or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › 2012 College Football Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2012 College Football Thread - Page 16

Poll Results: ?

This is a multiple choice poll
  • 4% of voters (2)
    F
  • 4% of voters (2)
    L
  • 4% of voters (2)
    O
  • 4% of voters (2)
    R
  • 4% of voters (2)
    I
  • 8% of voters (4)
    D
  • 8% of voters (4)
    A!
  • 4% of voters (2)
    S
  • 4% of voters (2)
    T
  • 4% of voters (2)
    A
  • 4% of voters (2)
    T
  • 4% of voters (2)
    E!
  • 6% of voters (3)
    FLORIDA STATE!
  • 4% of voters (2)
    FLORIDA STATE!
  • 4% of voters (2)
    FLORIDA STATE!
  • 8% of voters (4)
    WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  • 2% of voters (1)
    LET'S
  • 8% of voters (4)
    GO
  • 2% of voters (1)
    PANTHERS!
45 Total Votes  
post #226 of 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by tj100 View Post


Please. The ACC and the Big 10 have stability and historically better programs. The members of the Big XII are scrambling for the lifeboats.

History is relative. Notre Dame is historically stable and better, but are you suggesting they are still a premier team these days? Since the 1970s, even?

Your point was that the Big XII "only" has Texas and Oklahoma?

Name any existing Big Ten team that has been relevant in the past ten years. Wisconsin and Ohio State are legitimate 9 or 10 win teams in most years, but after that . . . you have teams that run big numbers in conference and get trounced by the OOC or in bowl games. Ohio State is the only Big Ten team to play for the NC during the BCS era, if I recall.

As for the ACC, since Florida State started running rough in the early 2000s, they've relied on VA Tech in some years and who else? Some good teams (Top 25 ranking), but nobody is scared of playing the ACC.

All conferences except the SEC have one, possibly two elite teams in most years.
post #227 of 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

Fuck Boise State. I'm tired of them already.

+1

They are definitely a very good team - they have the record (again crap conference teams and AQ teams) to prove that - but they whine waaaaay too much about being overlooked. Sorry, you're in Boise. Boise fucking Idaho. Part of the quirkiness of college football is that a great team from a shit state will have to play its way into the equation every year. Utah, TCU, Boise, etc. Live with it, because if you were in a major conference, all you'd be doing is meeting expectations.

I don't know that the Pac-12 or Big XII would ever go for Boise State. No major TV market. Unlikely to draw lots of visiting fans. Existing teams get a new opponent and a good chance of a loss each year while BSU gets a significantly more difficult schedule and less chance of running the table.
post #228 of 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by tj100 View Post


What I would love to see would be said 4 conference league, 16 teams each, with a relegation system. Each conference has 12 'permanent' members and 4 'rotating' members. Give each of the 4 conferences a 'minor league', champion of the 'minor league' replaces the worst team (of the 4 rotating members) every year. 'Permanent' status is granted every 10 years based on conference winning %. This would give schools like Utah or Boise State the opportunity to earn their way up with sustained success.

You could do something very much like this if you had two leagues in each region - one "upper" and one "lower" division. Pac - 12 and WAC / MWC, Big Ten and MAC, Big XII and Conference USA, and so on. Have a set number of lower champions get in to replace the least successful one or two teams in the upper division. You couldn't go with a 10 year average - the BCS didn't last a decade before annual tweaks - and why would you want to? Reward a team for a fluke year, punish a team for a fluke year. Dem's the breaks.

Between TJ100 and me, we could bring the NCAA into the 22nd century. smile.gif
post #229 of 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzito View Post

Reward a team for a fluke year, punish a team for a fluke year. Dem's the breaks.

Yeah, that's nice in theory, but you can't relegate a premier program (Texas, Ohio State, USC, etc.) on the basis of one bad year. It would screw with the revenue, and you can't afford to do that.
post #230 of 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzito View Post

History is relative. Notre Dame is historically stable and better, but are you suggesting they are still a premier team these days? Since the 1970s, even?

I hate to say it, but yes, Notre Dame is still a premier team. Barely. Haven't been truly relevant in years, but if they run off 9 wins, they're ranked in the Top 5. Automatically. They have their own national TV deal. They're still in a different league than everybody else (literally).
post #231 of 1322
If they were relevant, and if they thought they could actually get 9 a year, they wouldn't be considering joining the Big Ten. They can't beat Navy or South Florida . . . Ugh.

