golden, Mark Richt and Manny Diaz. They’ll be relevant again when someone makes them that way through coaching and program building. Until then the program itself has some positives but quite a few disadvantages. And you keep missing my point about Illinois and deciding to fixate on it. Fuck dude, I pulled a flagship mediocre school out of my ass to go with a limited regional option. 

[Gil Bang 25897]

14 minutes ago, Hornlover said:

If you were to rank the football programs in current importance from 1-130 whatever, you'd have something like

 

1-9: The Blue Bloods (Bama, Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, USC, Penn State, Florida )

10-16: Occassional national title winners (Clemson, LSU, Tenn, Florida State, Miami, Auburn, Nebraska)

16-22: Big programs (UCLA, A&M, Georgia, Wisconsin, Mich State, Arkansas, etc.)

23-50: Occasional Conference Winners (Too many to list)

51-130: Shit team (Illinois, others)

 

Miami, while a smaller private school, is clearly a top 20 program. Its about on the same level as LSU.

Illinois is a never-was, and will never be better than the 7th or 8th most important program in the Big Ten.

 

 

LSU isn't a blue blood?  How many national titles do they need to win? 

[SydneyCarton 47872]

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

LSU isn't a blue blood?  How many national titles do they need to win? 

Ask him how he defines “big programs” versus “occasional conference winners” in regards to Michigan St and Arkansas and aTm. 

[Sejjr 3246]

Herman would be a great fit in Miami. Strippers, cocaine, and swingers galore.

[BurntOrange&White 39647]

9 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Ask him how he defines “big programs” versus “occasional conference winners” in regards to Michigan St and Arkansas and aTm. 

Aggies wish they were occasional conference winners

[futureman 22415]

43 minutes ago, Hornlover said:

If you were to rank the football programs in current importance from 1-130 whatever, you'd have something like

 

1-9: The Blue Bloods (Bama, Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, USC, Penn State, Florida )

10-16: Occassional national title winners (Clemson, LSU, Tenn, Florida State, Miami, Auburn, Nebraska)

16-22: Big programs (UCLA, A&M, Georgia, Wisconsin, Mich State, Arkansas, etc.)

23-50: Occasional Conference Winners (Too many to list)

51-130: Shit team (Illinois, others)

 

Miami, while a smaller private school, is clearly a top 20 program. Its about on the same level as LSU.

Illinois is a never-was, and will never be better than the 7th or 8th most important program in the Big Ten.

 

 

lulz. 

[hook me 2080]

36 minutes ago, Hornlover said:

Yeah, Nebraska is shit. Not really germane to my point, which is that when discussing the merits of coaching destinations, Miami and LSU are a whole lot closer in attractiveness than some place like Illinois. 

The Germans have nothing to do with it!

[Tex Pete 20176]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

You should when they say things that would ruin their business and/or get their families threatened. 

Except Taylor Hamm. That guy doesn't give a fuck about his family, obviously. 

What family?

[Hornlover 8824]

43 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Too destination screams (checks notes):

 

Al Golden, Mark Richt and Manny Diaz. They’ll be relevant again when someone makes them that way through coaching and program building. Until then the program itself has some positives but quite a few disadvantages. And you keep missing my point about Illinois and deciding to fixate on it. Fuck dude, I pulled a flagship mediocre school out of my ass to go with a limited regional option. 

And I pulled program power rankings out of my ass as well. They're certainly not definitive, and there plenty of room to quibble with the tiers/teams.

The actual point is that if a decent coach gets rolling at a place like Miami, they can use a decent season or two to attract top talent, compete with the best, and play for titles year in and year out. They're not looking at the Miami job as a springboard to something better.

If somebody has a decent year at Illinois or Oregon State or UCF or Washington or NC State or Iowa State or Cincinatti or Louisville or wherever, they aren't suddenly turning that program into a recruiting engine and putting themselves into the national title conversation every year. There might be a fun run for a couple years, but eventually the coach is bolting for greener pastures and the program will regress back to their historical mean.

[Viper 12028]

2 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

This has probably be covered, but let's say Jimbo just retires after the season. Is he still due the entire remaining balance of his contract? 

After the season?

[Longhornfrenzy 5591]

[SydneyCarton 47872]

14 minutes ago, Hornlover said:

And I pulled program power rankings out of my ass as well. They're certainly not definitive, and there plenty of room to quibble with the tiers/teams.

The actual point is that if a decent coach gets rolling at a place like Miami, they can use a decent season or two to attract top talent, compete with the best, and play for titles year in and year out. They're not looking at the Miami job as a springboard to something better.

