College Football in 2020 in danger?

[mdmost 43016]

24 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Yeah, not really at all. Michigan has two one-loss or undefeated seasons since 1974 - unless you include a season in which they tied 3 games. 

Texas has seven. 

Go back another 15 years and it's 8 to 15. 

Go back another 20 years and it's 11 to 19. 

We're now in the 1930s. 

Same amount of national championships in that time frame. Their MNC gap was 49 years. Ours was 35. They won a bunch in the 40s. We won a bunch in the 60s. They've won the Big 10 more than we've won the SWC and Big 12 in that time frame. They too are getting lapped by their main rival. They too are underachieving given their advantages. They too make terrible head coaching decisions in the period after one of their most winningest coaches was forced out. They are the Northern Blue Blood long lost twin of Texas. 

[TrashMaster G 17584]

1 minute ago, mdmost said:

Same amount of national championships in that time frame. Their MNC gap was 49 years. Ours was 35. They won a bunch in the 40s. We won a bunch in the 60s. They've won the Big 10 more than we've won the SWC and Big 12 in that time frame. They too are getting lapped by their main rival. They too are underachieving given their advantages. They too make terrible head coaching decisions in the period after one of their most winningest coaches was forced out. They are the Northern Blue Blood long lost twin of Texas. 

They also have academic scoreboard over their main rival and are one of the Public Ivies along with us.  Lots of similarities.

[mulletpelini 5215]

25 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Yeah, not really at all. Michigan has two one-loss or undefeated seasons since 1974 - unless you include a season in which they tied 3 games. 

Texas has seven. 

Go back another 15 years and it's 8 to 15. 

Go back another 20 years and it's 11 to 19. 

We're now in the 1930s. 

whoa whoa whoa, stop the clock....Nebraska has more undefeated seasons than Texas, Alabama, or Ohio State.  Only Michigan (25) USC (13) Penn State (13) Oklahoma (12) have more than Nebraska does.  Flawed logic

[kopp0e 1135]

Alabama Football

 

@AlabamaFTBL

 

"You are very lucky to have the resources at the Alabama Athletic department... your risk in practice is lower than what it would be out in the community" - Jerome M. Adams, @Surgeon_General Surgeon General of the United States #BamaFactor #RollTide

3:04 PM · Aug 18, 2020·Twitter Media Studio

[mdmost 43016]

SEC fans aren't going to like this when  it expands to all the stadiums. 

 

[ztejas 43526]

48 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Same amount of national championships in that time frame. Their MNC gap was 49 years. Ours was 35. They won a bunch in the 40s. We won a bunch in the 60s. They've won the Big 10 more than we've won the SWC and Big 12 in that time frame. They too are getting lapped by their main rival. They too are underachieving given their advantages. They too make terrible head coaching decisions in the period after one of their most winningest coaches was forced out. They are the Northern Blue Blood long lost twin of Texas. 

Those are kind of big differences. Especially since they now have an 8 year jumpstart over us on another MNC drought. 

And yes they are getting lapped by their main rival, but to a much more embarassing degree than we are. They have beaten Ohio State once in the past 16 years. Really, that alone should set Texas apart from them. Ohio State has won two national titles since OU's last. We have won a more recent national title than OU. We have also played for a national title more recently than OU. These nuances are important to me.

It's 2020. These things change. Goalposts move. Was Nebraska a true blue blood in 1990? 

I enjoy contending for national titles. You know, like OU has almost every year since 2009.  If 9-3 seasons and occasional conference championships are more your thing then be my guest. Those type of seasons just don't move the needle for me much and shouldn't be a "good" season for Texas.

Edited August 18, 2020 by ztejas

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

Yeah, not really at all. Michigan has two one-loss or undefeated seasons since 1974 - unless you include a season in which they tied 3 games. 

Texas has seven. 

Go back another 15 years and it's 8 to 15. 

Go back another 20 years and it's 11 to 19. 

We're now in the 1930s. 

