Left Behind: A Quick Dose Of Post Big 12 Reality

[Tex Long 4401]

Rape, muder! It's just a shot away. It's just a shot away, shot away, shot away...

[Longboard Horn 40326]

52 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

They wouldn't have even answered the phone if Baylor called.  Not in a million years.

Exactly. 2 years ago when we all thought the Big 12 was going to implode no P5 conference wanted Baylor. They would have dropped to the AAC

[Had Enough 2083]

Lots of what ifs about Big 12 teams going to the PAC 12. In this latest round of moves, the Big 12 should have attempted to poach the PAC 12.

Texas, OU, USC
Washington, Oregon, OSU, Tech, TCU, KSU, Bu UCLA, then ISU, KU

This move was about competing and money. USC would have been key. That would have been the conference with the 3 biggest names. The middle tier would have been very strong from a competitive standpoint.

From the competition and money standpoint, the PAC 12 was dead. Too many schools unwilling or unable to legitimately compete. That was the selling point.

[Grande Mart 515]

21 hours ago, 'stache said:

Also, re whether CU made a good or bad choice in 2010, remember they thought UT, Tech, OU, and OSU were gonna follow. They jumped the gun to make sure Baylor didn’t take their place in that deal.

I remember it this way too. Sounds bizarre but Baylor was trying hard to jump on the coattails of Texas to the PAC and leave Colorado left behind. Colorado moved first to eliminate any chance of that possibility.

They are kinda like your dog that runs out and hops in the truck and sits there for hours before everyone else is readuy to go to make sure they aren't being left behind.

[closetojumping 62741]

1 hour ago, Had Enough said:

Lots of what ifs about Big 12 teams going to the PAC 12. In this latest round of moves, the Big 12 should have attempted to poach the PAC 12.

Texas, OU, USC
Washington, Oregon, OSU, Tech, TCU, KSU, Bu UCLA, then ISU, KU

This move was about competing and money. USC would have been key. That would have been the conference with the 3 biggest names. The middle tier would have been very strong from a competitive standpoint.

From the competition and money standpoint, the PAC 12 was dead. Too many schools unwilling or unable to legitimately compete. That was the selling point.

The funny part about your last paragraph, which I generally agree with, is that the Pac 12 is going to be really fucking salty this year. I haven’t gotten through my thinking on Wazzou yet, but most of the teams are going to be okay or better, which is saying a lot for that league. USC, UCLA, Oregon, UW, Utah, and Oregon State are all conference title contenders. Arizona is well coached and getting better. CU, who will be overrated, still upgraded their roster and coaching staff significantly. ASU, maybe it’s a stretch to say they will be “okay”. Cal should be better with another year with Wilcox, particularly on defense. Stanford will hilariously suck and I don’t know much about Wazzou yet. Still, they could legitimately have 5+ teams in the top 25 every week. 

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

2 hours ago, closetohumping said:

Some of that but I thinknUSC hot the pause button.  Dick move

USC absolutely fucked them over if that’s the case.

[Had Enough 2083]

The funny part about your last paragraph, which I generally agree with, is that the Pac 12 is going to be really fucking salty this year. I haven’t gotten through my thinking on Wazzou yet, but most of the teams are going to be okay or better, which is saying a lot for that league. USC, UCLA, Oregon, UW, Utah, and Oregon State are all conference title contenders. Arizona is well coached and getting better. CU, who will be overrated, still upgraded their roster and coaching staff significantly. ASU, maybe it’s a stretch to say they will be “okay”. Cal should be better with another year with Wilcox, particularly on defense. Stanford will hilariously suck and I don’t know much about Wazzou yet. Still, they could legitimately have 5+ teams in the top 25 every week. 

That’d be great for college football. Get the right coaching staffs and enough NIL monies to compete, and there’s considerable upside from a talent perspective. I had not really thought a ton about Nil shifting some power away from those most willing to get dirty like Bama and Georgia. I’m not all about parity but don’t care for the entire western college football front being an afterthought. USC and UCLA have made efforts, but do the rest of them have long term hopes? And for me personally Stanford and Cal don’t move the needle from an interest perspective. Don’t think that rivalry game I’ve ever thought that’s must see tv.