If somebody has a decent year at Illinois or Oregon State or UCF or Washington or NC State or Iowa State or Cincinatti or Louisville or wherever, they aren't suddenly turning that program into a recruiting engine and putting themselves into the national title conversation every year. There might be a fun run for a couple years, but eventually the coach is bolting for greener pastures and the program will regress back to their historical mean.

That's most jobs in America. You think Clemson is here for the long haul? Because that can go either way. By the same token, ask anyone in the early 2000's if Miami was going anywhere. Nebraska, etc. If some dude decided he liked Illinois and stuck around for awhile, yes, they probably could sustain something. Dabo Swinney is currently Clemson. well see what happens after he dies, moves on, or just runs it back into the ground. Briles was successful for a fucking decade at WACO and the only thing that brought him down was a threat of criminal charges. If you win, folks will follow you anywhere. Yes, some have it easier than others. But lets not pretend that outside of a winning history, Illinois is deficient some kind of geographical disadvantage to the rest of the Big 10. Their problem is they don't GAF about football. Which also happens to be a problem they share with Miami. 

 

[Hornlover 8824]

14 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

They don't GAF about football. Which also happens to be a problem they share with Miami. 

 

Miami (1980-2020) 368-139-0 W-L-T   0.7494 /  5 National Championships (1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, 2001)

Texas (1980-2020) 339-166-4    0.67935  / 1 National Championship (2005)

I'm not suggesting Miami is a better job than Texas, but I think you severely misunderestimate their place in the college football landscape.

[BurntOrange&White 39647]

8 minutes ago, Hornlover said:

Miami (1980-2020) 368-139-0 W-L-T   0.7494 /  5 National Championships (1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, 2001)

Texas (1980-2020) 339-166-4    0.67935  / 1 National Championship (2005)

I'm not suggesting Miami is a better job than Texas, but I think you severely misunderestimate their place in the college football landscape.

If they were a large public school sure. It’s literally a shit job. They don’t have a huge alumni base that donates their stadium is across town, it’s a commuter school, and small. 

[SydneyCarton 47872]

1 minute ago, Hornlover said:

Miami (1980-2020) 368-139-0 W-L-T   0.7494 /  5 National Championships (1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, 2001)

Texas (1980-2020) 339-166-4    0.67935  / 1 National Championship (2005)

I'm not suggesting Miami is a better job than Texas, but I think you severely misunderestimate their place in the college football landscape.

No,  fuckface, I don't "misunderestimate" (sic) their place in the college football landscape. I've literally illustrated it repeatedly in this thread by pointing out that they haven't done shit for 20 years, they've had mediocre coaching interest and coaching hires, and that time changes everything. You want to point out Nebraska's as well, without the context that times change, television and population migration have changed things, and just in general, TIME CHANGES things? 

I don't think Miami is a better job than Texas...for literally the same reasons I have already said in this thread in the context of conversation. Miami competes with 2 other major colleges that are also historically competitive and have won recent national titles. Their success will in many ways be dependent on the success of those schools around them and vice versa. They also have an administration that doesn't give a rats ass about football. We're not talking about their place in the annals of college football history, we're talking about their place in the college landscape today trapped in a weak ACC, without much support from the administration, and on a string of bad hires. Can that change for them? Absolutely. But my point was that it can change for a LOT of programs if they hire a good coach who wins and decides to stick around. Which has been my only point. Let me go ahead and try this another way:

Minnesota national championships: 1904, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1940, 1941, and 1960. 

Texas: 5 National Championships (1963,1969, 1970, 2005)

Now listen, I'm not saying that Minnesota and their 7 national titles is a better program than Texas, with our much less impressive 4 national titles. But I think you severely underestimate their place in the college football landscape. 

Or did you now want to implement some kind of arbitrary year cut-off date about what is and isn't relevant any longer in the "college football landscape?" If you ARE going to do that, I suggest 2002, as opposed to 1980, because it makes my point look so much better. Isn't that how Aggies do it when comparing themselves to Texas?

[Hiphopopotamos 20865]

[closetojumping 62230]

24 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

That's most jobs in America. You think Clemson is here for the long haul? Because that can go either way. By the same token, ask anyone in the early 2000's if Miami was going anywhere. Nebraska, etc. If some dude decided he liked Illinois and stuck around for awhile, yes, they probably could sustain something. Dabo Swinney is currently Clemson. well see what happens after he dies, moves on, or just runs it back into the ground. Briles was successful for a fucking decade at WACO and the only thing that brought him down was a threat of criminal charges. If you win, folks will follow you anywhere. Yes, some have it easier than others. But lets not pretend that outside of a winning history, Illinois is deficient some kind of geographical disadvantage to the rest of the Big 10. Their problem is they don't GAF about football. Which also happens to be a problem they share with Miami. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

LSU isn't a blue blood?  How many national titles do they need to win? 

