What would you do if CFB created a "Super League"

Volbound1700 said:
In many ways, Missouri cultural fits better with UK, Tennessee, and Vandy versus SEC West opponents. The only SEC West matchups that Missouri fans have any connection to are Arkansas and Texas A&M. The later more due to the Big12 connection.

Missouri is interesting because they have been far more successful in Football than I expected but far less successful in basketball then I expected. Missouri basketball looked like a good add to the SEC who needs stronger basketball programs but Missouri really hasn't done much on the hardwood since joining the SEC.
Click to expand...
check out secrant.. i think you must be a closet mizzu fan if you think they mesh well
 
Thiefery said:
Why would UM be sweating for? because they haven't won a title since 97? It's not like they have had a long stretch of losing seasons either. They clearly are in the top group of the BIG with tosu and psu. And SC sweating?? C'mon man, they are one of the bluest of blue bloods out here. If they were to leave the PAC..the Pac would implode.
Click to expand...

That's why I say, what are the parameters and who decides?

I've seen Oregon and aTm mentioned as being part of that. Oregon's success started about the time Michigan won their last title. Does that get them in over Michigan? Depends on the parameters and who's deciding. Are they weighing recent success heavier than overall success?

USC could be in an odd spot and would probably slip in there because even though they've been down, it's not like they've been finishing last or have a bunch of losing seasons...even squeezed in a PAC-12 title and a Rose Bowl win. But they also haven't exactly been relevant either.

Michigan is in a similar position. They haven't been terrible. But like USC, they haven't been relevant and when they've had their chances against the current top teams, they've mostly lost and usually...lost badly.
 
trojanfan12 said:
That's why I say, what are the parameters and who decides?

I've seen Oregon and aTm mentioned as being part of that. Oregon's success started about the time Michigan won their last title. Does that get them in over Michigan? Depends on the parameters and who's deciding. Are they weighing recent success heavier than overall success?

USC could be in an odd spot and would probably slip in there because even though they've been down, it's not like they've been finishing last or have a bunch of losing seasons...even squeezed in a PAC-12 title and a Rose Bowl win. But they also haven't exactly been relevant either.

Michigan is in a similar position. They haven't been terrible. But like USC, they haven't been relevant and when they've had their chances against the current top teams, they've mostly lost and usually...lost badly.
Click to expand...

If you are looking at all-time rankings, Colorado, UCLA, and Washington should all definitely be ahead of Oregon. You could make arguments for Arizona State, Cal, and Stanford as well. Oregon is a flavor of the month in all of history but they have been a flavor long enough that they have kind of established themselves and their future looks brighter than any other Pac12 team not named USC.

USC is to the Pac12 in Football what Kentucky is to the SEC in Basketball. They are a marathon ahead of everyone else when you factor football success all-time.
 
Thiefery said:
Why would UM be sweating for? because they haven't won a title since 97? It's not like they have had a long stretch of losing seasons either. They clearly are in the top group of the BIG with tosu and psu. And SC sweating?? C'mon man, they are one of the bluest of blue bloods out here. If they were to leave the PAC..the Pac would implode.

LOL have you been to Austin? and news flash.. Houston is turning into "Austin" as well.. biggest cities of Texas all are. But I guess you mean a culture fit like College station is what the SEC is all about? And I'm not gonna even take a shot at aggys.. but they aren't slowly replacing UT as the flagship no more than Vanderbilt is replacing a craptastic two decade TN.

Also UT doesn't need ou to survive just as much as ou doesn't need UT.. they both survived a long time without being in the same conference. and the RRS will always be played, regardless. Yeah you are right, ou is "destroying" UT every year even though they have all been one possession games.. wonder what you call Bama vs TN? abomination?
Click to expand...


UT Austin, as a campus, is a lot like University of Colorado at Boulder. That is why they want to be in Pac12. Texas A&M, not so much.

Vanderbilt to Tennessee is not a far comparison. A better example would be Memphis (if they were in a real league) who has had the most success out of any Tennessee program lately.

