Stinkin cheapshot steelers never change
-
Now your argument has shifted from "A&M was on par with Houston and Rice in national perception" to "A&M was not on par with Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska." Well, I never argued the latter so it's pointless to bring up.
I'm pretty sure the 2012 team isn't in the top 5 A&M teams closest to a national championship. We had at least a couple that lost the last game of the season, a bunch of one loss teams, and several that went undefeated. So chalk that up as example #4,174,104,395 of you talking out of your ass.
The happenings of one year are irrelevant long term. Baylor and TCU are not even close to as well suited for success as A&M is going forward.
And yet A&M tried to get the games back on. So you can say all you want "it was A&M's actions that cancelled the games." Sure. Great. But if you're looking for the REASON why the game is NOW not being played, look to Austin.
You claim we are now "groveling" to Texas to get the game back, yet your first post on this subject in this thread said "Tell your AD there to stop playing with his vagina and grow a pair and reschedule what is supposed to be one of the best rivalries in the nation."
So which is it, flip flop? You're going to dance around, split hairs, and argue semantics all day long. Because that's what you do. But the spirit of your original statement was that A&M is too chicken to play Texas ("your school did the typical SEC thing and chickened out on that rivalry."). That has been found manifestly untrue by the facts. If we were "chicken," why would we be "groveling" (both your words) to get the game back? Argument is not your strong suit. That contradiction is about as blatant as the fact that you were dropped on your head about twice a year as a kid.
Pathetically attempting to score points by saying I have a sore vagina does not a good argument make. The article you posted lacked any credibility whatever.
"Well, the discussion was rivalries....the thing that prompted this whole discussion was my listing of what is considered the top rivalries in the game....and then we went to why one that was perceived to be a good one got terminated. "
Actually the discussion followed after I said "we're going to be generally better than Texas going forward," which immediately triggered the butthurt you have towards me. You asked "how do you figure?" So no, our little subdiscussion within this thread did NOT start out as just a "listing of what [you] consider to be the top rivalries in the game." In the future, please attempt to have a better command of the facts before you go spouting off about stuff you really know nothing about. Or at least know to stop arguing prior to contradicting your original statements.
-
Now your argument has shifted from "A&M was on par with Houston and Rice in national perception" to "A&M was not on par with Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska." Well, I never argued the latter so it's pointless to bring up.
I'm pretty sure the 2012 team isn't in the top 5 A&M teams closest to a national championship. We had at least a couple that lost the last game of the season, a bunch of one loss teams, and several that went undefeated. So chalk that up as example #4,174,104,395 of you talking out of your ass.
The happenings of one year are irrelevant long term. Baylor and TCU are not even close to as well suited for success as A&M is going forward.
And yet A&M tried to get the games back on. So you can say all you want "it was A&M's actions that cancelled the games." Sure. Great. But if you're looking for the REASON why the game is NOW not being played, look to Austin.
You claim we are now "groveling" to Texas to get the game back, yet your first post on this subject in this thread said "Tell your AD there to stop playing with his vagina and grow a pair and reschedule what is supposed to be one of the best rivalries in the nation."
So which is it, flip flop? You're going to dance around, split hairs, and argue semantics all day long. Because that's what you do. But the spirit of your original statement was that A&M is too chicken to play Texas ("your school did the typical SEC thing and chickened out on that rivalry."). That has been found manifestly untrue by the facts. If we were "chicken," why would we be "groveling" (both your words) to get the game back? Argument is not your strong suit. That contradiction is about as blatant as the fact that you were dropped on your head about twice a year as a kid.
Pathetically attempting to score points by saying I have a sore vagina does not a good argument make. The article you posted lacked any credibility whatever.
"Well, the discussion was rivalries....the thing that prompted this whole discussion was my listing of what is considered the top rivalries in the game....and then we went to why one that was perceived to be a good one got terminated. "
Actually the discussion followed after I said "we're going to be generally better than Texas going forward," which immediately triggered the butthurt you have towards me. You asked "how do you figure?" So no, our little subdiscussion within this thread did NOT start out as just a "listing of what [you] consider to be the top rivalries in the game." In the future, please attempt to have a better command of the facts before you go spouting off about stuff you really know nothing about. Or at least know to stop arguing prior to contradicting your original statements.
Now your argument has shifted from "A&M was on par with Houston and Rice in national perception" to "A&M was not on par with Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska." Well, I never argued the latter so it's pointless to bring up.
Well, I don't know exactly how to grade them....but I would put A&M historically to being closer on par with Houston and Rice than with TX/OK/NB...they were the weak sisters of the league they were in together.