[Fud 9552]

42 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

The funny part about your last paragraph, which I generally agree with, is that the Pac 12 is going to be really fucking salty this year. I haven’t gotten through my thinking on Wazzou yet, but most of the teams are going to be okay or better, which is saying a lot for that league. USC, UCLA, Oregon, UW, Utah, and Oregon State are all conference title contenders. Arizona is well coached and getting better. CU, who will be overrated, still upgraded their roster and coaching staff significantly. ASU, maybe it’s a stretch to say they will be “okay”. Cal should be better with another year with Wilcox, particularly on defense. Stanford will hilariously suck and I don’t know much about Wazzou yet. Still, they could legitimately have 5+ teams in the top 25 every week. 

Lots of good or interesting QBs in that league this year 

[Longboard Horn 40326]

[Aqua Buddha 14598]

5 hours ago, closetohumping said:

I remember that thinking.  I thought we did need the pac to be honest. Ultimately I think they were unwilling to accept the LHN.  I still think that would’ve been the best move for us and college football. 
 

 

Remember when ou tried to make a solo run but was told “come back when you have Texas with you?”

Yeah, I was a fan of that move, too.  The Pac-12 wouldn't accept LHN, which now looking back was one of the dumbest decisions ever.  (I thought it was stupid then, too.)  Would have gotten the Big 12 schools more exposure on the West Coast and the Phoenix markets.  Good recruiting there, too.  People complained about the long road trips with that but look where we're all at now.  I liked the idea of Texas/OU vs USC/Oregon in the title game in prime time.  Instead, Texas took the ESPN money to play OU and a bunch of ag schools.

Also, looking back, the Pac-12 should have considered that OU offer but oh well.

[closetohumping 17443]

2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Yeah, I was a fan of that move, too.  The Pac-12 wouldn't accept LHN, which now looking back was one of the dumbest decisions ever.  (I thought it was stupid then, too.)  Would have gotten the Big 12 schools more exposure on the West Coast and the Phoenix markets.  Good recruiting there, too.  People complained about the long road trips with that but look where we're all at now.  I liked the idea of Texas/OU vs USC/Oregon in the title game in prime time.  Instead, Texas took the ESPN money to play OU and a bunch of ag schools.

Also, looking back, the Pac-12 should have considered that OU offer but oh well.

Would’ve been the conference west of the Mississippi.  Good for us and cfb in general.   But I guess espn wasn’t gonna let it happen

[Nivek 16944]

Dont you mean the ksu grifter tim weiser?

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

I think the Pac 16 would have blown up for the same reasons the Pac 12 is currently failing.

You can shit on the Big 12 schools all day, but at the end of the day there isn’t one school in this conference that isn’t all in on being as competitive as they can be in revenue sports. The indifference that exists in such a large swath of that league was always going to create a cultural clash with whatever Big 12 schools ended up there.

[Satchel 6938]

How can this not be a problem for UCLA?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html

And yet crowds have continued to be so barren at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif., that U.C.L.A. has averaged only 36,241 fans in six home games, despite the university routinely giving away tens of thousands of tickets.  
Nov 11, 2022

[Nivek 16944]

18 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think the Pac 16 would have blown up for the same reasons the Pac 12 is currently failing.

You can shit on the Big 12 schools all day, but at the end of the day there isn’t one school in this conference that isn’t all in on being as competitive as they can be in revenue sports. The indifference that exists in such a large swath of that league was always going to create a cultural clash with whatever Big 12 schools ended up there.

That is a bit of a recency bias.  Baylor and Kansas were terrible for a long time.   

[TexasTroll 454]

On 7/1/2023 at 4:51 PM, LTtxfan said:

 

 

Seems like a horrible copy of the version where Texas and blOU are announced moving to the SEC... 

 

Every time I watch this video,

Bad version or not,

it allways puts a huge grin on my face….

