A Full merger wouldn't be badOriginally Posted by DelMarSooner
|
|
A Full merger wouldn't be bad
It's what we're going towards anyways.
An 80 team League that negotiates as a single entity. With regional "conferences" just like the NFL has.
"Historically underachieving programs" can't overachieve. They either live up to their potential or don't. What makes them underachieving in the first place is that they have all these built-in advantages and can't do **** with them. That's A&M, historically. You couldn't find a more pristine example in CFB.
And yes, it's true, Miami, prior to Schnellenberger, was an underachieving program. But what they did was live up to their full potential. They are no longer considered an underachieving program or even anything short of a Helmet School. They won 5 national titles over a span of 20 years.
That places them 4th or 5th on the all time list.
Objectively, it's beyond comical to compare yourself to Miami.
Texas A&M is more like UCLA.
With less attractive cheerleaders.
4 users like OrlandoSooner's post: BoulderSooner, keefsmangledfingers, lauderdaleOU, nstinson
Don't like it. too many teams and too much dead weight.
Need to take best 14-16 teams from the 2 conferences, you could rival the SEC.
The following users like this post: Sooner 4 Life
No. I am comparing A&M to Miami in the sense that programs can drastically overhaul and redefine themselves. I don't think A&M will ever accomplish anything close to what Miami did.
Texas A&M - 1997, 1998, 2010, 2012 Big 12 Champs*
You won't be able to do that. The SEC has too many power programs even if you took your choice of the best from both of those leagues.
Texas A&M - 1997, 1998, 2010, 2012 Big 12 Champs*
West
OU
Texas
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor
KU
KSU
OSU
East
Florida State
Miami
Clemson
GT
VT
UNC
NCST
WVU
Ill take that against the SEC
4 users like T-town Sooner's post: HudBannon, lauderdaleOU, MadMex, Pardner
I've been trying to place who you remind me of... I finally got it.
You Sir, are an Anti-Cyclone-ite!!! Next you will be saying they should have their school!!
aggy may never accomplish what the Canes did between 1983 and 2001, but if your signature is indicative, I have faith that you guys will claim you accomplished similar things.
4 users like Camel at Sea's post: DarrellS011, nstinson, Stein7495, TeLeFaWx
I'd rather a merger happen with the Pac than ACC. Outside of Miami and Florida State, none of the ACC has ever been strong at football. The same cannot be said of USC, UCLA, Washington, Stanford, Arizona State, etc..
I'm going to say it one more time - OU in the Pac would be a massive boon for recruiting. New California recruiting connections, plus selling Texas kids on playing games in LA, Palo Alto, Seattle, Boulder, etc. -- "Would you rather play in Starkville or in the Coliseum?"
2 users like DelMarSooner's post: krock918316, oubozfan44
Honestly? When it comes to FOOTBALL, you'd be surprised at how many of these kids would pick Starkville. And, as a football fan, I would go to Starkville 10 times out of 10 before I'd choose to go to LA... And, I've been to Seattle for the OU/Washington game... Seattle is a great city and all, but they could care less about college football. They had clam chowder served in a ****ing bread bowl at the stadium, for ****'s sake... Nah, give me cowbells and BBQ and a place that cares about football.
I hope we avoid the Pac...
If you're looking at it historically, there isn't a lot of difference between the ACC and PAC on the football field. Miami has 5 titles . FSU has two. Georgia Tech has two. Clemson has one. Syracuse and Pitt have a bunch of ancient history titles. VaTech played for one in 1999 and has been in the BCS a bunch over the last decade. How much does the average TX HS kid prefer west coast cities over South Beach, Atlanta, Boston, etc.?
The following users like this post: sooner68
I similar mistake was made in 1996 by including all of the Big 8 and only some of the SWC. if Arky and TCU would have been in the Big 12 instead of ISU and CU Big 12 would have been much better off. Same applies now, cut fat from both sides and merge.
