Big 12 thread

OlyDuck said:
being the most valuable doesnt make them an anchor. just the most valuable. the 2 things arent mutually exclusive. being a "blue blood" doesnt make them an anchor. that is a true statement across the Big XII, Big Ten and SEC. but not so much the Pac and ACC.
Click to expand...

LMAO!!

Like I said "You don't get it".
 
UCLA is a blueblood basketball team.. and I personally feel Stanford is an anchor because they play so many sports and seem to do pretty well in them outside football (consistently at least)
 
Kevin12773 said:
College Football Dance GIF by ESPN
Click to expand...
bitb01.png
 
OlyDuck said:
in the last decade plus there hasnt really been one
Click to expand...
True. Texas hasn't been one during that time frame either. But the SEC still gladly took them. None of this has been driven by the quality of football during the last decade. Absolutely NONE of it.
 
Deep Creek said:
None of this has been driven by the quality of football during the last decade. Absolutely NONE of it.
Click to expand...
All of these teams had 100 Years to get better.
They didn't.
Or waited too damn long to do it. Looking at you Oklahoma State and Oregon

They chose not to, and live off the Conference payouts, and play their role and lose to the big boys.



Too fucking bad now I guess
 
Red_Alert said:
LMAO!!

Like I said "You don't get it".
Click to expand...
I get that people have a belief of "college football is better when Notre Dame is good" "...when USC is good" "...when Texas is good" but the same people will say "we need more diverse teams in the playoff" look at a team who went 4-8 and put them in the top 25 on name alone
 
outofyourmind said:
All of these teams had 100 Years to get better.
They didn't.
Or waited too damn long to do it. Looking at you Oklahoma State and Oregon

They chose not to, and live off the Conference payouts, and play their role and lose to the big boys.



Too fucking bad now I guess
Click to expand...
coulndt have had anything to do with things like Scholarship and signing limits
 
outofyourmind said:
nope
everyone has those
Click to expand...
and the teams that used to sign higher numbers could no longer sign everyone and those kids started going to other programs. those programs started doing better and other kids started signing to the programs that never had a chance at them prior.
 
OlyDuck said:
and the teams that used to sign higher numbers could no longer sign everyone and those kids started going to other programs. those programs started doing better and other kids started signing to the programs that never had a chance at them prior.
Click to expand...
I guess you are going somewhere with that.
My question stands: Why did Oregon sit around for a Hundred Years doing nothing about it.
 
outofyourmind said:
I guess you are going somewhere with that.
My question stands: Why did Oregon sit around for a Hundred Years doing nothing about it.
Click to expand...
yeah thats what they were doing.
there was also the advancement in technology that changed things. traveling for recruiting. exposure for the recruits and for the schools.
 
CorpRebel said:
Come On Reaction GIF by GIPHY News


You KNOW it's REALLY about the "unis" ... Get with it!!! :dhd:
Click to expand...
Even for an old fart, I like SOME of these so called alt unis.

But, some of those unis are so ugly the players have to pull their pants down every few minutes just to let their ass laugh for a while.
 
OlyDuck said:
yeah thats what they were doing.
there was also the advancement in technology that changed things. traveling for recruiting. exposure for the recruits and for the schools.
Click to expand...

What are you going on about exactly.
Every team had the exact same challenges.

Some teams made 'right decisions' generations ago, and some teams made the 'wrong decisions' generations ago.

It's that simple
Oregon is in the latter
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Up until 5 minutes ago, I would have agreed 100% with you, bet the house. Then I read this:

theathletic.com

Mandel: Pac-12's TV numbers indicate its future might not be so dire

Television numbers indicate the Pac-12 isn't necessarily in a weaker position than the Big 12.
theathletic.com theathletic.com

It's a paywall, but it basically says the PAC, without UCLA and USC are better off. There are a number of reasons, but 2 stand out to me:

- The simple fact is that OUT and TX are much better revenue draws than USC and UCLA, at least in the past 6 years when they sucked. This means the B12 is losing more from their two departing teams. It's kind of a back-handed insult to USC and UCLA.

- PAC after Dark - evidently it really draws the eyeballs.

Taking the games against the teams that are leaving out of the counts, here are the average viewers:

View attachment 79296
Click to expand...

He skewed the numbers. He compared all tiers of Big 12 games against tier 1 and 2 of the Pac. If you were to add in the Pac 12 network games or take away whatever garbage we had on FS2 the numbers go the other direction.

He manipulated data and tried to pass it off as fact.
 
outofyourmind said:
What are you going on about exactly.
Every team had the exact same challenges.

Some teams made 'right decisions' generations ago, and some teams made the 'wrong decisions' generations ago.

It's that simple
Oregon is in the latter
Click to expand...
same challenges? really?
Oregon may have been able to get some Cali kids due to going to games at those schools but what maybe 2 a year where as those schools could recruit them all year long much easier.
 
Cowboyinexile said:
He skewed the numbers. He compared all tiers of Big 12 games against tier 1 and 2 of the Pac. If you were to add in the Pac 12 network games or take away whatever garbage we had on FS2 the numbers go the other direction.

He manipulated data and tried to pass it off as fact.
Click to expand...
do you have those numbers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top