EVERY.  Dang. TIME.

Edited July 30, 2023 by TexasTroll

[Thiefery 5010]

19 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think the Pac 16 would have blown up for the same reasons the Pac 12 is currently failing.

You can shit on the Big 12 schools all day, but at the end of the day there isn’t one school in this conference that isn’t all in on being as competitive as they can be in revenue sports. The indifference that exists in such a large swath of that league was always going to create a cultural clash with whatever Big 12 schools ended up there.

well they had a come to Jesus moment when it looked like they were going to be left behind in 2011..  They took the huge payouts the new deal provided them and they invested into it's programs.  Iowa St, KSU, Baylor, Okie all had some of their best seasons in this period.

[LTtxfan 49230]

Yeah... me too @TexasTroll 😂😂😂😂😂

 

 

Edited July 30, 2023 by LTtxfan

[billfromlaketravis 11510]

6 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Yeah... me too @TexasTroll 😂😂😂😂😂

 

 

Bama should be seated at the desk. Otherwise, perfection. 

[billfromlaketravis 11510]

18 hours ago, Satchel said:

How can this not be a problem for UCLA?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html

And yet crowds have continued to be so barren at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif., that U.C.L.A. has averaged only 36,241 fans in six home games, despite the university routinely giving away tens of thousands of tickets.  
Nov 11, 2022

Ohio State maybe Michigan will be the only sellouts at the Rose Bowl. It’s an awesome stadium, but way too big for UCLA. 

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

That is a bit of a recency bias.  Baylor and Kansas were terrible for a long time.   

Baylor has been investing strongly since RGIII was there, and I think Kansas legitimately tried to get better at football for a long time, and just failed miserably. I don’t think they were apathetic institutionally

[mdmost 43004]

Yes but for away fans, it will be a pretty nice trip. Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Iowa fans will sell it out. It's a fairly genius move for the Big 10. You can still have a trip to the Rose Bowl, even if it's not THE Rose Bowl. 2024 games against Minnesota and Northwestern won't move the needle but Ohio State and Nebraska will be sellouts. 2025 has Georgia and Wisconsin as the only sellouts. Maryland, Purdue, and Rutgers all travel to Pasadena and won't bring much. Maybe Purdue will do decently. 

[SimonBolivar 10958]

7 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Baylor has been investing strongly since RGIII was there, and I think Kansas legitimately tried to get better at football for a long time, and just failed miserably. I don’t think they were apathetic institutionally

True but we didn't invest near enough for the first decade of Big 12 play and in 2010 (pre scandal stuff) it almost led to us being left behind easily for CU. Our only play was polticial and it wasn't going to work for us like it did in the 90s. Especially with Tech heading west and BU being the only Texas school left out.

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

True but we didn't invest near enough for the first decade of Big 12 play and in 2010 (pre scandal stuff) it almost led to us being left behind easily for CU. Our only play was polticial and it wasn't going to work for us like it did in the 90s. Especially with Tech heading west and BU being the only Texas school left out.

We started investing in football in the mid 90’s under Gene Smith (current tOSU AD). We hired an absolute dud AD after him and things plateaued. When Pollard got here in 2005, things really started to change culturally. After surviving 2011, the AD and our fanbase really stepped up and put the increased TV deal into paying good coaches and having legitimate facilities

[Paul Wesley 3278]

I got no hard feelings for Colorado. 

I don't know if they were trying to get ahead of seismic realignment or not.  I think maybe they just took a big drag from the water bong, and turned down their Phish bootleg long enough to recognize their kinship with Portlandians (and their lack of kinship with the Southwest and the Great Plains).  

[Deej 76818]

Neve mind

Edited July 30, 2023 by Deej

[Dbeasy 15066]

The best thing about the PAC problems and USC’s defection is that little bitch boy Lincoln Riley’s plan to run away from competition in the SEC partially backfired, with him now having to face OSU, Michigan and Penn St every year. 