I'm pretty sure the 2012 team isn't in the top 5 A&M teams closest to a national championship. We had at least a couple that lost the last game of the season, a bunch of one loss teams, and several that went undefeated. So chalk that up as example #4,174,104,395 of you talking out of your ass.
I don't know every detail of every season that A&M has ever played.....but I do know one fact: They have NEVER in my lifetime...which I suspect is about double the length of yours been a factor in the National Championship race. Their 2012 season was their highest season ending AP ranking they have had since 1939.
You can enjoy your alma mater all you want....it has NOT been a major force on the college football scene.
The happenings of one year are irrelevant long term. Baylor and TCU are not even close to as well suited for success as A&M is going forward.
OK....but the happenings long term are relevent long term. And long term A&M has been Barely more of a factor on the national scene than TCU/Baylor.
If you look at the last 10 years in fact here is what you have: Texas A&M: 1 AP Top 10 finish.....Baylor: 1 Top Ten finish....Houston: 1 Top Ten Finish....TCU: 4 Top Ten finishes.
And yet A&M tried to get the games back on. So you can say all you want "it was A&M's actions that cancelled the games." Sure. Great. But if you're looking for the REASON why the game is NOW not being played, look to Austin.
You claim we are now "groveling" to Texas to get the game back, yet your first post on this subject in this thread said "Tell your AD there to stop playing with his vagina and grow a pair and reschedule what is supposed to be one of the best rivalries in the nation."
So which is it, flip flop? You're going to dance around, split hairs, and argue semantics all day long. Because that's what you do. But the spirit of your original statement was that A&M is too chicken to play Texas ("your school did the typical SEC thing and chickened out on that rivalry.").
Right....they chickened out....and now they want back in....and Texas has said no.
You are really arguing with yourself.
The only possible fact that I may have been wrong about is the fact that A&M did now want to resume the rivalry.
So be it....I don't sniff the A&M programs butt every time they fart. As noted....they have not been significant enough for me to pay that much attention to them.
That has been found manifestly untrue by the facts. If we were "chicken," why would we be "groveling" (both your words) to get the game back? Argument is not your strong suit. That contradiction is about as blatant as the fact that you were dropped on your head about twice a year as a kid.
I get paid to argue.....the fact that you can't keep up is not my problem. Like I said, your primary argument is with yourself.
You denied that A&M was responsible for the shut down of the rivalry in the first place....then you admitted that they were.
You stated that A&M first wanted the rivalry back on track after terminating it.....then that they changed their mind again and didn't want itt....then now you blame Texas for not allowing it to happen again because apparently now A&M would like it back on. Which is it? and how many times are they and you going to change your minds about wanting it or not?
Pathetically attempting to score points by saying I have a sore vagina does not a good argument make.
That wasn't an argument...that was an observation.
The article you posted lacked any credibility whatever.
Well, the argument quoted the Texas AD....if it lacks credibility then I guess it is your claim that it is the Texas AD that lacks credibility. And I doubt that is a fact. The fact is....anyone and anything that doesn't agree with your delusions about the grandeur of Texas A&M football you are going to say lacks credibility.
"Well, the discussion was rivalries....the thing that prompted this whole discussion was my listing of what is considered the top rivalries in the game....and then we went to why one that was perceived to be a good one got terminated. "
Actually the discussion followed after I said "we're going to be generally better than Texas going forward," which immediately triggered the butthurt you have towards me.
See....here is an example. You think TAMU is going to be generally better than Texas going forward. Most neutral observers...and I am one, would say that is a delusion. You see...YOU are the one with the emotional involvement in this...I am not. You desperately want something to be true that likely will not be true. I simply state what the facts are....and the facts are that Texas was, is, and probably will continue to be the far superior football program in that part of the country....and TAMU will likely be a weak sister in the SEC West behind Alabama/Auburn/LSU/ maybe Arkansas.
You asked "how do you figure?" So no, our little subdiscussion within this thread did NOT start out as just a "listing of what [you] consider to be the top rivalries in the game." In the future, please attempt to have a better command of the facts before you go spouting off about stuff you really know nothing about. Or at least know to stop arguing prior to contradicting your original statements.
Here is what I know to be the truth....again. Texas A&M is a minor player on the national college football scene. There has never been any contradiction on that.
The ONLY thing I may have gotten wrong is the fact that TAMU is/has been desperate to rekindle the rivalry. OK, my mistake....I thought they were not because of their new found love affair in the SEC.
Everything else holds.