We have had this discussion in another thread. Fifty years is a long time over which to measure a program; you said that was "cherry picking" because as of this year, it eliminates the last of our DKR national titles. I don't agree that the number 50 is cherry picking. Regardless, let's just look at what's happened since DKR retired-- that happened two years after I was born, so it's kind of relevant to me. 

Since DKR retired, Texas has won its conference eight times. EIGHT. TIMES. Eight times (counting the bullshit 1994 co-championship, too) in more than forty years! That is not bad luck, it is not an excusable confluence of circumstances. Spread out over four-plus decades, it is concrete proof this program doesn't win the way the other bluebloods do. Michigan's done it 15 times, Alabama 13, USC 16, Oklahoma 21, Ohio State 18.  

Wins? football.stassen.com says we are 13th since DKR retired, and 15th in win percentage. 

National titles? We have one since DKR retired, the same as Michigan, and quite a few less than Miami, Florida State, Florida, Ohio State, Oklahoma, LSU, Clemson, USC, or Alabama. Not even going to mention Nebraska since they're on the ash heap now.

If you take the entirety of the program's existence, we are on the top tier. When you start to weight the modern era more heavily, what programs have done since integration allowed the best black southern players to stay home and the OU/Georgia vs NCAA Supreme Court decision opened the TV floodgates and the rules changed to favor the forward pass, we start to fall further and further behind. You keep saying "we're in a slump"; the slump goes back most of 40-plus years now. We slumped at the tail end of Akers' up and down tenure, we slumped from there until Mack turned the program around, we slumped after Mack got too rich and lazy to work hard enough, and we've been in that slump ever since. 

You are making too many excuses for us. We don't win like the programs we compare ourselves to. We have one national title since most of us were born, thanks to one transcendent star. Otherwise, it's more than four decades now of underachieving, and it's because our University does not put the same emphasis on winning at football that a school like Ohio State or Alabama does. We emphasize football, sure, but winning is less important than access and influence and revenue. 

This was a hell of a derail so I apologize to those who were enjoying the snotty CR eye rolling that I interrupted. 

[TrashMaster G 17584]

4 minutes ago, mdmost said:

SEC fans aren't going to like this when  it expands to all the stadiums. 

 

Looch will find a way to blame UT.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

[Tex Pete 20429]

16 minutes ago, mdmost said:

SEC fans aren't going to like this when  it expands to all the stadiums. 

 

Billy Liucci REALLY won’t like it. He was hanging his hat on “More’n tee yew!”

[ztejas 43526]

4 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

We have had this discussion in another thread. Fifty years is a long time over which to measure a program; you said that was "cherry picking" because as of this year, it eliminates the last of our DKR national titles. I don't agree that the number 50 is cherry picking. Regardless, let's just look at what's happened since DKR retired-- that happened two years after I was born, so it's kind of relevant to me. 

Since DKR retired, Texas has won its conference eight times. EIGHT. TIMES. Eight times (counting the bullshit 1994 co-championship, too) in more than forty years! That is not bad luck, it is not an excusable confluence of circumstances. Spread out over four-plus decades, it is concrete proof this program doesn't win the way the other bluebloods do. Michigan's done it 15 times, Alabama 13, USC 16, Oklahoma 21, Ohio State 18.  

Wins? football.stassen.com says we are 13th since DKR retired, and 15th in win percentage. 

National titles? We have one since DKR retired, the same as Michigan, and quite a few less than Miami, Florida State, Florida, Ohio State, Oklahoma, LSU, Clemson, USC, or Alabama. Not even going to mention Nebraska since they're on the ash heap now.

If you take the entirety of the program's existence, we are on the top tier. When you start to weight the modern era more heavily, what programs have done since integration allowed the best black southern players to stay home and the OU/Georgia vs NCAA Supreme Court decision opened the TV floodgates and the rules changed to favor the forward pass, we start to fall further and further behind. You keep saying "we're in a slump"; the slump goes back most of 40-plus years now. We slumped at the tail end of Akers' up and down tenure, we slumped from there until Mack turned the program around, we slumped after Mack got too rich and lazy to work hard enough, and we've been in that slump ever since. 