Arky had already left years earlier for the SEC and TCU was as down as a program could get in the final years of the SWC. I think one bowl bid in 30 years. Back then you'd have to go back to the Bud Wilkinson era at OU to look out nationally and see a really strong TCU.
And Colorado wasn't that far removed from a Nat'l Title. No way you take TCU over Colorado in that situation.
The following users like this post: BoulderSooner
For example, Texas A&M has a 24 game win streak against TCU. 23 of those came in the final 23 years of the SWC. TCU is Purple Baylor. Small private schools with tiny stadiums, competing with a plethora of historical programs in their backyard, will never be elite. TCU has taken a step forward by finding an excellent coach that wins with mediocre talent in a conference that takes the advantane of having to face mediocre talent of crappy surrounding states, now that they are back in over their heads, they will return to old form, or Baylor without RG3 form. Its Bill Snyder and K-State but different.
Texas A&M - 1997, 1998, 2010, 2012 Big 12 Champs*
You are really underestimating TCU. They pulled off your last Big 12 record despite losing 15% of their roster including half a dozen starters and an all american caliber LB and QB.
Also it's laughable you look down on KSU- your Big 12 track record was nearly identical to theirs.
The following users like this post: Sooner 4 Life
For the long term stability of the conference, it would have been better if CU went to the PAC in the early 90's. They never fit in. Big 12 should have formed as i listed before arky left the SWC for the SEC.
Even without Arky having CU bolt at the onset would have filled their spot with BYU and more stability.
Absolutely no way I would take Baylor or TCU over Iowa State. None.
The following users like this post: OU812
I wouldn't mind a merger with the ACC as long as we purge the trash (Baylor, tcu,etc). OU,ku, tx, tech, osu,isu, ksu added to the best of the ACC. I would reluctantly agree to keep wvu if it meant we could kick baylors **** to the curb. This conference is way too regional and we have too many tx schools.
i agree that his conference is "way too regional". We have superfluousness schools in the states of Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. However, both KU and K-state bring something to the table. I don't think OU would kick OSU to the curb, so that leaves TCU and Baylor as I think we should have 2 in the state of Texas. Iowa St is one of our few AAU members, and at least is in a different market even if it's a tiny market.
Baylor and TCU are both private schools, not that big, and don't have that big of followings and aren't academic powerhouses like say a Rice or a Tulane (which matters to school presidents...I don't give a damn....I would never put on a resume "I went to OU and we are in an athletic conference with AAU member Rice" if they were in the conference). If there were a merger, I wouldn't cry over losing either.
The following users like this post: OU812
Most Sooner fans look down on TCU, KSU, and the rest of the Big 12 minus Texas who are close to our equals. The reason, TRADITION. OU and Texas have it, Baylor and TCU and KSU and the rest of the Big 12 doesn't. Most Sooner fans want this conference to change, go away, or just blow up because it's hurt OU recently, ala your point on track record in the Big 12. Just go ahead and chant GOR, because in ten years it's all you'll have with no conference left.
1- I was responding to the aggie which makes the criticism more applicable.
2- I find it funny that you look down on all these schools yet are so in love with the p16 which would stick you in a division with playing equal or worse programs to ksu, ku, bu, and tcu like asu, az, cu, and Utah. Yes USC is a peer but the other 11.... maybe Oregon at most but both wouldn't be played very often.
I completely wish Arky had been able to be in the big 12 originally. OU games in fayetteville bi-annually would have been just off the walls nuts. It would be great to see OU own the hogs so just because for some reason they devote their lives to hating Oklahoma. So much jealousy and envy over there.
Meh. We won the Big 12 before. I don't see TCU doing that too soon.