Technically, and I realize the concept can be argued as dated and so forth, but the term "college football blue blood" was actually defined and 8 schools were stamped as such, and that has held true ever since the first labeling. Nebraska was one of the eight named, for whatever that's worth. It really depends upon whether the writer was, justifiably, coming from that informed perspective, or, justifiably, just using the more recent genericized approach to the word. Either side is actually defensible.

There are a lot of credible articles like this: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17336754/alabama-crimson-tide-notre-dame-fighting-irish-ohio-state-buckeyes-oklahoma-sooners-usc-trojans-lead-list-college-football-blue-bloods that can be googled. I also think there's a wikipedia page covering the origins but I've got shit to do.

6 minutes ago, Hornlover said:

Miami (1980-2020) 368-139-0 W-L-T   0.7494 /  5 National Championships (1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, 2001)

Texas (1980-2020) 339-166-4    0.67935  / 1 National Championship (2005)

I'm not suggesting Miami is a better job than Texas, but I think you severely misunderestimate their place in the college football landscape.

Two good examples of the concept that "potential doesn't pay the rent", although that wasn't your point. Miami's got all kinds of potential, but they haven't been relevant on the national stage in 15+ years. Texas has got all kinds of potential, but they haven't been relevant on the national stage in 10+ years. One has been a national, historically relevant blue blood for 120+ years and one was the most dominant program in the sport for the better part of 25 years after being irrelevant for the prior 75. Both programs are still important to the sport and the better either one or both are, the better off the sport is. 

While I don't particularly want to see it, the best versions of the Texas, USC, UCLA, Miami, Notre Dame, Michigan, Alabama, OU, Ohio State, Florida, Georgia, and Penn State programs all competing at the same time would probably be the best version of the sport from an overall fan interest perspective. Big names, big markets, geographic diversity, big fanbases, big histories. You don't see LSU, Clemson, FSU, Oregon, UW, MSU, UNC, Arkansas or various others listed there because they're superfluous if you have the others thriving. 

Missing among all of that is Nebraska, largely because I can't figure out if they still could garner a large following if they were apexing. My instinct is that the answer is they should probably be viewed in the first group still. If they can avoid a dumbass play against Michigan State late, they're actually playing a really interesting game this weekend at home that a lot of folks would be interested in watching.

 

[Hornlover 8824]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

No,  fuckface, I don't "misunderestimate" (sic) their place in the college football landscape. I've literally illustrated it repeatedly in this thread by pointing out that they haven't done shit for 20 years, they've had mediocre coaching interest and coaching hires, and that time changes everything. You want to point out Nebraska's as well, without the context that times change, television and population migration have changed things, and just in general, TIME CHANGES things? 

I don't think Miami is a better job than Texas...for literally the same reasons I have already said in this thread in the context of conversation. Miami competes with 2 other major colleges that are also historically competitive and have won recent national titles. Their success will in many ways be dependent on the success of those schools around them and vice versa. They also have an administration that doesn't give a rats ass about football. We're not talking about their place in the annals of college football history, we're talking about their place in the college landscape today trapped in a weak ACC, without much support from the administration, and on a string of bad hires. Can that change for them? Absolutely. But my point was that it can change for a LOT of programs if they hire a good coach who wins and decides to stick around. Which has been my only point. Let me go ahead and try this another way:

Minnesota national championships: 1904, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1940, 1941, and 1960. 

Texas: 5 National Championships (1963,1969, 1970, 2005)

Now listen, I'm not saying that Minnesota and their 7 national titles is a better program than Texas, with our much less impressive 4 national titles. But I think you severely underestimate their place in the college football landscape. 

Or did you now want to implement some kind of arbitrary year cut-off date about what is and isn't relevant any longer in the "college football landscape?" If you ARE going to do that, I suggest 2002, as opposed to 1980, because it makes my point look so much better. Isn't that how Aggies do it when comparing themselves to Texas?

Sorry you got triggered. No need for the ad hominem attacks.

Nebraska and Minnesota have clearly been relegated to the annals of history, with little chance of ever regaining relevance. I agree.

I disagree that Miami has joined them there. They're still relevant, regardless of 2 other historically competitive colleges being in-state. Miami has thrived simultaneously with Fla State and Florida in the past, and could do so again. (Doing it now, while Fl. State is down would be ideal, but they done fucked up and hired Manny Diaz). 