You are making too many excuses for us. We don't win like the programs we compare ourselves to. We have one national title since most of us were born, thanks to one transcendent star. Otherwise, it's more than four decades now of underachieving, and it's because our University does not put the same emphasis on winning at football that a school like Ohio State or Alabama does. We emphasize football, sure, but winning is less important than access and influence and revenue. 

This was a hell of a derail so I apologize to those who were enjoying the snotty CR eye rolling that I interrupted. 

I don't disagree with a lot of this - but you're kind of taking it in a different direction - and I beleive we came to a similar stance when we discussed this recently in that I don't disagree that Texas has underachieved since DKR. 

Yes - we have one and Michigan has one since DKR. But we could have as many as SEVEN over that span while Michigan has only contended at the highest level TWICE. That matters to me more than how many conference championships each of us has - because like I said, conference championships are not our standard. 

Think about it in terms of my lifetime - since I beleive mdmost is thinking about it in terms of his. I was two when Michigan won their last national title. I was ten when Texas won ours. Since I was born, Texas has three outright conference championships. Michigan has two. Texas has played for two national titles and only not three based off of a virtual coin flip. Michigan has played for one. We each have a Heisman (Texas should obviously have two and could have had three). Michigan has been getting mudfucked by their rival and won one game against them since I was in 3rd grade. Since then, we have beaten OU seven times. 

Does that make it easier to understand where I'm coming from?

[ztejas 43526]

10 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Think about it in terms of my lifetime - since I beleive mdmost is thinking about it in terms of his. I was two when Michigan won their last national title. I was ten when Texas won ours. Since I was born, Texas has three outright conference championships. Michigan has two. Texas has played for two national titles and only not three based off of a virtual coin flip. Michigan has played for one. We each have a Heisman (Texas should obviously have two and could have had three). Michigan has been getting mudfucked by their rival and won one game against them since I was in 3rd grade. Since then, we have beaten OU seven times. 

Oh - and that's a timeframe that includes Texas' shittiest decade of football ever.

[4th&Five 41579]

 

[Chet Steadman 940]

14 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Yes - we have one and Michigan has one since DKR. But we could have as many as SEVEN over that span while Michigan has only contended at the highest level TWICE.

Annnnnnndd you’ve TexAgs’d it.  

[UTEX_ME 4766]

Just now, 4th&Five said:

 

Yeah there isn't going to be a season at this rate. 

[ztejas 43526]

5 minutes ago, Chet Steadman said:

Annnnnnndd you’ve TexAgs’d it.  

Being one score away from winning or playing for multiple national championships doesn't sound very aggy. 

Now, if I was claiming 3 loss seasons as years in which we "could" have won the national title you'd have me.

I mean - as a related aside - do you enjoy watching OU make the playoffs every season? Or does it not matter since they haven't won yet?

Edited August 18, 2020 by ztejas

[Doc Reeves 6434]

2 hours ago, mdmost said:

No, no. Let's remember that Texas was always the bad guy and Nebraska was the good guy who didn't want any exceptions to continue just for them. At least Mizzou and Colorado knew their place and are just happy to get a seat at the table. Nebraska thinks they invented the table. 

If i had a chance to send myself in 2010 a note with info, this blurb would be squeezed in among sports scores and stock tips.

Nebraska was the Scott Baio/Bojack Horseman of the college football and didnt know it. Now, it appears they do 

[4th&Five 41579]

 

[mdmost 43016]

Still more than Texas- Billy Lucci. 

[BrazilHorn 6628]

1 minute ago, 4th&Five said:

 

So only 15,000 fans will leave at halftime then?

Also that is a lot fewer opportunities for the typical "best fan ever" fan fiction that normally ensues during the season.

[Todd Gack 432]

Have any schools announced mask requirements for these games?  Seems that sticking a bunch of cheering/screaming people in a big outdoor bowl might be a bad idea when not trying to spread an airborne virus.