Texas, without Oklahoma, has no one to really play in a marquee game unless they schedule OOC game. The RRSO is the best thing you guys have going right now. The league should have done more to keep Nebraska, Colorado, and others. Perhaps not screwing everyone over with a Longhorn Network and sharing revenues.

Granted, I think the hissy fits were mutual and Nebraska/A&M/Colorado, etc. are just as much to blame as Texas. The original Big12 was far better than the league is now. If done, correctly, it could have worked. The fact is the Big12 lost a top ten historical football power in Nebraska, the #2 program in most sports and fanbase from Texas, the only state school in Missouri with the St Louis and Kansas City Markets, and the #1 program in Colorado and Denver area who also has a top 25 all-time football program.

That was quite a blow to the league. Big12 is still stout in Basketball since you keep some of the stronger programs from that sport in the league but the exchange has hurt you in Football.
 
Volbound1700 said:
If you are looking at all-time rankings, Colorado, UCLA, and Washington should all definitely be ahead of Oregon. You could make arguments for Arizona State, Cal, and Stanford as well. Oregon is a flavor of the month in all of history but they have been a flavor long enough that they have kind of established themselves and their future looks brighter than any other Pac12 team not named USC.

USC is to the Pac12 in Football what Kentucky is to the SEC in Basketball. They are a marathon ahead of everyone else when you factor football success all-time.
Click to expand...
How long is a team a "flavor of the month" vs established?
since mid 90s Oregon has had like 2 losing seasons. i feel like over 25 years its hard to call them a flavor of the month vs a team who might be good for like 2 or 3 years only like what Mangino had at Kansas or Petrinio at Louisville
 
Volbound1700 said:
No they weren't. They were stuck with the option go West or be left floundering.

BTW, Texas A&M will supplant Texas... it is just a matter of time. Kind of like politics, the old farts take years to get convinced. Here is the advantages A&M has versus Texas:

1. More success on the field currently and more potential for on the field success in the future (A&M is projected to be in top 15 going into this season and I think they have a great chance to finish as high as #2 in SEC West behind only Alabama)
2. Far more attractive opponents on their schedule (Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, LSU, etc.). The only major power program on Texas' schedule in-conference is Oklahoma. (There are good teams like Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas State, etc. but they just don't have the fans, tv ratings, or tradition to get a lot of views. You have programs like Arkansas in the SEC who have stunk in recent years but still have more fans and a stronger brand).
3. Politics/Culture - UT Austin doesn't really fit Texan culture. With how liberal the school is, I can see them doing some stupid Woke thing that will turn off most of the Longhorn fan base similar to a Lebron James type move. A&M is far less likely to do this and the culture at the school is better aligned with most of the Texas culture (notably Texans who would be interested in football).

In reality, Texas needs Oklahoma to survive. The sad thing is Oklahoma is destroying Texas year-in and year-out. Even Baylor and TCU have had better programs in recent history. The only thing that Texas has going for them is the fact that they are called the University of Texas and their tradition.
Click to expand...
Have you been around aggies for any extended period of time?
 
how come A&M seems like a better team now in the SEC than when they were in the Big XII? I heard the SEC was tougher
 
OlyDuck said:
How long is a team a "flavor of the month" vs established?
since mid 90s Oregon has had like 2 losing seasons. i feel like over 25 years its hard to call them a flavor of the month vs a team who might be good for like 2 or 3 years only like what Mangino had at Kansas or Petrinio at Louisville
Click to expand...

That's part of the issue. Oregon has had success, but much of that earlier success, especially during the Pete Carroll era was overshadowed by USC. So a lot of folks don't consider it, especially outside of the PAC.

Also, if you give Oregon 25 years, that's still not much compared to pretty much all of the traditional "blue bloods".

In a lot of ways, Oregon is kind of the "fly in the ointment" with this. They've been successful enough for long enough that you not only can't ignore them, but might have to strongly consider not including someone that otherwise might be to get them in.
 
trojanfan12 said:
That's part of the issue. Oregon has had success, but much of that earlier success, especially during the Pete Carroll era was overshadowed by USC. So a lot of folks don't consider it, especially outside of the PAC.