 

(also, didn't think I'd need to cite references, but here you go:  https://politicaldictionary.com/words/misunderestimate/ )

[Bodacious Bevo 3576]

I'm indifferent on much of this conversation but the blue blood discussion always intrigues me

Blue blood doesn't mean the best current programs or the best current jobs. Blue blood as a term (beyond CFB) has always been about nobility of birth and pride in history/lineage.

The blue bloods are Texas, OU, Bama, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, and USC. We've been around since the early days of college football and have built our prestige over many generations. We've all gone through stretches of dominance and troughs. We're the programs that built CFB from the start and have been there every step of the way, shaping it into the sport we enjoy today. 

Sure, we've sucked, and Nebraska sucks, and ND and Michigan have their own issues, but it takes decades to undo history that's been built up for 100 years. 

There are a ton of variations of the chart below that illustrate this. Total wins, total win %, AP ranks, etc. And they all show a gap between the blue bloods and the next closest group.

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Bodacious Bevo

[SydneyCarton 47872]

3 minutes ago, Hornlover said:

Sorry you got triggered. No need for the ad hominem attacks.

Nebraska and Minnesota have clearly been relegated to the annals of history, with little chance of ever regaining relevance. I agree.

I disagree that Miami has joined them there. They're still relevant, regardless of 2 other historically competitive colleges being in-state. Miami has thrived simultaneously with Fla State and Florida in the past, and could do so again. (Doing it now, while Fl. State is down would be ideal, but they done fucked up and hired Manny Diaz). 

 

(also, didn't think I'd need to cite references, but here you go:  https://politicaldictionary.com/words/misunderestimate/ )

Nebraska and Miami stopped being successful and relevant in college football at approximately the same time. I'm curious why you think one is on the shit-pile of history while Miami is not? Unless it's the reasons I've illustrated as to why a Miami job is difficult. Meanwhile, despite recent stumbles Minnesota has recently won more big games than Miami. Personally, I think this illustrates my stance that any coach can make any program a winner if they stick around. 

Yes, Miami has been successful before. But my point stands that the addition of 2 other regional schools with similar history makes their sustained success more difficult, and somewhat dependent on things outside of their own situation and circumstances. Which is an additional challenge. 

I'd be real curious what in my post you consider an ad hominem attack. Calling you fuckface? Also, I can't tell, are you seriously attempting to use a George W. Bush quote as legitimizing a vocabulary selection, or is this satire? I honestly don't know. Strategery.  

[Hornlover 8824]

4 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

 

Technically, and I realize the concept can be argued as dated and so forth, but the term "college football blue blood" was actually defined and 8 schools were stamped as such, and that has held true ever since the first labeling. Nebraska was one of the eight named, for whatever that's worth. It really depends upon whether the writer was, justifiably, coming from that informed perspective, or, justifiably, just using the more recent genericized approach to the word. Either side is actually defensible.

There are a lot of credible articles like this: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17336754/alabama-crimson-tide-notre-dame-fighting-irish-ohio-state-buckeyes-oklahoma-sooners-usc-trojans-lead-list-college-football-blue-bloods that can be googled. I also think there's a wikipedia page covering the origins but I've got shit to do.

Two good examples of the concept that "potential doesn't pay the rent", although that wasn't your point. Miami's got all kinds of potential, but they haven't been relevant on the national stage in 15+ years. Texas has got all kinds of potential, but they haven't been relevant on the national stage in 10+ years. One has been a national, historically relevant blue blood for 120+ years and one was the most dominant program in the sport for the better part of 25 years after being irrelevant for the prior 75. Both programs are still important to the sport and the better either one or both are, the better off the sport is. 

While I don't particularly want to see it, the best versions of the Texas, USC, UCLA, Miami, Notre Dame, Michigan, Alabama, OU, Ohio State, Florida, Georgia, and Penn State programs all competing at the same time would probably be the best version of the sport from an overall fan interest perspective. Big names, big markets, geographic diversity, big fanbases, big histories. You don't see LSU, Clemson, FSU, Oregon, UW, MSU, UNC, Arkansas or various others listed there because they're superfluous if you have the others thriving. 

Missing among all of that is Nebraska, largely because I can't figure out if they still could garner a large following if they were apexing. My instinct is that the answer is they should probably be viewed in the first group still. If they can avoid a dumbass play against Michigan State late, they're actually playing a really interesting game this weekend at home that a lot of folks would be interested in watching.