Texas A&M - 1997, 1998, 2010, 2012 Big 12 Champs*
There is a football or even an athletics argument. And then there is everything else. The Pac-12/16 argument for most of us Sooner fans is about a lot more than football. It would do wonders for our academics and our state. The athletic argument can't really be taken all by itself, in that sense. This ISN'T just about football or any sport when discussing OU potentially making that PAC-12/16 move. And just because some OU fan wants to speak only about the football aspect doesn't mean it's as simple as that for most of the rest of us.
The following users like this post: DelMarSooner
1 in 16 yrs. Tcu will have at least that success
Id much rather add FSU GT Clemson and Miami to big 12 then join ACC with a few other big 12 schools. Baylor and TCU in the conference is good for us. I have no problem with a quick trip down to Waco to hang out a Crickets before them game rather than than going to Utah every other year.
"There is no such thing as strong beer, only week men"
Everyone makes too big a deal out of private school status. Being a non-public can be an ****et when the boosters and administration care about winning. For a long time in both Waco and Ft. Worth, leadership didn't care. That has changed.
Both Baylor and TCU have Top 20 coaches who are very well paid, both have (or soon will have) new stadiums and top of the line facilities, both sit in the middle of extremely fertile recruiting grounds, both have sent good players into the NFL recently, and both have experienced a lot of national success over the last couple years (TCU won the Rose Bowl, RGIII won a Heisman).
Keep what's left of the Big 8 intact.
This message is hidden because x97 is on your ignore list.Ahhh...much better.This message is hidden because TeLeFaWx is on your ignore list.
11 users like Trip's post: CCSooner, IndySooner, lauderdaleOU, lycao, Mephistopheles, OSULadyCowboy, OU812, Pardner, Redhawk, SoonerChef, TeLeFaWx
The Fort Worth story made a lot of sense about "been here, done that before" about scheduling as a precursor.
The problem with the analogy is that when we did that last time, none of the other conferences were really going through many changes and there wasn't this big rush to scarf up the best teams -- not to mention that was nowhere near the money at stake as there is now.
The Big 12 better get off its collective **** and make a move and I don't mean only with scheduling or we're going to be the equivalent of the old SW conference.
The SEC added Arkansas and South Carolina, PSU joined the Big 10... there was quite a bit of movement in the 90's.
Speaking of ACC, Miami and Virginia Tech only joined in 2003:
http://www.gwhatchet.com/2003/07/07/...tech-join-acc/
Florida State joined in 1991. Not a long history of having their three biggest football powers in the conference to say the least.
Funny quote in the above article from July 2003 regarding lawsuits:
In other words, very little came to fruition regarding the original lawsuits.Adding Miami and Virginia Tech to the ACC did not put an end to legal challenges to expansion.
"Our lawsuit is now a certainty. We will pursue this legal action tenaciously and vigorously - seeking remedies on a fast track," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said in a June 30 press release.
Virginia Tech withdrew from the lawsuit when it decided to accept the ACC's invitation. Boston College was dropped as a defendant when they did not receive an official invitation.
The following users like this post: BoulderSooner
Miami also joined the Big East around 1990 or so before jumping to the ACC in 2003.
Some actual realignment news today:
WVSports.com @WVSportsDotCom
#WVU's Oliver Luck says he feel it's important for the #Mountaineers to have eastern partners. "We would favor more teams east of the Miss"
WVSports.com @WVSportsDotCom
#WVU's Oliver Luck says he expects more movement in conference realignment. "I don't think any of us think it's over", Luck said.
These quotes are from a radio interview today (no link to interview). WV Sports ended with this comment:
WVSports.com @WVSportsDotCom: Oliver Luck will certainly have #WVU and #Big12 fans talking after his comments on conference realignment. Could get interesting.
Has Oliver been talking with the Dude? Or...are they one and the same?
Even when it's coming from an "official source" it's still those ****ing mountaineers.