-
For historical perspective, here are the number of AP Final poll Top 10 finishes for Tex. A&M and its former and current associated schools since 1960 (which is just slightly before I started paying attention to these things)...and see how it ranks:
Top 10 AP Poll finishes;
Alabama 29
Nebraska 27
Oklahoma 25
Texas 19
Auburn 14
LSU 13
Arkansas 12
Missouri 6
Texas A&M 6
Ole Miss 5
Kansas St. 5
TCU 4
SMU 3
Kansas 3
Oklahoma St. 2
Houston 2
Baylor 1
Rice, Texas Tech/Iowa St/Miss. St. -0-
(and just for local knowledge: Ohio St. 28, Michigan 27, Penn St. 20
And other national power programs: USC: 20, Notre Dame 19, FSU 18, Miami 16, FLA 15, Georgia 14, Tennesse 14, South Carolina 3, Kentucky 1, Vanderbilt -0-
-
They went 12-0 only like 20 years ago. They either had one loss, didn't get their second loss until the last game (ie were "in the national championship discussion most of the year) of the regular season, or went undefeated 8 times since that last national championship. If you don't remember it, sounds like a personal problem.
I don't think I ever said A&M had been a "major force" on the national scene. I have no delusions of grandeur about A&M. In fact, the only statements I made related to their "grandeur" at all is that they've been more of a force than Houston and Rice, and that they're better positioned for future success than Texas. So you are, as usual, arguing against a straw man. Which of course is really all you can do, since the premise you started this entire conversation on (that A&M should stop being chicken and play UT) has, by your own admission, been proven to be completely bogus. So I don't blame you. Losing arguments is hard. You should know.
So now we've gone from evaluating how A&M compared with Rice and Houston in the SWC days--since that was an utter failure for you--to using the records of only the last ten years (less than 10% of CFB history) to prove how much we suck. I seem to recall you rambling on and on about 80 year history when people tried the same with the Browns? I don't blame you for that, but be consistent.
So your contention is that we shouldn't have moved to the SEC--an utterly brilliant move by all accounts--just so that we wouldn't be considered "chickening out of playing Texas," even though we always wanted the game. Gotcha. If you are in a field even distantly related to any kind of sports management, I pray for your clients' sakes you don't charge much.
Say, when you call someone to reschedule an appointment because, say, Jim Brown invited you to go golfing with him. But you told the cancellee that you would still really like to meet with them. Do you count that as "chickening" out of meeting with the guy? No. It's going to the best opportunity. You still want to meet with the guy. You just have to do something more important first. If that guy is too butthurt to let you go meet Jim Brown and reschedule your meeting, then it's their problem.
Your belief that Arkansas, of all teams, might be in a better position to succeed than A&M has now been added to the long list of reasons you are completely unknowledgeable on the current dynamics of college football. I mean, really, we can piss back and forth about A&M vs. Texas and I'm not gonna argue about LSU or Auburn or Alabama, but Arkansas? Lol.
In your mind, what has always happened will always happen again. Texas has always been better than A&M therefore they always will be. If that were the case, then there's really no point in even playing sports. Why do it when you already know the outcome? And if what has happened always will happen, how do you explain the struggles in Cleveland the last 15 year? This is some sort of fallacy which name I can't think of at the moment. But then, you knew that counsel. And that's to say nothing of the fact that the move to the SEC is a seismic shift in the landscape of the state. Since you constantly use the "trust me, I know" argument, then trust me, I know the situation on the ground here.
-
"Indeed, the biggest irony of the Longhorn Network is this: In deciding to create its own channel, Texas made much more money for two Big 12 schools that left for the SEC -- Texas A&M and Missouri -- than it's going to make for itself. That's because both Texas A&M and Missouri stand to make much more money off the SEC Network than Texas will ever make off the Longhorn Network. Nebraska, in the Big Ten, will also be making more television money than Texas."
The SEC Network is set to make 22x as much as the Longhorn Network this year (for 14 teams).
This here is the best article summarizing the effects of the seismic shift:
-
They went 12-0 only like 20 years ago. They either had one loss, didn't get their second loss until the last game (ie were "in the national championship discussion most of the year) of the regular season, or went undefeated 8 times since that last national championship. If you don't remember it, sounds like a personal problem.
I don't think I ever said A&M had been a "major force" on the national scene. I have no delusions of grandeur about A&M. In fact, the only statements I made related to their "grandeur" at all is that they've been more of a force than Houston and Rice, and that they're better positioned for future success than Texas. So you are, as usual, arguing against a straw man. Which of course is really all you can do, since the premise you started this entire conversation on (that A&M should stop being chicken and play UT) has, by your own admission, been proven to be completely bogus. So I don't blame you. Losing arguments is hard. You should know.
