Left Behind: A Quick Dose Of Post Big 12 Reality

[Deej 76219]

9 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

I don't know exactly where this goes, but seems relevant here.

 

Also this:

 

I wonder how the Big 10 is going to draw on CBS vs. the old SEC games going forward.

 

[TKthunder2 4959]

1 hour ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

I don't know exactly where this goes, but seems relevant here.

 

Also this:

 

I wonder how the Big 10 is going to draw on CBS vs. the old SEC games going forward.

 

Can we finally put to bed the dumb argument that Clemson is going to get left out…

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

 

 

5 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Can we finally put to bed the dumb argument that Clemson is going to get left out…

Don't stop there. Over half the posters in the realignment thread thought UW and UO were worthless to the P2. And a growing list thinks Florida State isn't valuable to the SEC.

Anyone moving forward who questions the P2 value of ND, FSU, North Carolina, or Clemson should be banned from posting in the realignment thread.  It doesn't matter what is released in the media. I expect the loser of the UNC and FSU sweepstakes to try and save face by leaking to reporters that the programs don't bring enough value or some other lame excuse.

I think there's a good chance the ACC as we know it will be blown up by the time their ESPN contract runs out in 2027.

The P2/P3 are going to separate from the NCAA very soon. Salary caps are coming. I know this is all obvious, but some don't seem to get it. This is one of the reasons for FSU's temper tantrum.

We really should start posting realignment news in the realignment thread. This thread is starting to bleed over into topics that belong in that thread.

It's going to get interesting in the next 24 months. There's blood in the water.

 

 

[n64ra 1073]

20 hours ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

I don't know exactly where this goes, but seems relevant here.

 

Also this:

 

I wonder how the Big 10 is going to draw on CBS vs. the old SEC games going forward.

 

Does the new SEC deal put the major games on ABC or ESPN? Surely it's ABC.

[Al_4_ISU 12376]

20 hours ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

I don't know exactly where this goes, but seems relevant here.

 

Also this:

 

I wonder how the Big 10 is going to draw on CBS vs. the old SEC games going forward.

 

My dream for college football is for the 18 teams in the first graphic to just be their own division.  One TV network owns all of it.  All the blue bloods can play each other, no one has to bitch about lame home games or leeches or whatever.  You don't have these schools (Purdue, Miss St, etc) that were just born on 3rd base thinking they hit a triple.  No one outside of those 18 is a winning a natty anyhow.

The rest of what's the current P4 can reorganize in a geographically logical fashion and play for it's own championship, which would still draw a ton of eyes.  

There would be far more parity, better playoffs, etc.  Whichever network misses the NFL Lite will make a ton of money after schools 19-65 or whatever.

Edited January 25 by Al_4_ISU

['stache 21591]

Prestige Worldwide. Cool, just do it already if that's what matters most. I'd prefer to cut out the bottom half from that graph as a lower division and the upper half enter into a pooled media rights agreement that provides more money for programs with higher ratings but more than enough to allow for legit competition. Either way, football should have broken off separately 20 years ago or earlier. Football money can justify UCLA and Rutgers being in the same conference, but to make the soccer and diving teams do that is asinine. Even basketball makes more sense geographically. Whatever comes next, for the love of everything, let the rest of the sports go back to old school geographic alignments.

[closetojumping 62010]

19 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

My dream for college football is for the 18 teams in the first graphic to just be their own division.  One TV network owns all of it.  All the blue bloods can play each other, no one has to bitch about lame home games or leeches or whatever.  You don't have these schools (Purdue, Miss St, etc) that were just born on 3rd base thinking they hit a triple.  No one outside of those 18 is a winning a natty anyhow.

The rest of what's the current P4 can reorganize in a geographically logical fashion and play for it's own championship, which would still draw a ton of eyes.  

There would be far more parity, better playoffs, etc.  Whichever network misses the NFL Lite will make a ton of money after schools 19-65 or whatever.

You should just save this post and randomly post it again every 5 pages here. That way, you don't have to waste the energy to basically retype the same shit you've been posting on this and the realignment thread for years and if there is anyone on this site that has somehow never seen your plaintive take on all of this, they'll then be informed of it and we can all move on. 