My grandfather went to ND during the Four Horsemen era, so I would love to see them return to the top tier, but lets get real.
post #232 of 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by tj100 View Post


Yeah, that's nice in theory, but you can't relegate a premier program (Texas, Ohio State, USC, etc.) on the basis of one bad year. It would screw with the revenue, and you can't afford to do that.

we could relegate in our perfect system. All it takes is a collective interest in the revenues. The basis for the superconferences isn't much different, if you think about it. Bigger leagues = fewer chances to win it all, but more money divided between the winners AND the losers.
post #233 of 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzito View Post


+1

They are definitely a very good team - they have the record (again crap conference teams and AQ teams) to prove that - but they whine waaaaay too much about being overlooked. Sorry, you're in Boise. Boise fucking Idaho. Part of the quirkiness of college football is that a great team from a shit state will have to play its way into the equation every year. Utah, TCU, Boise, etc. Live with it, because if you were in a major conference, all you'd be doing is meeting expectations.

I don't know that the Pac-12 or Big XII would ever go for Boise State. No major TV market. Unlikely to draw lots of visiting fans. Existing teams get a new opponent and a good chance of a loss each year while BSU gets a significantly more difficult schedule and less chance of running the table.

Boise will never be picked by the Pac-12 or Big 10 because all they offer is football. They are non existent in other sports. The biggest factor though as to why Boise St. will never join the Pac-12 has nothing to do with sports. They don't have any major research programs and don't bring anything to the table from an academic stand point.
post #234 of 1322
And their ugly uniforms would compete with UO.

With Larry Scott in charge, I don't think the presidents of the Pac-12 give two whits about academic excellence and research. They were looking to raid the Big XII not just for UT and OU, but OK State, Texas Tech, Kansas (!), KSU, and so on.
post #235 of 1322
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by airblaster503 View Post


Boise will never be picked by the Pac-12 or Big 10 because all they offer is football. They are non existent in other sports. The biggest factor though as to why Boise St. will never join the Pac-12 has nothing to do with sports. They don't have any major research programs and don't bring anything to the table from an academic stand point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post


stop it.

Posting twice because it is still just as nice
post #236 of 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzito View Post

And their ugly uniforms would compete with UO.

With Larry Scott in charge, I don't think the presidents of the Pac-12 give two whits about academic excellence and research. They were looking to raid the Big XII not just for UT and OU, but OK State, Texas Tech, Kansas (!), KSU, and so on.

Yeah but OK State and Texas Tech bring in a bigger market to expand, nobody gives a shit about Boise St. If they had a chance at going to the Pac-12 they would have already been invited. The only way I see them joining is if the conferences go to 20 members each. And don't try to put Boise St. on the same level as OK St. and Texas Tech, while those schools don't exactly stand up academically to the current Pac-12 members they are far and away better than Boise St.
Edited by airblaster503 - 9/9/11 at 2:30pm
post #237 of 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzito View Post

And their ugly uniforms would compete with UO.

With Larry Scott in charge, I don't think the presidents of the Pac-12 give two whits about academic excellence and research. They were looking to raid the Big XII not just for UT and OU, but OK State, Texas Tech, Kansas (!), KSU, and so on.

I don't think Kansas and KSU have ever really been in the Pac 12/16 conversation. There may have been some KU talk (on the strength of basketball), but I don't think KSU ever made the list. Boise State has so many barriers to major conference membership, it's almost ridiculous. Aside from recent success in football, it has no athletic pedigree, no academic prestige, no significant fan base, and no natural television market. Boise State would be so far down the list of desirable candidates, it's a little bit ridiculous. Why would you add a tough game to your schedule for basically no return?
post #238 of 1322
Boise State is a four year community college.
post #239 of 1322
i want their punchable-faced QB to leave so we don't have to hear anything further about them, TCU style. leave the game to the real teams.
post #240 of 1322
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tj100 View Post


I don't think Kansas and KSU have ever really been in the Pac 12/16 conversation. There may have been some KU talk (on the strength of basketball), but I don't think KSU ever made the list. Boise State has so many barriers to major conference membership, it's almost ridiculous. Aside from recent success in football, it has no athletic pedigree, no academic prestige, no significant fan base, and no natural television market. Boise State would be so far down the list of desirable candidates, it's a little bit ridiculous. Why would you add a tough game to your schedule for basically no return?

i think the talk has always been if you want KU you have to get ksu as well.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › 2012 College Football Thread