[Homercles 10206]

I just want to see the PAC12 get stripped bare enough I can use the term ‘2PAC’ seriously in a sports context one time 

[n64ra 1086]

On 7/29/2023 at 7:40 AM, Longboard Horn said:

The Pac would NOT have taken Baylor. No religious schools. Cal Berkeley would have blocked it. 

Yes, so why do people think they would've allowed TCU?

[Nivek 16944]

41 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

The best thing about the PAC problems and USC’s defection is that little bitch boy Lincoln Riley’s plan to run away from competition in the SEC partially backfired, with him now having to face OSU, Michigan and Penn St every year. 

I don't think he left because he was afraid of competition.  I think he left because he would rather live out west as opposed to living in Norman, Oklahoma.

[Mitch Cumsteen 18550]

On 7/28/2023 at 11:41 AM, Al_4_ISU said:

And it's no coincidence that ESPN spent the next decade negging the Big 12 and singlehandedly created a perception problem, while also somewhat underpaying the league, in order to pry UT and OU loose to the SEC.  Once they had the SEC where they wanted it, they saw the opportunity to groom the Big 12 into the SEC undercard, and here we are.  The Big 12's renaissance is largely a result of ESPN seeing more value in it than the Pac 12 for filling out their viewing windows (due to the greater engagement of the Big 12 fanbases).

I wouldn't necessarily say ESPN created the perception problem for the Big 12. Texas sucking created the perception problem. And I would say the same thing about USC and the Pac. The conferences are deemed weak when the big tickets are down. If Texas and USC were doing what they were supposed to be doing on the field, the ratings would have been better and the dollars would have been better. Not only that, if Texas had been winning, the A&M SEC move would have had a much smaller impact on recruiting so those pressures would have been lessened as well. 

[Nivek 16944]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

We started investing in football in the mid 90’s under Gene Smith (current tOSU AD). We hired an absolute dud AD after him and things plateaued. When Pollard got here in 2005, things really started to change culturally. After surviving 2011, the AD and our fanbase really stepped up and put the increased TV deal into paying good coaches and having legitimate facilities

Always seemed to me that ISU was stuck.  Every competent guy they picked up left after establishing their value.  ISU seemed to be content or stuck in that cycle for a long time.  It never seemed to me that ISU was uninterested in investing in their program. 

[Satchel 6938]

It will remain mystified why the big 12 was not able to capitalize on its strengths during the halcyon days that included a national championship for Texas. The conference had a good run during the early 2000s.

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

Always seemed to me that ISU was stuck.  Every competent guy they picked up left after establishing their value.  ISU seemed to be content or stuck in that cycle for a long time.  It never seemed to me that ISU was uninterested in investing in their program. 

There was some serious institutional apathy after Earle Bruce left that set us back. The original construction of Jack Trice was completely cheap assed. We turned down both John Cooper (an alum no less) and Bill Snyder for jobs that went to Donnie Duncan and Jim Criner. ISU leaned into basketball at that point and kinda threw in the towel on football for the next decade. Gene Smith recognized the potential and Jamie Pollard totally ran with it

[Nivek 16944]

Why didn't they see a value in football?  Rival Iowa is well known.  

[Vertigo 20290]

On 7/29/2023 at 7:28 AM, closetohumping said:

Some of that but I thinknUSC hot the pause button.  Dick move

The turd in the punchbowl has always been Stanford. Athletics revenue for them is a rounding error, and they don't give a shit about anything but prestige. They and Cal have been the two dissentors on expansion, and their bylaws require 9 out of 10 votes to make a change. Cal is being obtuse for absolutely no logical reason whatsoever.

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

1 hour ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

I wouldn't necessarily say ESPN created the perception problem for the Big 12. Texas sucking created the perception problem. And I would say the same thing about USC and the Pac. The conferences are deemed weak when the big tickets are down. If Texas and USC were doing what they were supposed to be doing on the field, the ratings would have been better and the dollars would have been better. Not only that, if Texas had been winning, the A&M SEC move would have had a much smaller impact on recruiting so those pressures would have been lessened as well. 