[Al_4_ISU 12376]

8 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

You should just save this post and randomly post it again every 5 pages here. That way, you don't have to waste the energy to basically retype the same shit you've been posting on this and the realignment thread for years and if there is anyone on this site that has somehow never seen your plaintive take on all of this, they'll then be informed of it and we can all move on. 

The irony is dripping off this post like a popsicle in August.  I'm not saying you're wrong, but this entire thread is the same arguments from the same people (yourself included) going around and around and around.  "FUCK UT!"  "DIE LEECEHES" rinse repeat.

I haven't posted in this thread for 2 months.  If you're going to take this thread that seriously, at least follow your own advice.

The truly crazy part is that you think my take is plaintive.  I honestly believe most college football fanbases would be thrilled with this arrangement after a couple years.

Edited January 25 by Al_4_ISU

[statsman 5355]

20 hours ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

I don't know exactly where this goes, but seems relevant here.

 

Also this:

 

I wonder how the Big 10 is going to draw on CBS vs. the old SEC games going forward.

 

It will be interesting to see a redo of this chart next year, when B12 teams have no high ratings games against Texas and OU to use in the rankings, and more of the games are on cable and streaming channels. 

[Mitch Cumsteen 18413]

18 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Can we finally put to bed the dumb argument that Clemson is going to get left out…

The thing about Clemson is that they were competing for national titles annually for most of that time period. Lots of eyeballs in the playoffs. I do wonder how much they move the needle if Dabo continues to slowly drive them into a ditch. Will people tune in if they aren't one of the top teams in the country? I guess Jesus will still watch. Teams that have struggled over that time (e.g., Texas, USC, TN, Auburn, Florida) and still show up in that graphic seems more indicative of true drawing power. 

Also... anybody notice the premier SEC team in Texas notably missing from that graphic?

['stache 21591]

9 minutes ago, statsman said:

It will be interesting to see a redo of this chart next year, when B12 teams have no high ratings games against Texas and OU to use in the rankings, and more of the games are on cable and streaming channels. 

Talk about a broken record, this has been posted dozens upon dozens of times. The Big 12 will get at least one game regularly on a major network and the ratings of the non OU-TX matchups have been posted before that they do well enough to justify the media contract (about half of BIG/SEC which makes sense). Of course it also means more mid-week and ESPN+ broadcasts, but it is what it is, we survived unlike the PAC and are making more than the ACC which will probably fold as soon as FSU and Clemson find their way out. The future looks fine for the Big 12. 

[Al_4_ISU 12376]

4 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

The thing about Clemson is that they were competing for national titles annually for most of that time period. Lots of eyeballs in the playoffs. I do wonder how much they move the needle if Dabo continues to slowly drive them into a ditch. Will people tune in if they aren't one of the top teams in the country? I guess Jesus will still watch. Teams that have struggled over that time (e.g., Texas, USC, TN, Auburn, Florida) and still show up in that graphic seems more indicative of true drawing power. 

Also... anybody notice the premier SEC team in Texas notably missing from that graphic?

I'm legit surprised that Wisconsin outdraws Aggy.  Not that Sconnies aren't passionate about their Badgers, but just given the relative populations of Texas and Wisconsin.

That said, TJ Altimore was probably more wrong than anyone on all this realignment shit the last go round. 

[statsman 5355]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Talk about a broken record, this has been posted dozens upon dozens of times. The Big 12 will get at least one game regularly on a major network and the ratings of the non OU-TX matchups have been posted before that they do well enough to justify the media contract (about half of BIG/SEC which makes sense). Of course it also means more mid-week and ESPN+ broadcasts, but it is what it is, we survived unlike the PAC and are making more than the ACC which will probably fold as soon as FSU and Clemson find their way out. The future looks fine for the Big 12. 

…and I think you’re getting a $5M per year/per school premium on the contract (based on comp of last contract Fox/ESPN split to this contract), to help OU and Texas leave a year early. That will disappear on the next contract. 
 
 

[statsman 5355]

And what is the point of this thread? For me, there is a lot of schadenfreude. The IR8 profited from being in a conference with Texas, and decided to be parasites rather than symbiotes. Instead of setting up a conference office that was pro-Texas, they did the exact opposite. They assumed the legislature would keep Texas in the B12 and the B12 could keep Texas from being too big. I am enjoying watching this play out. Sorry for partying. 

['stache 21591]

Yes, we all know your purpose in this thread, say it again!