[Born Burnt 6182]

16 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

Nebraska was the Scott Baio/Bojack Horseman of the college football and didnt know it. Now, it appears they do 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

1 minute ago, Todd Gack said:

Have any schools announced mask requirements for these games?  Seems that sticking a bunch of cheering/screaming people in a big outdoor bowl might be a bad idea when not trying to spread an airborne virus.

SEC is requiring them at all times.   Some Big 12 have as well but I don't think its a conference requirement yet.

[Big Frog II 511]

9 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

I thought the state only allowed 25%?

[TrashMaster G 17584]

10 minutes ago, Big Frog II said:

I thought the state only allowed 25%?

Current state guidance is 50%.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

Does that make it easier to understand where I'm coming from?

It does, but you're getting too hung up on hyperspecific numeric comparisons between MIchigan and Texas, in my opinion. Those programs and schools/administrations have a lot in common, a lot that explains why we're neither is winning. 

[jinx 2635]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

Yes - we have one and Michigan has one since DKR. But we could have as many as SEVEN over that span while Michigan has only contended at the highest level TWICE. That matters to me more than how many conference championships each of us has - because like I said, conference championships are not our standard. 

Damn right!  Middle of the pack is our new standard!

Bro, I get that you are not old enough to recognize Michigan as a blue blood, but they are.  Army has lost that spot, and Nebraska could if they don't come back soon, but Michigan has not.

And to somehow argue that TEXAS is a blue blood while others aren't is pot - kettle - black.  I am a part time Gator (did my MBA there), and I know that they are new money, but they would laugh in our face if we said they aren't blue blood and we are.

This whole topic is subjective as hell, but trophies matter.  Winning them, not just playing for them.  We are definitely in the blue bloods of underachieving and doing less with more no doubt.

Thanks for this derail from the depressing topic of cancelling the 2020 season though.

[ztejas 43526]

5 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

It does, but you're getting too hung up on hyperspecific numeric comparisons between MIchigan and Texas, in my opinion. Those programs and schools/administrations have a lot in common, a lot that explains why we're neither is winning. 

Of course I agree we (they?) have a lot in common. I just don't think Texas is near as pitiful as Michigan since any cutoff you pick between 1947 and 2009. And if you had to drop one school from being in the blue-blood tier (say to add Clempson) I think it would be Michigan (or Nebraska maybe - one of us three for sure - not trying to start that argument though, mullet) and not Texas. 

To tie it back to my original point about blue-bloods going through poor stretches - our "drought" was 14 years shorter than Michigan's and we are 8 or 12 years closer to recent success than they are - hence why I didn't use them as an example. They wandered the desert for longer and they've been wandering it for longer. 

 

[mulletpelini 5215]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

Think about it in terms of my lifetime - since I beleive mdmost is thinking about it in terms of his. I was two when Michigan won their last national title. I was ten when Texas won ours

Does that make it easier to understand where I'm coming from?

Oh most definitely now, yes.

[ztejas 43526]

1 minute ago, jinx said:

I am a part time Gator (did my MBA there), and I know that they are new money, but they would laugh in our face if we said they aren't blue blood and we are.

I will take a break from the Michigan-isnt-a-blue -blood-anymore argument - but I think you're going to lose most of the board on this one. 

[gyroprotagonist 2594]

So how long until aggy does what they do best and just decrease the seat size and paint more numbers until they can still get 50K in there?

[mulletpelini 5215]

Yeah Gator is a stretch (#27 all time wins, ouch).  Just because I'm a dick, ztejas, unblueblood Nebraska was winning their 1st NC when I was zero and 2nd when I was one.  And what if I told you they played in twice as many NC games as they've won?  Yeah I know, this was way back in the 480i days of VCRs and 4 channels.  Ask your grandparents about it sometime.

[jinx 2635]

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

I will take a break from the Michigan-isnt-a-blue -blood-anymore argument - but I think you're going to lose most of the board on this one. 