 

Agree with all of this.

I thought of putting Nebraska in the top tier, and keeping Florida in the second tier. Then I thought of dropping Nebraska to third or fourth tier. But since they at least deserved to be in the conversation, I figured they're maybe tier 2. But who the fuck knows?

If they put together a really good team and somehow made things interesting, would they be treated more like Penn State /Ohio St./Michigan, or would they be treated like an undefeated Iowa/Wisconsin where largely the reaction is "Hey they're a pretty good team, but who cares?" Probably the latter.

[Longhornfrenzy 5591]

[Mitch Cumsteen 18523]

7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

No,  fuckface, I don't "misunderestimate" (sic) their place in the college football landscape. I've literally illustrated it repeatedly in this thread by pointing out that they haven't done shit for 20 years, they've had mediocre coaching interest and coaching hires, and that time changes everything. You want to point out Nebraska's as well, without the context that times change, television and population migration have changed things, and just in general, TIME CHANGES things? 

I don't think Miami is a better job than Texas...for literally the same reasons I have already said in this thread in the context of conversation. Miami competes with 2 other major colleges that are also historically competitive and have won recent national titles. Their success will in many ways be dependent on the success of those schools around them and vice versa. They also have an administration that doesn't give a rats ass about football. We're not talking about their place in the annals of college football history, we're talking about their place in the college landscape today trapped in a weak ACC, without much support from the administration, and on a string of bad hires. Can that change for them? Absolutely. But my point was that it can change for a LOT of programs if they hire a good coach who wins and decides to stick around. Which has been my only point. Let me go ahead and try this another way:

Minnesota national championships: 1904, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1940, 1941, and 1960. 

Texas: 5 National Championships (1963,1969, 1970, 2005)

Now listen, I'm not saying that Minnesota and their 7 national titles is a better program than Texas, with our much less impressive 4 national titles. But I think you severely underestimate their place in the college football landscape. 

Or did you now want to implement some kind of arbitrary year cut-off date about what is and isn't relevant any longer in the "college football landscape?" If you ARE going to do that, I suggest 2002, as opposed to 1980, because it makes my point look so much better. Isn't that how Aggies do it when comparing themselves to Texas?

At the risk of Sydney affectionately referring to me as fuckface... I'm not sure the argument is Texas vs. Miami, as much as it is Miami vs. Illinois or any other random program. Or my reading comprehension sucks and I'm arguing something else entirely. If so... ignore the rest of this.

I get that Miami has a shitty alumni base and little support from its administration, but the advantages that they do have, upon which they were previously able to capitalize and build a juggernaut, are still there. Attractiveness of the city and proximity to recruits is a huge fucking sell. Neither of those have left the U. And right now, the ACC is primed for anybody with a pulse to take over, notwithstanding Clemson's season being an aberration vs. a trend. Florida and Florida State aren't exactly rolling balls of butcher knives on the recruiting trail. Miami should be able to kill it on NIL with a city that big. The right coach (i.e., not a complete idiot or washed up re-tread) should be able win big there again. And Miami's ceiling is, what, that 2001 team with about 50 first round picks on it? Find me the ceiling for Illinois or Baylor or Iowa State. Ain't nobody getting on a yacht with a bunch of big titted bitches in g-strings in fucking Champaign, Illinois.

[bar 396]

4 hours ago, TBGFL said:

 

Time to give Jimbo another extension.

[Lonestar88 4585]

13 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

If they were a large public school sure. It’s literally a shit job. They don’t have a huge alumni base that donates their stadium is across town, it’s a commuter school, and small. 

Miami is not a commuter school. Everything else you said is true though.

 

5 minutes ago, Hornlover said:

Sorry you got triggered. No need for the ad hominem attacks.

Nebraska and Minnesota have clearly been relegated to the annals of history, with little chance of ever regaining relevance. I agree.

I disagree that Miami has joined them there. They're still relevant, regardless of 2 other historically competitive colleges being in-state. Miami has thrived simultaneously with Fla State and Florida in the past, and could do so again. (Doing it now, while Fl. State is down would be ideal, but they done fucked up and hired Manny Diaz). 

 

(also, didn't think I'd need to cite references, but here you go:  https://politicaldictionary.com/words/misunderestimate/ )

Miami has one advantage, and that’s location, south Florida is a talent hotbed. But that’s it. They don’t have a community that cares enough for major change. Academic leadership doesn’t give a shit about athletics, the fan base isn’t big or loyal. The facilities are piss poor, etc.