[statsman 5355]

20 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Yes, we all know your purpose in this thread, say it again!

I think I will! just later, though. 

['stache 21591]

46 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'm legit surprised that Wisconsin outdraws Aggy.  Not that Sconnies aren't passionate about their Badgers, but just given the relative populations of Texas and Wisconsin.

That said, TJ Altimore was probably more wrong than anyone on all this realignment shit the last go round. 

It's one of the advantages of some of the Big 10 state schools. Wisconsin is the sole university playing high level football in that state. Ohio State and Penn State have the same advantage (Minnesota too but they haven't been relevant in decades, although they won a national title at some point since aggy last did). Wisconsin to me feels a lot like Oklahoma State, had some really high level success, but rarely  got over the hump (edit: looks like they won a few conference titles 2010-12 but the fact I had to look that up shows its not as prominent as tOSU, UM, PSU). But they have much higher population, enrollment, and lack of in state competition to prop them up. It's not all that surprising to me. They're probably the 18th school on that list.

Edited January 25 by 'stache

[closetojumping 62010]

51 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The irony is dripping off this post like a popsicle in August.  I'm not saying you're wrong, but this entire thread is the same arguments from the same people (yourself included) going around and around and around.  "FUCK UT!"  "DIE LEECEHES" rinse repeat.

I haven't posted in this thread for 2 months.  If you're going to take this thread that seriously, at least follow your own advice.

The truly crazy part is that you think my take is plaintive.  I honestly believe most college football fanbases would be thrilled with this arrangement after a couple years.

I feel like I've been somewhat diverse in this thread because that's how I feel about the whole thing. I can simultaneously hold some level of derision towards the participants of the Big 12 as a Texas while loving CFB and enjoying the games and rivalries that have nothing to do with Texas. I'm a fan of the sport and that involves emotion and ambivalence. That said, I've never once wanted to see tiered relegation any further than it already exists. I like 133 FBS teams and I wish they'd only play each other and never another FCS opponent. That means a lot of intermingling between leagues in the non-con and playoffs. 

Honestly, I've never understood your silly hawt take that most fans would prefer to never deal with the top 20-ish program ever again. That may actually be something you believe and I can somewhat see it from the peculiarity of the ISU fan's pov. If you think Baylor, Tech, Rice, SMU, and UH would never like to match-up against Texas or OU or ATM again and just ignore them happily, you are laughably uninformed. And I don't give one fuck what one of those fans says on this site. I am around these groups daily and they love nothing more than the chance to mix it up and talk shit with the bigger names. 

42 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

The thing about Clemson is that they were competing for national titles annually for most of that time period. Lots of eyeballs in the playoffs. I do wonder how much they move the needle if Dabo continues to slowly drive them into a ditch. Will people tune in if they aren't one of the top teams in the country? I guess Jesus will still watch. Teams that have struggled over that time (e.g., Texas, USC, TN, Auburn, Florida) and still show up in that graphic seems more indicative of true drawing power. 

Also... anybody notice the premier SEC team in Texas notably missing from that graphic?

This is an accurate point and the first thing I thought about yesterday when reviewing the graphic. Clemson is a great example of a somewhat average big program fanbase being elevated in viewership by the program's performance, which inserted them to the national dialogue for a decade. 

Also, "slowly drive them into a ditch" might be accurate, but take a look at what they're bringing back and their 2024 schedule and tell me that 10-2 (or better) is more likely than 8-5 (or worse). 

['stache 21591]

I don't specifically recall Al saying that most fans would "prefer" a Prestige Worldwide separation, but brings it up in responds to the constant "LEEECHES" rants with the fact that the BIG and SEC have plenty and if it's really a problem across the board, then just do it already and stop complaining. I've said repeatedly that it's inevitable. Either a complete separation or unequal revenue sharing. If its the latter, the real question in my mind is, would you rather make $40M a year as a member of the Big 12 similar to your conference mates, or would you rather make $40M as a bottom tier SEC/BIG school while the bluebloods in your conference make $120M? I know my preference would be the Big 12. 