That’s completely fair, and I do wonder if the landscape of college sports looks completely different if Colt McCoy doesn’t go down on that fateful night in January of 2010.

But ESPN just shit on the Big 12 at every turn for the following decade, and as was often pointed out on this board/Shaggy, it was pretty inaccurate.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

The best thing about the PAC problems and USC’s defection is that little bitch boy Lincoln Riley’s plan to run away from competition in the SEC partially backfired, with him now having to face OSU, Michigan and Penn St every year. 

B1G has a long list of bread mixed with outdated schemes. 

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That’s completely fair, and I do wonder if the landscape of college sports looks completely different if Colt McCoy doesn’t go down on that fateful night in January of 2010.

But ESPN just shit on the Big 12 at every turn for the following decade, and as was often pointed out on this board/Shaggy, it was pretty inaccurate.

IMO, nothing changes if Colt wins the title. 

SEC was buying all the recruits. Their new strategy of paying thru 3rd parties allowed them to return to Texas recruiting for the first time since ATM's probation. It also helps when the NCAA president was a "friend of the conference."

Texas had not recruited well on the offensive side of the ball for several years before 2010. The recruiting rankings were a sham and then Gilbert was not the all-world QB to cover up the deficiencies.

Big 12 refs didn't help.

Paid recruits + lazy recruiting (Mack, Davis, McWhorter, etcetera) + bad luck = Failure

The media was never going to allow a small fan base like TCU or a non-helmet school like OSU in a four-team playoff unless there were no other options. It's always been like that. It's why Texas and OU should have left a long time ago. BTW, I'm a believer that 2011 Oklahoma State and 2014 TCU were the best teams in the country in their respective year. Nick Saban said privately he didn't want to play TCU in the 2014 CFB Playoff. But Texas was the best team in the country in 2008 and their league cost itself a national title by voting against them.

[tonedeaf 56]

2 hours ago, n64ra said:

Yes, so why do people think they would've allowed TCU?

I don't remember TCU being mentioned.  However,  fuck baylor.  Voted for ou in 2008 but wanted to ride our coattails.  Hypocritical little pussies.  

[tx ind 7013]

2 hours ago, n64ra said:

Yes, so why do people think they would've allowed TCU?

less rapey, more money, not really religious, lot of CA kids enrolled, not murderous, in DFW, less rapey

Edited July 30, 2023 by tx ind

[DFW Horn 6124]

4 minutes ago, tx ind said:

less rapey, more money, not really religious, lot of CA kids enrolled, not murderous, in DFW, less rapey

...but, more douchey telling ESPN not to refer to them as Texas Christian U - just TCU.

So, much like aggy, the C stands for nothing.

What does "A&M" stand for? Agricultural and Mechanical, originally, but today the letters no longer explicitly stand for anything.

[tx ind 7013]

5 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

...but, more douchey telling ESPN not to refer to them as Texas Christian U - just TCU.

So, much like aggy, the C stands for nothing.

What does "A&M" stand for? Agricultural and Mechanical, originally, but today the letters no longer explicitly stand for anything.

unlike aggy TCU evolved, who gives a shit about the name

[statsman 5471]

58 minutes ago, Satchel said:

It will remain mystified why the big 12 was not able to capitalize on its strengths during the halcyon days that included a national championship for Texas. The conference had a good run during the early 2000s.

Oh, that’s because a critical mass of schools feared Texas going on a tear like under Royal. That’s why, in 2008, so many rival B12 schools were happy to vote Texas down excessively. In 2009, Stoops sent Venables to Tuscaloosa to share Texas tendencies with the Alabama staff, and there was no sense that OU was doing anything bad for the conference. 
 
The Big 8 was all about supporting OU and NU success. The SWC was all about sniping at each other, jealous of resources. The Big 12 ended up treating Texas like it was still in the SEC and OU like it was still in the Big 8. 

[Armybrat 40850]

Quote

The Big 12 ended up treating Texas like it was still in the SEC and OU like it was still in the Big 8. 