I may, but I don't give a shit.  The Gators since Spurrier have been one of the strongest brands in the nation in football.  They have three nattys in your lifetime while Texas has 4 all time.  And I get the 2008 argument, I was at that championship game as a Gator fan but bought tickets as a Longhorn fan.  Then Tech happened.

I will always believe that we got screwed out by voters and OU.  Sure UF lost to Ole Miss at home, but they beat undefeated and #1 Bammer in the SEC championship game (also at that game) to earn their way in.  We got voted out by shitty coaches in the Big 12 and elsewhere. 

Both Texas and UF beat OU on a neutral field by 10 points that year.  I haven't convinced my Gator friends to split that title with us yet though.  They all still appreciate us for 1996 though.

[ztejas 43526]

21 minutes ago, mulletpelini said:

Yeah Gator is a stretch (#27 all time wins, ouch).  Just because I'm a dick, ztejas, unblueblood Nebraska was winning their 1st NC when I was zero and 2nd when I was one.  And what if I told you they played in twice as many NC games as they've won?  Yeah I know, this was way back in the 480i days of VCRs and 4 channels.  Ask your grandparents about it sometime.

Hey man - I'm doing you a solid by making a case against Michigan. You may have been alive for all of Nebraska's titles but you were born 22 years too late to see more than one of Michigan's.

17 minutes ago, jinx said:

They have three nattys in your lifetime while Texas has 4 all time.

Sure, but it could pretty easily be UF with one or two since '95 and Texas with two or three. 

And I have never tried to claim 2008 - I'm not a delusional hack. I'll just add that karma to the '70 season which is our only non-consensus title (and an unfortunate part of desegregation history).

Florida isn't a blue blood but yes they've been one of the best programs in the country over the past 30 years (plus their '84 season). Four post-WW2 MNCs is kind of the baseline for getting blue-blood status - if only because the cutoff kind of falls on Texas. Past that there's the wins total that mullet pointed out, in addition to UF only having 8 conference titles and 31 consensus AAs. It's just not quite enough. UF falls with the Penn States and Miamis and Clemsons imo.

[Wulaw Horn 19146]

83

1991- very slight chance but a chance

2001

2008

2009

thats 5 chances either playing for a national championship or being an eyelash away, in my lifetime. 
it’s not a great record, but we’ve been in the conversation some for sure. 

[David Dennison 18944]

SIAP

 

[mdleast 8298]

Still more than Texas- Billy Lucci. 

[Ignatius 4017]

41 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

83

1991- very slight chance but a chance

2001

2008

2009

thats 5 chances either playing for a national championship or being an eyelash away, in my lifetime. 
it’s not a great record, but we’ve been in the conversation some for sure. 

You mean 1990 above but the point remains....and the point of the boot Miami shoved up our ass that day still remains in the upper reaches of my colon. Shitty weather and an absolute “I been thinkin about the shit you pulled for all 13 years I was in prison and now it’s time to pay, bitch” fucking beatdown that day. 46-3 or whatever the fucking score was doesn’t come close to describing what an ass whipping that was, from literally the opening kick. A completely shitty ending to an otherwise awesome, incredibly fun season....

 

[ztejas 43526]

56 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

83

1991- very slight chance but a chance

2001

2008

2009

thats 5 chances either playing for a national championship or being an eyelash away, in my lifetime. 
it’s not a great record, but we’ve been in the conversation some for sure. 

'02 and '04 were close as well. 

[Wulaw Horn 19146]

13 minutes ago, Ignatius said:

You mean 1990 above but the point remains....and the point of the boot Miami shoved up our ass that day still remains in the upper reaches of my colon. Shitty weather and an absolute “I been thinkin about the shit you pulled for all 13 years I was in prison and now it’s time to pay, bitch” fucking beatdown that day. 46-3 or whatever the fucking score was doesn’t come close to describing what an ass whipping that was, from literally the opening kick. A completely shitty ending to an otherwise awesome, incredibly fun season....

 

Yeah - I meant 91 cotton bowl after 1990 season. If we’d have won 46-3 the other way we might have had an outside chance at a national title as I remember it, right? 