Edited January 25 by 'stache

[closetohumping 17302]

12 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I feel like I've been somewhat diverse in this thread because that's how I feel about the whole thing. I can simultaneously hold some level of derision towards the participants of the Big 12 as a Texas while loving CFB and enjoying the games and rivalries that have nothing to do with Texas. I'm a fan of the sport and that involves emotion and ambivalence. That said, I've never once wanted to see tiered relegation any further than it already exists. I like 133 FBS teams and I wish they'd only play each other and never another FCS opponent. That means a lot of intermingling between leagues in the non-con and playoffs. 

Honestly, I've never understood your silly hawt take that most fans would prefer to never deal with the top 20-ish program ever again. That may actually be something you believe and I can somewhat see it from the peculiarity of the ISU fan's pov. If you think Baylor, Tech, Rice, SMU, and UH would never like to match-up against Texas or OU or ATM again and just ignore them happily, you are laughably uninformed. And I don't give one fuck what one of those fans says on this site. I am around these groups daily and they love nothing more than the chance to mix it up and talk shit with the bigger names. 

This is an accurate point and the first thing I thought about yesterday when reviewing the graphic. Clemson is a great example of a somewhat average big program fanbase being elevated in viewership by the program's performance, which inserted them to the national dialogue for a decade. 

Also, "slowly drive them into a ditch" might be accurate, but take a look at what they're bringing back and their 2024 schedule and tell me that 10-2 (or better) is more likely than 8-5 (or worse). 

Isu played KSU in basketball last night.  There were some horns down. Are we their biggest rival? Nope.  But they care about the game just like the other big 12 schools.  

['stache 21591]

Did Coach Terry call to scold them for it? (sorry had to say it, I honestly don't care about horns down one way or the other)

[closetojumping 62010]

8 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Did Coach Terry call to scold them for it? (sorry had to say it, I honestly don't care about horns down one way or the other)

Most UT fans enjoy the horns down nonsense. It's rent free shit when I see it on tv. In person, I laugh it off with everyone but OU and view it as an invitation to talk shit to someone. I see horns down in crowd shots of NFL games and I find things like that gratifying. 

We're all embarrassed by Terry's weak shit from the UCF game. It just fuels stupid discussions in the media that our collective athletes and fanbase worry about it, and we don't. 

[closetohumping 17302]

24 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Most UT fans enjoy the horns down nonsense. It's rent free shit when I see it on tv. In person, I laugh it off with everyone but OU and view it as an invitation to talk shit to someone. I see horns down in crowd shots of NFL games and I find things like that gratifying. 

We're all embarrassed by Terry's weak shit from the UCF game. It just fuels stupid discussions in the media that our collective athletes and fanbase worry about it, and we don't. 

I don’t even care that ou does it.  I find it flattering to our program. 

[TKthunder2 4959]

2 hours ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

The thing about Clemson is that they were competing for national titles annually for most of that time period. Lots of eyeballs in the playoffs. I do wonder how much they move the needle if Dabo continues to slowly drive them into a ditch. Will people tune in if they aren't one of the top teams in the country? I guess Jesus will still watch. Teams that have struggled over that time (e.g., Texas, USC, TN, Auburn, Florida) and still show up in that graphic seems more indicative of true drawing power. 

Also... anybody notice the premier SEC team in Texas notably missing from that graphic?

Everyone in that list, except Oregon, has a stadium in the top 23 capacity. Stadium capacity tends to correlate well to TV ratings (more people want to go to your games is similar to the number of people that watch on TV).

The other 6 in the top 23 not on this list: aggy, UCLA(not on campus), Nebraska, South Carolina, Arkansas, Michigan St

[Al_4_ISU 12376]

1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

I feel like I've been somewhat diverse in this thread because that's how I feel about the whole thing. I can simultaneously hold some level of derision towards the participants of the Big 12 as a Texas while loving CFB and enjoying the games and rivalries that have nothing to do with Texas. I'm a fan of the sport and that involves emotion and ambivalence. That said, I've never once wanted to see tiered relegation any further than it already exists. I like 133 FBS teams and I wish they'd only play each other and never another FCS opponent. That means a lot of intermingling between leagues in the non-con and playoffs. 

Honestly, I've never understood your silly hawt take that most fans would prefer to never deal with the top 20-ish program ever again. That may actually be something you believe and I can somewhat see it from the peculiarity of the ISU fan's pov. If you think Baylor, Tech, Rice, SMU, and UH would never like to match-up against Texas or OU or ATM again and just ignore them happily, you are laughably uninformed. And I don't give one fuck what one of those fans says on this site. I am around these groups daily and they love nothing more than the chance to mix it up and talk shit with the bigger names. 