So now we've gone from evaluating how A&M compared with Rice and Houston in the SWC days--since that was an utter failure for you--to using the records of only the last ten years (less than 10% of CFB history) to prove how much we suck. I seem to recall you rambling on and on about 80 year history when people tried the same with the Browns? I don't blame you for that, but be consistent.
So your contention is that we shouldn't have moved to the SEC--an utterly brilliant move by all accounts--just so that we wouldn't be considered "chickening out of playing Texas," even though we always wanted the game. Gotcha. If you are in a field even distantly related to any kind of sports management, I pray for your clients' sakes you don't charge much.
Say, when you call someone to reschedule an appointment because, say, Jim Brown invited you to go golfing with him. But you told the cancellee that you would still really like to meet with them. Do you count that as "chickening" out of meeting with the guy? No. It's going to the best opportunity. You still want to meet with the guy. You just have to do something more important first. If that guy is too butthurt to let you go meet Jim Brown and reschedule your meeting, then it's their problem.
Your belief that Arkansas, of all teams, might be in a better position to succeed than A&M has now been added to the long list of reasons you are completely unknowledgeable on the current dynamics of college football. I mean, really, we can piss back and forth about A&M vs. Texas and I'm not gonna argue about LSU or Auburn or Alabama, but Arkansas? Lol.
In your mind, what has always happened will always happen again. Texas has always been better than A&M therefore they always will be. If that were the case, then there's really no point in even playing sports. Why do it when you already know the outcome? And if what has happened always will happen, how do you explain the struggles in Cleveland the last 15 year? This is some sort of fallacy which name I can't think of at the moment. But then, you knew that counsel. And that's to say nothing of the fact that the move to the SEC is a seismic shift in the landscape of the state. Since you constantly use the "trust me, I know" argument, then trust me, I know the situation on the ground here.
They went 12-0 only like 20 years ago. They either had one loss, didn't get their second loss until the last game (ie were "in the national championship discussion most of the year) of the regular season, or went undefeated 8 times since that last national championship. If you don't remember it, sounds like a personal problem.
Here is their history: http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/texas-am/
The only year they have been undefeated since the 60s was 1994.....but even then they only came in ranked 8th in the final AP poll. Apparently another indication of how they are perceived nationally.
And you are right....since I don't really give a shit one way or another, I am not intimately familiar with their history. I can't recite every detail about similar schools such as Kansas St., Ole Miss., et al either.
Again...I just know that they have never been considered national championship caliber in my lifetime...only coming close perhaps with JFF there.
I don't think I ever said A&M had been a "major force" on the national scene. I have no delusions of grandeur about A&M. In fact, the only statements I made related to their "grandeur" at all is that they've been more of a force than Houston and Rice, and that they're better positioned for future success than Texas. So you are, as usual, arguing against a straw man. Which of course is really all you can do, since the premise you started this entire conversation on (that A&M should stop being chicken and play UT) has, by your own admission, been proven to be completely bogus. So I don't blame you. Losing arguments is hard. You should know.
No, I am arguing against you and your foolish statement that A&M is positioned better for future success than Texas.
If you want to get down to it.....tell us why on earth you think that is the case.
(as for your position re Houston....they have been top 10 twice...A&M 6 times.....A&M has been far more on par with Houston than it has been to UT/OK.
So now we've gone from evaluating how A&M compared with Rice and Houston in the SWC days--since that was an utter failure for you--to using the records of only the last ten years (less than 10% of CFB history) to prove how much we suck. I seem to recall you rambling on and on about 80 year history when people tried the same with the Browns? I don't blame you for that, but be consistent.
I use whatever data is of interest to me....or that seems relevent.
I could use the data from the entire history of college football going back to 1869 if you would like. I did use the data that applied to me and my lifetime experience when I chose 1960 forward. And I included the data from the last 10 years just so we had a picture of what has been happening in more recent times.
Is it really that hard for you to comprehend this information and it relevency at various points?
Is this the type of education A&M provides where you do not gain the ability to understand a simple flow of events?
So your contention is that we shouldn't have moved to the SEC--an utterly brilliant move by all accounts--just so that we wouldn't be considered "chickening out of playing Texas," even though we always wanted the game. Gotcha. If you are in a field even distantly related to any kind of sports management, I pray for your clients' sakes you don't charge much.
Oh, I understand that A&M went to the SEC for the fucking money. Of course it always comes down to that. You were whores. I get that....that has never been the question.