Miami football succeeded in the past in spite of the infrastructure around them, not because of it. It’s a credit to Schnellenberger and Jimmy Johnson.

[Longhornfrenzy 5591]

[SydneyCarton 47872]

3 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

At the risk of Sydney affectionately referring to me as fuckface... I'm not sure the argument is Texas vs. Miami, as much as it is Miami vs. Illinois or any other random program. Or my reading comprehension sucks and I'm arguing something else entirely. If so... ignore the rest of this.

I get that Miami has a shitty alumni base and little support from its administration, but the advantages that they do have, upon which they were previously able to capitalize and build a juggernaut, are still there. Attractiveness of the city and proximity to recruits is a huge fucking sell. Neither of those have left the U. And right now, the ACC is primed for anybody with a pulse to take over, notwithstanding Clemson's season being an aberration vs. a trend. Florida and Florida State aren't exactly rolling balls of butcher knives on the recruiting trail. Miami should be able to kill it on NIL with a city that big. The right coach (i.e., not a complete idiot or washed up re-tread) should be able win big there again. And Miami's ceiling is, what, that 2001 team with about 50 first round picks on it? Find me the ceiling for Illinois or Baylor or Iowa State. Ain't nobody getting on a yacht with a bunch of big titted bitches in g-strings in fucking Champaign, Illinois.

1.) Is Fuckface not a term of affection?

2.) It's kind of weird that you quoted my post in yours but then referred to me like I was absent the conversation and you were speaking to an audience.

3.) Sigh. My point was that if you win, and the winning coach sticks around, then recruits will follow you anywhere. Do you think they choose Ohio State because of the weather? I've illustrated that Miami still has many advantages, as well as some disadvantages, as a program. I feel like I've repeated all of those things SEVERAL times over SEVERAL posts. I'm not sure what else I can do to point that out, repeatedly, while saying Illinois was a school with a name I pulled out of my ass that isn't winning and would consider a guy like Tom Herman, who I do not believe will be offered a top 15 program job any time soon. But it's funny you mention Baylor, I can show you there ceiling fairly recently. If Briles hadn't been caught instilling a crime syndicate in Waco, they'd probably/arguably be close to where Clemson is at this point. 

[Hornlover 8824]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

Nebraska and Miami stopped being successful and relevant in college football at approximately the same time. I'm curious why you think one is on the shit-pile of history while Miami is not? Unless it's the reasons I've illustrated as to why a Miami job is difficult. Meanwhile, despite recent stumbles Minnesota has recently won more big games than Miami. Personally, I think this illustrates my stance that any coach can make any program a winner if they stick around. 

Yes, Miami has been successful before. But my point stands that the addition of 2 other regional schools with similar history makes their sustained success more difficult, and somewhat dependent on things outside of their own situation and circumstances. Which is an additional challenge. 

I'd be real curious what in my post you consider an ad hominem attack. Calling you fuckface? Also, I can't tell, are you seriously attempting to use a George W. Bush quote as legitimizing a vocabulary selection, or is this satire? I honestly don't know. Strategery.  

I'm not sure there's empirical evidence of why one is on the shit-pile and the other isn't. It's more of a feel thing. Miami gets mentioned on ESPN, social media, professional athletes/movie stars still wear gear with "The U" on it. There's still juice left. Nebraska is an afterthought, with a much larger hill to climb than Miami. Nebraska has zero recruiting base, and has tons of regional teams to compete against for a smaller set of recruits. For all of its limitations, Miami is still surrounded with tons of elite talent, and there's more than enough to go around for them, UF and FSU, even if Clemson, Bama, & Georgia poach a few players, and a few end up at UCF, FIU, and USF.

 

Yes, the fuckface part. And, I wasn't aware that using malapropisms had run out of favor on Surly, but your "sic" suggested to me that you weren't aware of the word's provenance.

 

[SydneyCarton 47872]

1 minute ago, Hornlover said:

I'm not sure there's empirical evidence of why one is on the shit-pile and the other isn't. It's more of a feel thing. Miami gets mentioned on ESPN, social media, professional athletes/movie stars still wear gear with "The U" on it. There's still juice left. Nebraska is an afterthought, with a much larger hill to climb than Miami. Nebraska has zero recruiting base, and has tons of regional teams to compete against for a smaller set of recruits. For all of its limitations, Miami is still surrounded with tons of elite talent, and there's more than enough to go around for them, UF and FSU, even if Clemson, Bama, & Georgia poach a few players, and a few end up at UCF, FIU, and USF.

 

Yes, the fuckface part. And, I wasn't aware that using malapropisms had run out of favor on Surly, but your "sic" suggested to me that you weren't aware of the word's provenance.