This is an accurate point and the first thing I thought about yesterday when reviewing the graphic. Clemson is a great example of a somewhat average big program fanbase being elevated in viewership by the program's performance, which inserted them to the national dialogue for a decade. 

Also, "slowly drive them into a ditch" might be accurate, but take a look at what they're bringing back and their 2024 schedule and tell me that 10-2 (or better) is more likely than 8-5 (or worse). 

In my hypothetical you'd still be able to play cross division games, much like FCS and FBS play each other regularly now.  So those schools could play UT or OU if all parties were agreeable.  It's not like there would NEVER be games across those lines.  I personally wouldn't give a shit, because there isn't a single school on that list that cracks my Top 5 most hated.  My ideal schedule involves playing Iowa, KSU, Nebraska, Kansas, and after that I wouldn't give much of a shit.  Most (not all) ISU fans feel the same way.

I also like the idea of 133 FBS teams and all the mingling across leagues.  That lends the kind of variety that makes college football great.  It also feels like a dying model as there's this groundswell to consolidate brands for TV purposes.  On top of that, there seems to be a growing sentiment (and not just on this board) among fans of the biggest brands that games against lesser brands aren't interesting, and those schools shouldn't be allowing the lesser brands to essentially profit off their likeness.  Those of us remaining in the Big 12 have been hearing it for a deacde. 

While I initially found that sentiment insulting, I can accept that it's prevalent and real.  If that's really how UT, OU, and other blue blood fans feel, then why shouldn't you be allowed to just play other blue bloods?  The SEC and Big 10 are full of schools that aren't additive and have been grandfathered in.  Cut them loose to play schools that are truly more their peers.  At the end of the day, those 18 schools in the graphic are generally in a different league from a finances/talent/resources standpoint from even the other schools in their current conferences, who are much more similar to the current ACC/Big 12.  There are absolutely some schools between 18 and 65 that have built their self worth around punking the big guys, but I think they'd find that playing in a setting with more parity and returning to regionality would be more interesting and appealing at the end of the day.

 

[statsman 5355]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

It's one of the advantages of some of the Big 10 state schools. Wisconsin is the sole university playing high level football in that state. Ohio State and Penn State have the same advantage (Minnesota too but they haven't been relevant in decades, although they won a national title at some point since aggy last did). Wisconsin to me feels a lot like Oklahoma State, had some really high level success, but rarely  got over the hump (edit: looks like they won a few conference titles 2010-12 but the fact I had to look that up shows its not as prominent as tOSU, UM, PSU). But they have much higher population, enrollment, and lack of in state competition to prop them up. It's not all that surprising to me. They're probably the 18th school on that list.

The OSU comparison to Wisconsin? 
 
Stassen.com allows you to compare programs’ wins over periods of time. I chose the Gundy years, 2005-2021 (the database stops there). 
 
OSU has the 14th best win percentage over that period, unsurprisingly better than Texas’. Wisconsin has the 10th. 
 
As you note, Wisconsin has 3 conference titles to OSU’s 1. It has 5 division titles to OSU’s 1. The Badgers were in six major bowl games over that period to the Cowboys’ 3. 
 
No, Wisconsin is not in any way a blue blood. And there is nobody outside the IR8 footprint that would see them as “like” OSU. Or tOSU. This just shows how myopic college football fans can be. 
 
I will be curious to see what ratings look like next year. You mentioned IR8 ratings as being decent. It will be interesting to see what they are when the games are on down cable channels and when Texas fans interested in their conference competitors are tuning in to MSU-Auburn instead of OSU-WVU. 

['stache 21591]

1 hour ago, closetohumping said:

I don’t even care that ou does it.  I find it flattering to our program. 

That's my take, never understood why some get so riled up. It reminds me of 2011 when ISU ruined our perfect season and rushed the field and tore down the goalposts. It meant to me that we were finally good enough to merit that kind of celebration from an opponent. UCF rushed the field this year too after kicking our ass. Opponents only care if you're good, beating OSU was never a big deal to anyone until the last 15 years or so.