I am saying that for traditions sake....for the sake of geographic sensibility and maintaining the sanctity of college football I would have like to have seen them stay where they were. Wouldn't you have also liked that? Or do you too only care about the money?
Say, when you call someone to reschedule an appointment because, say, Jim Brown invited you to go golfing with him. But you told the cancellee that you would still really like to meet with them. Do you count that as "chickening" out of meeting with the guy? No. It's going to the best opportunity. You still want to meet with the guy. You just have to do something more important first. If that guy is too butthurt to let you go meet Jim Brown and reschedule your meeting, then it's their problem.
That is a totally inapt analogy. Not sure where you are trying to go there. A better analogy would be far simpler: "I had an appointment with client X, but I cancelled it because Client Y wanted to see me at the same time....and Client Y was gonna make me a shitload more money....so I bugged out on client X"
Your belief that Arkansas, of all teams, might be in a better position to succeed than A&M has now been added to the long list of reasons you are completely unknowledgeable on the current dynamics of college football. I mean, really, we can piss back and forth about A&M vs. Texas and I'm not gonna argue about LSU or Auburn or Alabama, but Arkansas? Lol.
Historically, Arkansas has been the better program. And of recent vintage....Arkansas and A&M have been very similar in terms of performance. Since 2000 Arkanas has finished in the AP Top 20 three times with final rankings of 5, 12, 15. Since 2000 A&M has finished in the AP Top 20 three times with final rankings of 5, 18, 19.
Again...what factors, what evidence do you have that A&M is by any means superior to Arkansas? You can't even use the "we're in the SEC and they aren't bogus dodge, because Ark. jumped ship there before you did. In fact they were probably your model"
In your mind, what has always happened will always happen again. Texas has always been better than A&M therefore they always will be. If that were the case, then there's really no point in even playing sports. Why do it when you already know the outcome?
No certainly not....and you are an idiot if you think that is an argument that I have made. While it is a fact that Texas has by far been the better program.....and while it is also a fact that reputation as THE powerhouse program in Texas will help them going forward, that is not the only thing Texas has going for it. It clearly has access to more money and more resources that will allow it to do whatever it takes to bring in the best coaches/recruiters, administrators, provide the best facilities etc. etc.
They STILL have A&M beat in all those areas and all that will serve them well going forward. What does A&M have? SEC membership? So don't Arkansas and Missouri...not sure that is that big of a deal.
Do you think that A&M joining the SEC holds that much swag in the State of Texas?
If you say yes...then yes, I would be surprised. (and I would scratch my head at how fickle that sounds)
And if what has happened always will happen, how do you explain the struggles in Cleveland the last 15 year? This is some sort of fallacy which name I can't think of at the moment. But then, you knew that counsel. And that's to say nothing of the fact that the move to the SEC is a seismic shift in the landscape of the state. Since you constantly use the "trust me, I know" argument, then trust me, I know the situation on the ground here.
OK, I will trust you....yet, I will still have to ask the question: "Why? Why is the move to the SEC a seismic shift in the landscape of the state? What does that give you that you think that just that factor alone gives you an edge over the power and money that UT has in that state?
Why do you think that gives you an edge over say TCU....who can point to a Big 12 championship....and 4 AP Top Ten finishes in the last 8 years?
And a decent argument that they should have been included in the inaugural College Football Playoff?
I will play Ronald Reagan....I will trust you....but I will want verification.
-
"Indeed, the biggest irony of the Longhorn Network is this: In deciding to create its own channel, Texas made much more money for two Big 12 schools that left for the SEC -- Texas A&M and Missouri -- than it's going to make for itself. That's because both Texas A&M and Missouri stand to make much more money off the SEC Network than Texas will ever make off the Longhorn Network. Nebraska, in the Big Ten, will also be making more television money than Texas."
The SEC Network is set to make 22x as much as the Longhorn Network this year (for 14 teams).
This here is the best article summarizing the effects of the seismic shift:
"Indeed, the biggest irony of the Longhorn Network is this: In deciding to create its own channel, Texas made much more money for two Big 12 schools that left for the SEC -- Texas A&M and Missouri -- than it's going to make for itself. That's because both Texas A&M and Missouri stand to make much more money off the SEC Network than Texas will ever make off the Longhorn Network. Nebraska, in the Big Ten, will also be making more television money than Texas."
The SEC Network is set to make 22x as much as the Longhorn Network this year (for 14 teams).
This here is the best article summarizing the effects of the seismic shift:
OK, I will look at this stuff and see what it says.