 

I'm not sure you should be bragging about using a word unironically with that provenance, sir. The fuckface itself isn't an ad hominem attack, but i see your point on the sic part, I suppose. 

[Mitch Cumsteen 18523]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

1.) Is Fuckface not a term of affection?

2.) It's kind of weird that you quoted my post in yours but then referred to me like I was absent the conversation and you were speaking to an audience.

3.) Sigh. My point was that if you win, and the winning coach sticks around, then recruits will follow you anywhere. Do you think they choose Ohio State because of the weather? I've illustrated that Miami still has many advantages, as well as some disadvantages, as a program. I feel like I've repeated all of those things SEVERAL times over SEVERAL posts. I'm not sure what else I can do to point that out, repeatedly, while saying Illinois was a school with a name I pulled out of my ass that isn't winning and would consider a guy like Tom Herman, who I do not believe will be offered a top 15 program job any time soon. But it's funny you mention Baylor, I can show you there ceiling fairly recently. If Briles hadn't been caught instilling a crime syndicate in Waco, they'd probably/arguably be close to where Clemson is at this point. 

1) Duh.

2) I thought quoting you implied that I was engaging you in conversation. Next time I will @SydneyCarton you.

3) I already told you that I suck at reading comprehension. But there ain't no fucking way that Baylor would be close to Clemson at this point, unless you consider losing to North Carolina State as "close to where Clemson is." Baylor's ceiling was getting left out of the playoffs for Ohio State while we floundered and OU took a dip. They were Mike Leach era Tech, but without Mack Brown and Bob Stoops at the height of their powers. The tallest midget in a shitty conference, What was their best out of conference win in the last 20 years? Beating North Carolina in the Russell Athletic Bowl? Even in their best seasons they lost to Michigan State and UCF in their bowl games. And they never played anybody with a pulse OOC during the regular season. Clemson? Like consistently getting into the playoffs level Clemson. We are talking about Baylor. Located in the armpit of Texas, Waco. Are you fucking kidding me?  

[Hornlover 8824]

5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

3.) Sigh. My point was that if you win, and the winning coach sticks around, then recruits will follow you anywhere.

But that's not true. It's why Beard moved from Tech to Texas. It's why Urban moved from Utah to Florida. Eventually you hit the ceiling. And you need something to break through that ceiling. In most cases, it's moving to a better program. Anywhere in the top couple tiers is likely enough to do that.

Quote

I'm not sure what else I can do to point that out, repeatedly, while saying Illinois was a school with a name I pulled out of my ass that isn't winning and would consider a guy like Tom Herman,

It's not that you picked Illinois. It's that you lumped Miami into the tier that includes teams like Illinois, NC State, Washington, Minnesota, whatever. 

Quote

 But it's funny you mention Baylor, I can show you there ceiling fairly recently. If Briles hadn't been caught instilling a crime syndicate in Waco, they'd probably/arguably be close to where Clemson is at this point.

I'm not sure if Baylor could ever have made it to where Clemson is. Regardless of Briles genius and lack of scruples, I don't know if they'd ever have been able to acquire the depth and size necessary to get to the championship multiple times.

[UDontKnow 10439]

Fuckface talk not going away.

So I'll chime in with my contribution.

 

[SydneyCarton 47872]

13 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

1) Duh.

2) I thought quoting you implied that I was engaging you in conversation. Next time I will @SydneyCarton you.

3) I already told you that I suck at reading comprehension. But there ain't no fucking way that Baylor would be close to Clemson at this point, unless you consider losing to North Carolina State as "close to where Clemson is." Baylor's ceiling was getting left out of the playoffs for Ohio State while we floundered and OU took a dip. They were Mike Leach era Tech, but without Mack Brown and Bob Stoops at the height of their powers. The tallest midget in a shitty conference, What was their best out of conference win in the last 20 years? Beating North Carolina in the Russell Athletic Bowl? Even in their best seasons they lost to Michigan State and UCF in their bowl games. And they never played anybody with a pulse OOC during the regular season. Clemson? Like consistently getting into the playoffs level Clemson. We are talking about Baylor. Located in the armpit of Texas, Waco. Are you fucking kidding me?  