[dec3169 501]

3 hours ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

Also... anybody notice the premier SEC team in Texas notably missing from that graphic?

former premier

[Deej 76219]

47 minutes ago, 'stache said:

That's my take, never understood why some get so riled up. It reminds me of 2011 when ISU ruined our perfect season and rushed the field and tore down the goalposts. It meant to me that we were finally good enough to merit that kind of celebration from an opponent. UCF rushed the field this year too after kicking our ass. Opponents only care if you're good, beating OSU was never a big deal to anyone until the last 15 years or so.

Some of us got riled up about horns down not being an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty when guns down or thumbs down was. Either call it all or call none of it, but it was typical Big 12 bullshit. 

['stache 21591]

15 minutes ago, Deej said:

Some of us got riled up about horns down not being an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty when guns down or thumbs down was. Either call it all or call none of it, but it was typical Big 12 bullshit. 

I always assumed it was a taunting or unsportsmanlike penalty if done to the opponents face or sideline but not to teammates and home fans. I’ve never seen guns down or thumbs down and did t realize that was a thing. I see it the same as current NFL rules in over the top celebrations. Taunting an opponent or delaying the game is a penalty, otherwise it’s fine. 

[Deej 76219]

Just now, 'stache said:

I always assumed it was a taunting or unsportsmanlike penalty if done to the opponents face or sideline but not to teammates and home fans. I’ve never seen guns down or thumbs down and did t realize that was a thing. I see it the same as current NFL rules in over the top celebrations. Taunting an opponent or delaying the game is a penalty, otherwise it’s fine. 

I specifically remember Texas being penalized against Tech for guns down in a game where one of they didn't get called for horns down. 

[PvilleStang 2810]

14 minutes ago, Deej said:

I specifically remember Texas being penalized against Tech for guns down in a game where one of they didn't get called for horns down. 

Quote

Maybe not worth a new post but thought it'd be easier to find for a day or two. If you feel like arguing with the idiots that keep bringing this up, maybe this will help.
40:40 - The TD play where Davis holsters his shooty fingers.
41:03 - The first holstering.
41:12 - The second holstering in the endzone celebration with his buds.
41:35 - Ref announces penalty. (Announcers guess wrong about why.)
42:36 - After break, announcers say why he was penalized.

 

[66BUFF 2539]

Thought the whole guns penalty came from the NCAA "Miami Rule" in 1991.  They talked about all of these in the 30 for 30 The U.

[Mitch Cumsteen 18413]

4 hours ago, closetojumping said:

Also, "slowly drive them into a ditch" might be accurate, but take a look at what they're bringing back and their 2024 schedule and tell me that 10-2 (or better) is more likely than 8-5 (or worse). 

From what I can tell, they lost all four starters on the dline, their best LB and three DBs. I guess they go as Klubnik and that offense goes, and I don't trust him at all. Deshaun Watson and Trevor Lawrence aren't walking though that door. And even if they were, they don't have the dynamic playmakers at WR that they used to and they've never been dominant on the OL. How on earth can Dabo not even fart in the general direction of the portal? It's gross negligence at this point.

Aug. 31: vs. Georgia (Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta)
Sept. 7: vs. APPALACHIAN STATE
Sept. 14: Open Date
Sept. 21: vs. NC STATE
Sept. 28: vs. STANFORD
Oct. 5: at Florida State
Oct. 12: at Wake Forest
Oct. 19: vs. VIRGINIA
Oct. 26: Open Date
Nov. 2: vs. LOUISVILLE
Nov. 9: at Virginia Tech
Nov. 16: at Pitt
Nov. 23: vs. THE CITADEL
Nov. 30: vs. SOUTH CAROLINA

The schedule is obviously hot garbage. Georgia is the only certain L. They should be a dog against Florida State - on the road, DJU revenge game. They don't play Miami, UNC or Notre Dame. I don't know that I can find three more L's there. No idea what Louisville, NC State, Virginia Tech or Scar bring back. 

But hell... they were 4-4 in that dog ass conference last season and lost to Duke, got hot in November, but still barely beat a very middling Kentucky in the Gator Bowl. They can easily fall prey to the typical week-in/week-out ups and downs of a college football season. They can't just out-talent the rest of this conference any more, and everybody on their schedule has them circled. As a mensa member once said, "Winning is hard." It's even harder when you willfully ignore available avenues to upgrade your roster, and your coach isn't much of an x's and o's guy to begin with.
 