[Queen Bitch 1692]

Can one of y’all jerkoffs start a blue blood thumb war elsewhere? 

[Wulaw Horn 19146]

3 minutes ago, ztejas said:

'02 and '04 were close as well. 

Yeah but we were done before the end of the season. I gave us 01 bc if we won the big 12 title we were in. There was no scenario in 02 or 04 to get us in. 

[Sejjr 3246]

3 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

 

So a bunch of low-risk students are infecting each other on campus...lets send them all home to infect their families. Great fucking plan.

[David Dennison 18944]

7 minutes ago, Sejjr said:

So a bunch of low-risk students are infecting each other on campus...lets send them all home to infect their families. Great fucking plan.

Because low-risk students are the only ones on campus.

[ztejas 43526]

24 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah but we were done before the end of the season. I gave us 01 bc if we won the big 12 title we were in. There was no scenario in 02 or 04 to get us in. 

Well, 08 came down to us not winning a game that we lost. In that regard, it isn't any different than 02 or 04. And in 08 we would have needed to win a hypothetical game to get in had we beaten Tech. 

[Eastwood 4394]

If the department that defends America from war, is letting kids play football, then it must be ok.??
 
 

Never saw a SFOD patch on an Army football helmet. Wonder if that is a green to gold guy.

[mr. sunshine 2832]

47 minutes ago, Ignatius said:

You mean 1990 above but the point remains....and the point of the boot Miami shoved up our ass that day still remains in the upper reaches of my colon. Shitty weather and an absolute “I been thinkin about the shit you pulled for all 13 years I was in prison and now it’s time to pay, bitch” fucking beatdown that day. 46-3 or whatever the fucking score was doesn’t come close to describing what an ass whipping that was, from literally the opening kick. A completely shitty ending to an otherwise awesome, incredibly fun season....

 

Having witnessed it in person I just took it as confusion over what sport was being played that day. Miami was running track while we were much more into macrame 

[kopp0e 1135]

While B1G & PAC are "running scared", XII/ SEC & ACC are looking for the "sweet freedom" of college football this fall... #TaskUp-MaskUp..!

 

[kopp0e 1135]

16 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

6 hours ago, kopp0e said:

If the department that defends America from war, is letting kids play football, then it must be ok.??
 
 

Never saw a SFOD patch on an Army football helmet. Wonder if that is a green to gold guy.

Furk, I really need to start sleeping at a local Holiday Inn for such astute observations to be correctly answered... 🤔

[flatdawgs 1279]

8 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

There is some interesting info in here on what went into the P12 thinking.  Brings up some good points, but also finishes by saying that Bruin fans should just get used to the fact that UCLA will never prioritize football over academics or other institutional missions (primarily medical where Geffen alone has donated over $450 million over the last coupe of decades).  I guess there's pride ot be found elsewhere other than the football field.  But the football field would be nice too.

 

Good stuff, SB. Washington is in the same boat as the three California schools discussed, not only in regards to the UW medical center being a world leader, but as to how the university perceives itself and it's place in the world. The place will never be an SEC-level athletic program because we do not place importance on things the same way those schools do, much as Cal, UCLA, and Stanford (and, to a large extent, Texas as well). We're fortunate that we have an outstanding president who happens to be a sports fan and is popular both on the academic and the athletic side of things, but there was never any doubt which way we would end up going.  Even Coach Lake has been adamant about backing the conference's decision.

The UW hasn't played a home game in over 40 years where I wasn't in attendance. Like a lot of you, football season for us is when friends and family get together for tailgating and good old-fashioned hatred of our quacking compatriots to the south.  I'm pissed and at a loss as August turns into September and there's no football on our horizon here for the first time since 1891. Yet my faith is - and has to be - in the amazing medical professionals at UW Medicine and at the other top schools in the conference. 

I hope we were wrong; that the three remaining conferences hold a successful and healthy season even if that will hurt my school and probably destroy the Washington States and Oregon States of the conference - because that will mean that y'all were able to keep your players, staffs, and their families safe. Godspeed to you.