Also, if you give Oregon 25 years, that's still not much compared to pretty much all of the traditional "blue bloods".

In a lot of ways, Oregon is kind of the "fly in the ointment" with this. They've been successful enough for long enough that you not only can't ignore them, but might have to strongly consider not including someone that otherwise might be to get them in.
Click to expand...
thats why college football is weird to me. fans will call for a coach to be fired after a bad season 3 years removed from a National Championship but 25 years of success is too little.
oregon is top 10 in win % since 2000 but because of earlier years they are viewed as just a fly by night team.
 
Deep Creek said:
I'm too lazy to look but I think they are doing about the same.
Click to expand...
more consistent now. 9, 8, 9, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 11
but in Big XII it was like 6, 9, 6, 4, 7, 9, 7, 4
 
OlyDuck said:
hats why college football is weird to me. fans will call for a coach to be fired after a bad season 3 years removed from a National Championship but 25 years of success is too little.
Click to expand...

There's a reason fan is short for fanatic. lol

OlyDuck said:
oregon is top 10 in win % since 2000 but because of earlier years they are viewed as just a fly by night team.
Click to expand...

Agree. But you have to consider that most of the "blue blood" teams go back to the early 1900's. So, as impressive as Oregon has been, it's still considered "short term success" by a lot of folks. Kind of like a 30 year old who thinks he's seen a lot and then talks to someone who's 75 about what they've seen. lol
 
Volbound1700 said:
We already have a SUPER league. It is called the SEC :).
Click to expand...
What's so SUPER about playing more home games vs D2 Schools and traveling ~less than 500 miles in total for all road games every year?

OlyDuck said:
how come A&M seems like a better team now in the SEC than when they were in the Big XII? I heard the SEC was tougher
Click to expand...
See the above
 
OlyDuck said:
How long is a team a "flavor of the month" vs established?
since mid 90s Oregon has had like 2 losing seasons. i feel like over 25 years its hard to call them a flavor of the month vs a team who might be good for like 2 or 3 years only like what Mangino had at Kansas or Petrinio at Louisville
Click to expand...

College football has been around for 120 years. Oregon not winning a Title also doesn't help. UCLA and Washington both have National Titles. I think Stanford does as well but don't quote me on that. I also think those schools have more Pac12 titles all-time than Oregon.
 
OlyDuck said:
how come A&M seems like a better team now in the SEC than when they were in the Big XII? I heard the SEC was tougher
Click to expand...

A&M has a couple of Big12 titles. How many SEC Title game appearances do they have?
 
Volbound1700 said:
A&M has a couple of Big12 titles. How many SEC Title game appearances do they have?
Click to expand...
you mean one... in 1998. But regardless, they would most likely be in a super league as well. They are clearly the second largest school behind UT in the state.

A super league in CFB would not look like the one that was attempted in soccer. To make a CFB superleague really work.. You would still have individual conf/divisions of 8-10 schools. West, SW, SE,MW, North and East.
 
Thiefery said:
you mean one... in 1998. But regardless, they would most likely be in a super league as well. They are clearly the second largest school behind UT in the state.

A super league in CFB would not look like the one that was attempted in soccer. To make a CFB superleague really work.. You would still have individual conf/divisions of 8-10 schools. West, SW, SE,MW, North and East.
Click to expand...

Aggies where in two Big12 Title games. They have 0 appearances in the SEC. Now Mizzou is about even with 2 appearances in the Title Game for both the Big12 and SEC and Mizzou failed to win either league.

In truth, it is all about coaching. Get the right coach and it makes a world of difference. Take Alabama and compare pre-Saban and Saban eras or Oklahoma prior to Bob Stoops and after Bob Stoops. That is one of Texas' (and Tennessee's) main issues right now. Neither program has hit the coaching lottery. Tennessee has had laughable picks, I think all of our past 3 coaches are ranked in the top 15 all-time worse coaching hires. (Dooley, Jones, Pruitt). Texas A&M had a great coach in 1990s and was very competitive in Big12 (it also helped that OU and Texas were down). A&M struggled in the 2000s but they did have some good teams the last 3-4 years in the league.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top