Needs edit

[Satchel 6938]

13 minutes ago, statsman said:

Oh, that’s because a critical mass of schools feared Texas going on a tear like under Royal. That’s why, in 2008, so many rival B12 schools were happy to vote Texas down excessively. In 2009, Stoops sent Venables to Tuscaloosa to share Texas tendencies with the Alabama staff, and there was no sense that OU was doing anything bad for the conference. 
 
The Big 8 was all about supporting OU and NU success. The SWC was all about sniping at each other, jealous of resources. The Big 12 ended up treating Texas like it was still in the SEC and OU like it was still in the Big 8. 

Still, there was enough there to give the B1G and the Sec a run for their money. It’s a shame we couldn’t make it work.

https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?seasonid=2007

https://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?seasonid=2008

[TKthunder2 4992]

4 hours ago, Paul Wesley said:

I got no hard feelings for Colorado. 

I don't know if they were trying to get ahead of seismic realignment or not.  I think maybe they just took a big drag from the water bong, and turned down their Phish bootleg long enough to recognize their kinship with Portlandians (and their lack of kinship with the Southwest and the Great Plains).  

The Buffs were the team I was most upset to see leave the conference. Other than Colorado jumping on the blame Texas bandwagon on their way out the door despite voting with Texas on nearly every issue during their time in the Big12, I have no hard feelings either.

Nebraska, Colorado, aggy, and Mizzou showed their ass and threw bombs at Texas and the Big12 on their way out the door to make themselves feel better and I found it fairly pathetic…especially when you compare how Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and UCLA are handling their current exits with tact and grace.

[Paul Wesley 3278]

2 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

Texas had not recruited well on the offensive side of the ball for several years before 2010. The recruiting rankings were a sham and then Gilbert was not the all-world QB to cover up the deficiencies.

...I'm a believer that 2011 Oklahoma State and 2014 TCU were the best teams in the country in their respective year. Nick Saban said privately he didn't want to play TCU in the 2014 CFB Playoff. But Texas was the best team in the country in 2008 and their league cost itself a national title by voting against them.

Great post.

1). Isn't it crazy how much offensive NFL talent Sleepy Mike Sherman was able to assemble for a bumbling and inept Aggie team around 2010-2012, while Texas - fresh off a string of MNC games and multiple top-5 finishes - had no viable quarterbacks, a bunch of skill-position JAGs, and one of the worst offensive lines in the league?

2). Totally agree on 2011 Oklahoma State.  They got screwed out of the championship game they deserved.  And the argument that was used to deny them their chance ("got to win your own league") was completely abandoned in order to hand Alabama a mulligan and a crystal ball a year or so later.  

 

[TKthunder2 4992]

9 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

 

2). Totally agree on 2011 Oklahoma State.  They got screwed out of the championship game they deserved.  And the argument that was used to deny them their chance ("got to win your own league") was completely abandoned in order to hand Alabama a mulligan and a crystal ball a year or so later.  

 

But Grizzly Adams did have a beard…I mean Oklahoma State did win the conference in 2011.

The argument they made was that Alabama was the best 1 loss team. Which while potentially true shouldn’t have mattered since they already lost to LSU.

The whole point of the BCS was to stage a championship game BETWEEN conferences to prove which was best at the end of the season. We knew LSU was the best but had a chance to see them take on a 1 loss Okie St or Stanford from another conference which should have been the matchup, but since Okie St/Stanford aren’t bluebloods ESPN knew it wouldnt draw as well as Bama. And while they were likely correct, TV ratings was not the point of the BCS NCG when it was originally created.

It was a shitty thing to do. Okie St deserved their shot but got fucked. Worse than Baylor/TCU in my opinion.

[Okie State 3821]

The shanked FG against ISU cost us our chance and it was all the reason they needed to keep us out. When you're not a blue blood the margin of error is zero. It also cost Weeden the Heisman. The only way I cope with it is to convince myself we wouldn't have given OU the beat down we did had the NC game been on the line. Or something. That game killed college football for me and I haven't really given much of a shit since.