Edit: after reading that last article....I find it to be speculative. The writer thinks and apparently hopes that all that stuff he says will come true. He makes plausible arguments for it......But nothing he says is an absolute fact (except that Baylor and TCU have actually been the best teams in the state for the last few years.)
I think we all have to wait and see if all that happens long term.
Certainly JFF gave the school a big boost. (But that "good feeling" could certainly be diminished if he fails to make it in the pros.....then he would become just another David Klingler or Andre Ware....which does no good for the school). And the move to the SEC gave A&M publicity...and maybe money (though I am not sure that the money edge will be retained). I do think Sumlin is a good coach....and that he probably gave A&M a temporary recruiting edge over the tired out Mack Brown. But I am not positive that will last for any long term. Charlie Strong seems to be a pretty brilliant guy.
So...I for one will take a wait and see approach.
But I will note this.....NEITHER school finished in the AP Top 25 last year, where TCU finished #3 and Baylor #7. So they both have some ground to make up on their in state competition.
And...oh yea, to keep it relevent to the thread title: Pittsburgh sucks. (can we agree on that?)
-
And...oh yea, to keep it relevent to the thread title: Pittsburgh sucks. (can we agree on that?)
Gipper***********************************
(just kidding)
-
I said they started 12-0 in 92. I'd call that much closer to a national championship than the 2012 team which had 2 losses by the 7th or 8th game. I'm not sure why the 94 team only finished 8th.
Sorry, my education doesn't tell me that conveniently picking random dates from which to compile data is all that legitimate. And besides, you were the one that chose to bring up that 90s era and say we were barely above Houston and Rice, despite our winning 3 straight conference championships, winning some 3 or 4x as many SWC championships as both of them combined, and generally dominating them in every way (19-12, 52-27 against them respectively). Furthermore, there were other years (even since 1960) such as 1975 when we were squarely in the national championship hunt.
It's not just the money. It's the recruiting that comes from being in the SEC. Our recruiting has taken off astronomically since we made the move. THAT is the number one benefit. So no, I would not have liked to see them stay in the Big 12. We play about twice as many big time games per year now, we're in prime time with far more frequency and we're never not untelevised, which we were in the Big 12 all the time. Why would I want to stay in the Big 12? It's a terrible conference.
The analogy is good because you are IMMEDIATELY calling client X and saying "hey let's reschedule ASAP." Again, if client X doesn't understand that meeting with Jim Brown (or client Y) is more important and refuse to accommodate then that's their problem.
See there you go again. You claim you're not using the fallacious logic that what has happened in the past will continue to happen, yet your number 1 reason for why Arkansas will be better than us going forward is that they were better in the past.
The problem for Arkansas is that their state does not produce much talent. Per Rivals.com, the state had five 4/5 stars in the class of 2015 (indeed one went to Ohio State). In 2014, the state only had 2 (1 of which went to Alabama). In 2013, the state had 2, and Alabama again stole 1. So who is Arkansas supposed to get?
LSU practically has a chastity belt on Louisiana talent (which there is a ton of, it produces the most NFL players per capita), signing the vast majority of it. Since I've been following A&M recruiting (class of 08), we've signed a whopping ONE player from Louisiana that LSU really wanted, Speedy Noil. We've gotten some kids outta there, but they were scraps that LSU didn't want.
Any Mississippi and Alabama talent that comes up (not much but not the dearth that exists in Arkansas) is immediately bombarded by pretty much the entire SEC, not to mention the 2 state schools that have the geographical advantage in each of those two states. Is Arkansas supposed to go in there and beat out Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Georgia, Florida, Florida State, and Tennessee for the little talent in those states? Not likely.
Georgia produces some talent but again, everyone goes for it and there are two major programs in state.
In Florida, there are THREE major programs although there is an absolute boatload of talent. One of Arkansas' elite RBs is from Florida so power to them.
Oklahoma produces jack for talent, and there are two state schools anyway.
In Texas, A&M and UT for the most part get their pick of the litter (and Sumlin has ransacked both Strong and Mack Brown for recruits both have vied for). Teams like Alabama and LSU usually get 3-5 Texas kids combined. Oklahoma and Baylor are next to feed, then the TCUs, Techs, OSUs, and Arkansass of the world get the scraps.
Again, that's not necessarily how it's been IN THE PAST. And certainly Baylor, TCU, and to a smaller degree Arkansas have been able to win more with less. Great for them. But there hasn't been a single national champion in recent memory that didn't do it with a TON of talent top to bottom. I will grant you that the SEC advantage will continue to make Arkansas more appealing as the brand becomes even stronger.