1.) Glad we're on the same page
2.) That was MY point. You quoted me, indicating engagement, and then said "At the risk of SydneyCarton calling me a fuckface." It was weird. Wouldn't you say "At the risk of you calling me a fuckface..."
3.) Perhaps you're right. But Briles was getting dudes drafted and getting better and better talent on campus. I don't think you can reasonable assume that train stops if he keeps sticking a ton of motherfuckers into the pros and winning conferences. But we'll never know, because he is a psychotic rape enabler. The same Baylor, located in the armpit of Waco, Texas, that never should have climbed out of their predestined ceiling of winning 3 games a year, at best. What happened there shouldn't have been possible. So yeah, forgive me if I'm not so quick to dismiss the idea that Baylor would have continued to gobble up top end talent if he kept getting dudes drafted and winning. 

[SydneyCarton 47872]

15 minutes ago, Hornlover said:

But that's not true. It's why Beard moved from Tech to Texas. It's why Urban moved from Utah to Florida. Eventually you hit the ceiling. And you need something to break through that ceiling. In most cases, it's moving to a better program. Anywhere in the top couple tiers is likely enough to do that.

It's not that you picked Illinois. It's that you lumped Miami into the tier that includes teams like Illinois, NC State, Washington, Minnesota, whatever. 

I'm not sure if Baylor could ever have made it to where Clemson is. Regardless of Briles genius and lack of scruples, I don't know if they'd ever have been able to acquire the depth and size necessary to get to the championship multiple times.

Beard arguably moved to Texas for a better recruiting base and it's his alma mater. Meyer moved to Florida for better resources, recruiting area, and administration support. Yes, eventually you hit a ceiling. And someone at Miami could conceivably hit a ceiling because the admin won't invest in football and they want to go to a place where they think they have a better shot at winning. See Mack Brown to Texas. You're illustrating the obvious, but you're taking for granted that Miami checks every box. It doesn't. The school doesn't care about football, and they play at an NFL stadium across town because their fanbase is small and not rabid. So meyer moved to Florida for, lets say three things, or which Miami only checks one box. You say my mistake is lumping miami in with Illinois, but your mistake from my eyes is lumping Miami in with schools that check ALL the boxes. Or even 2 of 3. 

[Hornlover 8824]

56 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

Ain't nobody getting on a yacht with a bunch of big titted bitches in g-strings in fucking Champaign, Illinois.

How far is it from Champaign, Illinois to Lake Minnetonka?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Vikings_boat_party_scandal

[Mitch Cumsteen 18523]

26 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

2.) That was MY point. You quoted me, indicating engagement, and then said "At the risk of SydneyCarton calling me a fuckface." It was weird. Wouldn't you say "At the risk of you calling me a fuckface..."

I mean, it's not like we're having a private one on one conversation. I was really a bit of an interloper, TBH. But if @Mitch Cumsteen wants to talk about himself or @SydneyCarton in the third person like either of them aren't directly involved in the discussion, then he sure as shit is going to. Fuckface.

[closetojumping 62230]

26 minutes ago, Hornlover said:

How far is it from Champaign, Illinois to Lake Minnetonka?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Vikings_boat_party_scandal

I actually had this same exact thought when reading that previous post.

[Tex Pete 20176]

2 hours ago, Hornlover said:

Miami (1980-2020) 368-139-0 W-L-T   0.7494 /  5 National Championships (1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, 2001)

Texas (1980-2020) 339-166-4    0.67935  / 1 National Championship (2005)

I'm not suggesting Miami is a better job than Texas, but I think you severely misunderestimate their place in the college football landscape.

National championships since 2001: Texas 1, Miami 0

[texifornia 56511]

1 minute ago, Tex Pete said:

National championships since 2001: Texas 1, Miami 0

That 2001 one was the first college football game I can remember.

[Gatorubet 30088]

Miami (1980-2020) 368-139-0 W-L-T   0.7494 /  5 National Championships (1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, 2001)
Texas (1980-2020) 339-166-4    0.67935  / 1 National Championship (2005)
I'm not suggesting Miami is a better job than Texas, but I think you severely misunderestimate their place in the college football landscape.

One of my favorite bumper stickers back then:

FLORIDA 28
NATIONAL CHAMPIONS 3

[HtownHorn 14485]

Lulz. Thompson related.

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

He wrote that today?

[HtownHorn 14485]

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

He wrote that today?

Not sure, pulled it off IT's long recruiting thread but it was posted there today. If it was written at noon, that would have been before Thompson's tweet that he is committing tomorrow.

[Big Woodrows 4195]

.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Big Woodrows

[Longhornfrenzy 5591]

Texags premium tears

[Longhornfrenzy 5591]

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Longhornfrenzy

[UncleSonny 6552]

I wonder if Aggierogue thinks Devanta Smith is David Boston’s size or if he just hasn’t watched college football for 3 years.