[Wulaw Horn 18919]

I don’t see anyone else making this point- but if it’s made already then sorry. 
the big 12 was being propped up by Texas and OU fans even in games Texas and OU didn’t play in, and Texas viewership was being tamped down by the schedule. 
think about it- how many OsU v KSU type games did you watch as a Texas fan because we share a conference with then and would play them some day- or it would affect our conference position?  Tons. I will never watch that game again. 
I bet Texas v OU does 10-20% more viewing next year when it’s in the SEC than it did when it was in the big 12. 
Auburn fans that never watched us play tech will tune in to watch us play ole Miss because now it’s a conference game. This is getting ignored and undersold imo. 

[cochamps 1868]

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

I always assumed it was a taunting or unsportsmanlike penalty if done to the opponents face or sideline but not to teammates and home fans. I’ve never seen guns down or thumbs down and did t realize that was a thing. I see it the same as current NFL rules in over the top celebrations. Taunting an opponent or delaying the game is a penalty, otherwise it’s fine. 

It should be called this way.  I beleive the Rig 12 interpretation is that Horns down is not called, but if a Texas player does a downward hand signal it's a 15 yard penalty.

[cochamps 1868]

7 hours ago, closetojumping said:

Most UT fans enjoy the horns down nonsense. It's rent free shit when I see it on tv. In person, I laugh it off with everyone but OU and view it as an invitation to talk shit to someone. I see horns down in crowd shots of NFL games and I find things like that gratifying. 

We're all embarrassed by Terry's weak shit from the UCF game. It just fuels stupid discussions in the media that our collective athletes and fanbase worry about it, and we don't. 

Truly embarrassing.

[Guest]

On 1/25/2024 at 10:05 AM, Al_4_ISU said:

My dream for college football is for the 18 teams in the first graphic to just be their own division.  One TV network owns all of it.  All the blue bloods can play each other, no one has to bitch about lame home games or leeches or whatever.  You don't have these schools (Purdue, Miss St, etc) that were just born on 3rd base thinking they hit a triple.  No one outside of those 18 is a winning a natty anyhow.

The rest of what's the current P4 can reorganize in a geographically logical fashion and play for it's own championship, which would still draw a ton of eyes.  

There would be far more parity, better playoffs, etc.  Whichever network misses the NFL Lite will make a ton of money after schools 19-65 or whatever.

LOLz.  That ain't happening, on the "power schools'" account.  No built in byes or November cupcakes? 12 competitive games, and you know it won't be 8 home games with that set up.

I love the idea, because at this point, they can't make it worse.  That being said, they ain't taking on that obstacle either.

[Guest]

On 1/25/2024 at 10:26 AM, closetojumping said:

You should just save this post and randomly post it again every 5 pages here. That way, you don't have to waste the energy to basically retype the same shit you've been posting on this and the realignment thread for years and if there is anyone on this site that has somehow never seen your plaintive take on all of this, they'll then be informed of it and we can all move on. 

It's all on repeat.  It's not just one poster.

1.  Big Xii is dead.  What they gonna do?

2.  Oh, The Big XII got them hostages, but they still gonna die.

3. Oh The Big XII pulled together and rebuilt a decent, competitive league, wow- the Pac-18( sic) really fucked up.

4. Gotdam ungrateful motherfuckers-  

 

The thread started as a graveyard for the Big XII.  Now it isn't.  Sorry, the world keeps going on...

 

 

Edited January 27 by slorch

[billfromlaketravis 11291]

Rodney Terry acted like bitch made pussy. All those Saturday Down South assholes on Instagram jumped all over it. Texas can't handle SEC fans and other assorted bullshit. Don provided the best advice on Horns down. 

 

[WelfareBuysMyWeed 5321]

On 1/27/2024 at 7:48 AM, slorch said:

3. Oh The Big XII pulled together and rebuilt a decent, competitive league

The decent, competitive league which had no ranked teams this year except those outgoing?

Seems more like the Big 12 built a shitty league full of losers and bitches, more accurately.

Edited January 29 by WelfareBuysMyWeed

[WBT 20280]

On 1/24/2024 at 1:52 PM, Mitch Cumsteen said:

 

Also this:

 

I wonder how the Big 10 is going to draw on CBS vs. the old SEC games going forward.

 

Well I'm convinced.  He definitely teased out all of the relative factors.  No nores.