Texas does have a lot of money. There is no evidence they have more than A&M going forward. You can again cite history as evidence if you want. But we just spent half a BILLION (with a
dollars renovating Kyle Field only two years after completely overhauling our baseball stadium. We both pay our coaches top 5 salaries. We just made John Chavis the highest paid DC in CFB. We dropped some obscene amount of money for the Birmigham law firm that got Johnny out of his NCAA troubles. We footed the bill for Cedric Ogbuehi's insurance policy to come back as a senior. Yeah, we have plenty of dough to go around. Their boosters are very good at "playing the game," (Vince Young had an Escalade during his time on campus....) and we saw that when Charlie Strong made a late push for Kyler Murray last year and was able to land 5 solid Florida players late in the year. So their ability to do that will always help them. And I take nothing away from them for that. But they do NOT have more money going forward than we do generally.
You cited Texas having the "best facilities." They don't. Our stadium is bigger and better than theirs (and we actually fill it up), we just redid our football facilities and many call them the best in the country and Texas' facilities are known right now for being sorely outdated. I'm obviously smart enough to realize they'll upgrade soon, but we won't be outdone.
Thanks for trusting me and somewhat civilizing the conversation. If you're not here to just throw bombs at a&m, then I'm happy to entertain any discussion on the CFB landscape. I love talking ball. Been on A&M messageboards since I was 16 years old. I only hope my NFL knowledge will get up to par soon (this boards helped with that).
That said, I've provided a lot of reasons why the SEC move was "seismic" in this post. To recap:
-Recruiting to the SEC. This is first and foremost. Even when the SEC wasn't the best conference, it still recruited itself in the region just because of the tradition and the respect its members have for each other. Many households in the south watch the SEC almost exclusively and their kids grow up to reflect that. I remember watching the MTV show Two-A-Days (about Hoover High School's dominant football program) and the kids would constantly talk about wanting to attend SEC schools (we're talking about regular students, not even necessarily football players), and I remember one specific case where the cups in the locker room all had the SEC logo on them. I screenshotted it a long time ago. Maybe I can find it. I just provide that one anecdote to make the case that these kids are inundated with SEC love early on.
-SEC viewership means SEC schools make the most conference TV money (yeah, money is #2, although the rest of these will be in no particular order)
-The big names on the home conference schedule allow the AD to charge more for season tickets
-Obviously that means much higher attendance as well
-Those big home conference games have a tremendous impact on the local economy. College Station as a city has changed night to day since the move.
-The NCAA doesn't have enough of a spine to crack down on SEC teams when they cheat. Not a huge factor and I realize that could change (hell I said in the other thread that I hope it does), but I doubt it. And even if it did, the coaches and boosters would just be more creative.
-The grueling SEC schedule means you win most bowl games (were 3-0 since joining, pasting the Big 12 co-champion in 2012 despite us only finishing 5th in our conference)
-All the money has allowed us to make the best stadium in the country (for now) and it's also the 3rd largest if I'm not mistaken
-Same with facilities
-100% of our games are on TV, trust me this was quite frustratingly NOT the case in the Big 12
-Many more games on ESPN/on prime time
-Treatment as an equal conference member instead of the tiered system that exists in the Big 12
If I think of any more I will post them. Those are just off the top of my head. There's lots of good literature on this out there.
-
"Indeed, the biggest irony of the Longhorn Network is this: In deciding to create its own channel, Texas made much more money for two Big 12 schools that left for the SEC -- Texas A&M and Missouri -- than it's going to make for itself. That's because both Texas A&M and Missouri stand to make much more money off the SEC Network than Texas will ever make off the Longhorn Network. Nebraska, in the Big Ten, will also be making more television money than Texas."
The SEC Network is set to make 22x as much as the Longhorn Network this year (for 14 teams).
This here is the best article summarizing the effects of the seismic shift:
OK, I will look at this stuff and see what it says.
Edit: after reading that last article....I find it to be speculative. The writer thinks and apparently hopes that all that stuff he says will come true. He makes plausible arguments for it......But nothing he says is an absolute fact (except that Baylor and TCU have actually been the best teams in the state for the last few years.)
I think we all have to wait and see if all that happens long term.
Certainly JFF gave the school a big boost. (But that "good feeling" could certainly be diminished if he fails to make it in the pros.....then he would become just another David Klingler or Andre Ware....which does no good for the school). And the move to the SEC gave A&M publicity...and maybe money (though I am not sure that the money edge will be retained). I do think Sumlin is a good coach....and that he probably gave A&M a temporary recruiting edge over the tired out Mack Brown. But I am not positive that will last for any long term. Charlie Strong seems to be a pretty brilliant guy.