2 users like LASooner's post: Redhawk, SoonerBounce
It would not surprise me in the least if realignment really heats up very soon. As soon as the B1G makes one more move, all hell is going to break loose with SEC, PAC, and we'll see if the surviver is the Big 12 or ACC (maybe neither). On the surface, it looks like the ACC is the weakest but once the B1G expands, the PAC and SEC are sure to act, and who knows what that will mean:
http://www.thelantern.com/mobile/cam...HhMi8w.twitterOSU President E. Gordon Gee said during a Dec. 5 meeting of OSU’s Athletic Council that there has been ongoing discussion about Big Ten expansion, according to meeting minutes obtained by The Lantern.
Gee told the Athletic Council he believes the collegiate athletic landscape is moving toward three or four super conferences of 16-20 teams, according to the minutes.
ESPN college football reporter Brett McMurphy told The Lantern he believes the Big Ten will be the conference that sets the next wave of conference expansion.
“It all depends on the Big Ten,” McMurphy said. “If (Big Ten commissioner Jim) Delany decides to stay (at 14 teams), then the SEC stays at 14 and the ACC stays at 14, the Pac-12 stays at 12, the Big 12 stays at 10. However, if Delany and the Big Ten go to 16, then I think you’re going to see other conferences react.”
Delany did not return The Lantern’s request for comment.
McMurphy said he believes the Big Ten will ultimately become a 16-team conference, and the expansion could happen sooner rather than later.
“If (Delany) knows 10 years from now, the Big Ten’s going to have 16 schools, then do (they) wait 10 years to add 15 and 16, or do (they) do it now, so (they) can choose who that 15th and 16th team is?” McMurphy said. “Because if you wait five or 10 years from now, you may not have the two schools that you wanted.” and the Big Ten go to 16, then I think you’re going to see other conferences react.”
McMurphy said the Big Ten would most likely draw two teams out of the ACC, the same conference from which it drew Maryland.
If they're going to merge then make it a full merger. At first I thought it would be better to get rid of the bottom feeders but most of the bottom feeders have something to offer. Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, NC State, Syracuse, Virginia, Pitt, Wake Forest and Louisville are all basketball powers. oSu and Iowa State are wrestling powers. Baylor is a good baseball and basketball school. Even with the bottom feeders, we would still be ranked higher than any conference besides the SEC and it would force the B1G, Pac 12 and SEC's hands. I'm not for expansion but the other conferences have already decided to ruin the game of college football as we know it so what the hell, let's get four 24 team major conferences with two twelve team divisions or better yet, four six team divisions and have a full blown playoff like the NFL.
OU should push for a full merger with the ACC and then parlay that into a B1G, SEC or PAC invite, when those leagues feel the need to react.
Couldn't have said it better. That way you can get the ACC to placate the Iowa States, and Baylors of the world ( and their lawyers they like to bring out when threatened ), while we high tail it off to the BIG, or PAC.
I agree. I'm not at all excited about being in any merger of the Big 12 and the ACC. The ACC is weak for a reason. The Big 12 is weak for a reason. We both have too many crappy superfluousness schools. But ours at least make sense. Adding theirs to ours is too many.
We can then use that as cover to join a real conference, of which there is really only 3.
A full merger makes very little sense unless it's the required political price for adding the big fish you need.
I don't have anything against Wake or BC but I don't see them as a part of anything the Big 12 does.
Any current BIG 12 schools come to mind on that?
Both Baylor and Tech per the Tech AD at the time.
If Luck thought it was important for WVU to have teams in the East, shouldn't they have joined an East coast conference? Him being in favor of expansion doesn't mean **** if he doesn't have the influence to get the Big 12 to agree to expand and to pull teams that are otherwise happy in their conference into the Big 12. Since I doubt he can do either, he'll have to wait for either the Big 10 or SEC to make the first move on the ACC like the rest of us.
Also, conference expansion seems like a great time for a school to sue their way out of a grant of rights. Vote no on expansion then if you are overruled, claim that the current conference is not the same conference to which they gave their rights.
Posting Permissions