[statsman 5355]

The B12’s best chance at making it is if its members embrace the concept of the “good west Texas marriage”- a recognition that they have no better options. 
 
When TT fans think of how much fun it was to storm the field after beating Texas, ISU fans think of the nation watching them beat Texas at night in Ames, OSU fans remember throwing goal posts in the pond after beating OU, they need to realize those times were fun, but they’re gone.
 
The worst thing they can do would be to think their programs deserve to exist at that level of relevance. They don’t. They need to start figuring out how to price games so 35,000 will buy tickets to watch Southern Missouri visit Lubbock. They need to get the campus community excited about that Thursday night showdown in Stillwater with TCU. 

[closetohumping 17302]

On 1/27/2024 at 5:48 AM, slorch said:

It's all on repeat.  It's not just one poster.

1.  Big Xii is dead.  What they gonna do?

2.  Oh, The Big XII got them hostages, but they still gonna die.

3. Oh The Big XII pulled together and rebuilt a decent, competitive league, wow- the Pac-18( sic) really fucked 

 

The thread started as a graveyard for the Big XII.  Now it isn't.  Sorry, the world keeps going on...

 

 

You make it sound like the big 12 is still around because your schools have gravitas.  You don’t.  Two of the main reasons you care here is because of pac 12 leadership and usc stabbing its conference mates in the back. Have you seen the ratings of non Texas big 12 games?

 

we will see how this plays out during the next contract negotiation 

[Guest]

" because Texas."

keep insisting bro.  We aren't crying.  and yes, most folks posting in the thread are absolutely aware of the changes.

[BurntEyes 5654]

On 1/25/2024 at 11:33 AM, 'stache said:

It's one of the advantages of some of the Big 10 state schools. Wisconsin is the sole university playing high level football in that state. Ohio State and Penn State have the same advantage (Minnesota too but they haven't been relevant in decades, although they won a national title at some point since aggy last did). Wisconsin to me feels a lot like Oklahoma State, had some really high level success, but rarely  got over the hump (edit: looks like they won a few conference titles 2010-12 but the fact I had to look that up shows its not as prominent as tOSU, UM, PSU). But they have much higher population, enrollment, and lack of in state competition to prop them up. It's not all that surprising to me. They're probably the 18th school on that list.

Something often missed on Wisconsin is how close it is to Chicagoland. The bulk of the grads end up in Chicago. When you couple that with lack of real in state player (Illinois and Northwestern are winning shit), the bulk of the population turns their college love elsewhere. In Chicago, ND is the closest to the "In State home team" with a chance. Then Ohio State and Michigan fans are the next most common fan base. 

 

In Chicago market that leaves a good deal of folks tuned into Wisconsin, whether they are playing UM or OSU or just because they have a large alumni in the town. It's a curious dynamic for a really large TV market.

[LTtxfan 48727]

As long as the B12 football champion gets an automatic bid into the CFP, it will continue to be fun watching some of the better B12 games each year...

[BurntEyes 5654]

On 1/25/2024 at 5:41 PM, Wulaw Horn said:

I don’t see anyone else making this point- but if it’s made already then sorry. 
the big 12 was being propped up by Texas and OU fans even in games Texas and OU didn’t play in, and Texas viewership was being tamped down by the schedule. 
think about it- how many OsU v KSU type games did you watch as a Texas fan because we share a conference with then and would play them some day- or it would affect our conference position?  Tons. I will never watch that game again. 
I bet Texas v OU does 10-20% more viewing next year when it’s in the SEC than it did when it was in the big 12. 
Auburn fans that never watched us play tech will tune in to watch us play ole Miss because now it’s a conference game. This is getting ignored and undersold imo. 

Hah, well, I just made a similar point with the Badgers and the Chicago/Midwest market.

[statsman 5355]

5 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

As long as the B12 football champion gets an automatic bid into the CFP, it will continue to be fun watching some of the better B12 games each year...

The better Big 12 games will involve Utah, CU and the Arizona schools. 

[LTtxfan 48727]

16 minutes ago, statsman said:

The better Big 12 games will involve Utah, CU and the Arizona schools. 

Not necessarily... in 2024, kstate, jayhawks, okie lite, toads, and tech should all have competitive teams.

And the "Surly Fritz Fan" will keep us up to date on cougar high...  😋