So...I for one will take a wait and see approach.
But I will note this.....NEITHER school finished in the AP Top 25 last year, where TCU finished #3 and Baylor #7. So they both have some ground to make up on their in state competition.
And...oh yea, to keep it relevent to the thread title: Pittsburgh sucks. (can we agree on that?)
OK, I will look at this stuff and see what it says.
Edit: after reading that last article....I find it to be speculative. The writer thinks and apparently hopes that all that stuff he says will come true. He makes plausible arguments for it......But nothing he says is an absolute fact (except that Baylor and TCU have actually been the best teams in the state for the last few years.)
I think we all have to wait and see if all that happens long term.
Certainly JFF gave the school a big boost. (But that "good feeling" could certainly be diminished if he fails to make it in the pros.....then he would become just another David Klingler or Andre Ware....which does no good for the school). And the move to the SEC gave A&M publicity...and maybe money (though I am not sure that the money edge will be retained). I do think Sumlin is a good coach....and that he probably gave A&M a temporary recruiting edge over the tired out Mack Brown. But I am not positive that will last for any long term. Charlie Strong seems to be a pretty brilliant guy.
So...I for one will take a wait and see approach.
But I will note this.....NEITHER school finished in the AP Top 25 last year, where TCU finished #3 and Baylor #7. So they both have some ground to make up on their in state competition.
And...oh yea, to keep it relevent to the thread title: Pittsburgh sucks. (can we agree on that?)
As for claims in the last article that you call speculative:
1. The recruiting rankings are not. You can say they don't matter (Baylor and TCU do very well without them), but as I said before, every NC team in recent memory recruited at an elite clip and were chock full of 4 and 5 stars.
2. The effects of the arrogance Texas showed when making the Longhorn Network were indeed legion. It caused 4 of the biggest viewership draws to leave the conference, reducing the value of the Big 12 and making the LHN that much less valuable. It was a mini-cycle of ineptitude and negative results.
You're right the rest of the article is a bunch of fluff. But the other articles I linked go at least a little more in depth on some of the exact figures. Although regardless, the two above effects are alone enough to make the shift seismic.
-
-
And of course Pittsburgh sucks.
And we don't want them sicka-sucky any time soon.
-
Ohio State gets a hi-profile guy from Texas almost every year.. JT Barrett, Demetrious Knox, and Dontre Wilson are the current Texans on tOSU's roster.
Similarly, every now and then a hi-profile Ohio guy goes south.. Trey DePriest was the starting Bama MLB last year but grew up in Springfield.
The one thing I care about regarding SEC football: There is no such thing as SEC speed. Never was, never will be.. I'm looking at you, ESPN. It only ever existed when one team has a better OL, so the WR runs by the DB who gets caught looking in to stop the run.. or the team with the better DT's appears to have faster LB's because they trust the DT's to pinch in and shut down the inside run.
Man-vs-man, the SEC isn't faster.. rather, as it always has been, the team with the best line will win.
-
Meanwhile, some things suealer never change. Seems that not only did they draft a cheapshot
artist db, but their LT is ...
all of a sudden.... bigger and stronger. Go figure. Reckon they are hard up to get back to
the superbowl? I wonder what the Vegas odds are of them injuring another qb or two to get there.
Meanwhile, some things suealer never change. Seems that not only did they draft a cheapshot
artist db, but their LT is ...
all of a sudden.... bigger and stronger. Go figure. Reckon they are hard up to get back to
the superbowl? I wonder what the Vegas odds are of them injuring another qb or two to get there.
You sound like a whinney little bitch. Why don't you grow up little boy. SMHSB
-
Didn't say they didn't recruit Texas. I always liked that they recruited the South. In fact one of my best friends (the one with the torn labrum I mentioned in another thread) signed with Ohio State out of high school.
The SEC gets very creative with DTs and LBs. you will get wrecked without them. Recall Florida went and took Domonique Easley out of New York City.
This was never an SEC debate my man. Don't feel like going down that trail.
-
why does every thread on this board now turn into some kind of SEC Texas bullshit....everytime.....Ive heard more about Texas on this board than I have my entire life and I go there 4 times a year....wtf
This is a "Browns" board, right?.......
People's panties get in a wad due to my avatar. I haven't started any of these discussions. It's actually pretty hilarious.
People's panties get in a wad due to my avatar. I haven't started any of these discussions. It's actually pretty hilarious.
No, it's not.
Zombo
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login