(10-09-2013 10:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  For the most part they have...

(10-09-2013 11:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 10:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  For the most part they have...

Mike Shula was there not that long ago. Saban is a great coach, but he's getting older and the cycles usually have to do with losing someone who has terrific organizational and instruction skills. Saban has both which is a rarer quality than we give it credit for being. Athletes like Manziel are once in a decade events. Coaches like Saban are once in 40 year events. There have only been about a dozen or a few more like him in the history of the game. Enjoy it while it lasts.

(10-09-2013 09:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Hey I get it, the last thing you want is another consistent power in the SEC West.

But I wouldn't write us off just yet. We have the #1 QB recruit in the country coming in to replace Johnny so we should be OK.

And Bit,

Texas issue in recruiting is that guys like Geoff Ketchum who run the Texas Rivals recruiting sites and are big UT homers so they would rank players on their school decision rather than ability. If a 4 star kid chose A&M, he got bumped down to a 3 star and if a 3 star chose UT he got bumped to a 4 star.

The result was these vastly overrated classes which then combined with the laziness and entitlement of "you're at UT so you're too good to try and work hard and get better!"

(10-10-2013 09:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 09:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Hey I get it, the last thing you want is another consistent power in the SEC West.

But I wouldn't write us off just yet. We have the #1 QB recruit in the country coming in to replace Johnny so we should be OK.

And Bit,

Texas issue in recruiting is that guys like Geoff Ketchum who run the Texas Rivals recruiting sites and are big UT homers so they would rank players on their school decision rather than ability. If a 4 star kid chose A&M, he got bumped down to a 3 star and if a 3 star chose UT he got bumped to a 4 star.

The result was these vastly overrated classes which then combined with the laziness and entitlement of "you're at UT so you're too good to try and work hard and get better!"

10th, any major football schools that gets a new recruit see his status on the various recruiting sites jump up higher, while recruits to lesser favored schools see the opposite happen. That's been a fact of life that everyone has realized for a long time. Texas isn't alone in that. Most SEC schools, including Texas A&M, get the same kind of treatment...

(10-09-2013 11:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 10:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  For the most part they have...

Mike Shula was there not that long ago. Saban is a great coach, but he's getting older and the cycles usually have to do with losing someone who has terrific organizational and instruction skills. Saban has both which is a rarer quality than we give it credit for being. Athletes like Manziel are once in a decade events. Coaches like Saban are once in 40 year events. There have only been about a dozen or a few more like him in the history of the game. Enjoy it while it lasts.

(10-10-2013 10:58 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 09:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 09:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Hey I get it, the last thing you want is another consistent power in the SEC West.

But I wouldn't write us off just yet. We have the #1 QB recruit in the country coming in to replace Johnny so we should be OK.

And Bit,

Texas issue in recruiting is that guys like Geoff Ketchum who run the Texas Rivals recruiting sites and are big UT homers so they would rank players on their school decision rather than ability. If a 4 star kid chose A&M, he got bumped down to a 3 star and if a 3 star chose UT he got bumped to a 4 star.

The result was these vastly overrated classes which then combined with the laziness and entitlement of "you're at UT so you're too good to try and work hard and get better!"

10th, any major football schools that gets a new recruit see his status on the various recruiting sites jump up higher, while recruits to lesser favored schools see the opposite happen. That's been a fact of life that everyone has realized for a long time. Texas isn't alone in that. Most SEC schools, including Texas A&M, get the same kind of treatment...

Im not saying its unique, just extremely pervasive when you have honest to God UT t-shirt fans running the local rankings and intentionally remolding them to have UT's class always come out on top in order to sell subscriptions to other UT t-shirt fans that tell them what they want to hear: "All is well and UT has the best of everything like always"

THAT is the problem with the UT program (and even they see it) that too much time is spent on preserving and cultivating this image of infallibility and invulnerability in recruiting and not enough time getting the actual players.

When you are more worried about spinning reality to make it look like you've never lost a recruiting battle to any other Texas team n("Mack Didn't Offer", "Not Texas Good") than on actually winning those battles, thats a big issue.

(10-10-2013 11:48 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 11:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 10:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  For the most part they have...

Mike Shula was there not that long ago. Saban is a great coach, but he's getting older and the cycles usually have to do with losing someone who has terrific organizational and instruction skills. Saban has both which is a rarer quality than we give it credit for being. Athletes like Manziel are once in a decade events. Coaches like Saban are once in 40 year events. There have only been about a dozen or a few more like him in the history of the game. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Seeing this kind of success is one thing but sustained strong success in the conference is another. For the most part the same teams in the conference have been on top, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee.

(10-10-2013 05:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The SEC usually has up to 6 teams each year who are viable candidates to win the conference.

Compare that to the other Power conferences and almost all of them are the same one or two school who wins it every year with that one or two occasionally changing once a decade or so.

(10-11-2013 08:43 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The SEC usually has up to 6 teams each year who are viable candidates to win the conference.

Compare that to the other Power conferences and almost all of them are the same one or two school who wins it every year with that one or two occasionally changing once a decade or so.

Having a chance to win and actually winning are two different things. Since expansion in 1992, the winners of the SEC are:


Florida with a W/L record of 7/3
Bama with a W/L record of 4/4
LSU with a W/L record of 4/1
Georgia with a W/L record of 2/3
Tennessee with a W/L record of 2/3
Auburn with a W/L record of 2/2
Arkansas with a W/L record of 0/3
MSST with 1 loss
SCAR with 1 loss

Clearly, the SEC has two top teams as well, which is no different from other conferences. The distinction comes from the middle with 4 different teams having appeared in the CCG in the last 20 years. Over time, I think other conferences will achieve similar results as the round robin format has slowly disappeared.

(10-14-2013 07:20 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  While I'm sure the Longhorns will call, I think Luck stays at WVU. But whoever is the next Texas AD, conference realignment will be the number 3 priority right after finding and new FB coach and fixing the rest of the Athletic Department. Over time, I've come to the conclusion that the B12 as constituted, lacks the necessary pieces the appease the other P4 sufficiently. That's why I really like your idea of VT and NCSU to the SEC. I actually think to work for all parties, Mizzou to the B10 must be on the table as well.

SEC:
Lose - Mizzou
Add - WVU, NCSU, VT

ACC:
Lose - NCSU, VT
Add - Texas, Baylor, OKST, KSU

B1G:
Add - Mizzou, UConn

PAC:
Add - OU, TT, KU, ISU

Realignment takes a temporary hold at this point to renegotiate with FOX/ESPN as well as Gage the fan backlash from this shuffle. After reading the tea leaves, the 4 conferences decide to go to 18 with a minimum payout of $23 million for all P4 teams. This is where TCU and Cincinnati get invited back to the party.

(10-10-2013 05:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The SEC usually has up to 6 teams each year who are viable candidates to win the conference.

Compare that to the other Power conferences and almost all of them are the same one or two school who wins it every year with that one or two occasionally changing once a decade or so.

(10-14-2013 09:37 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Not all schools are created equal and not all conference place the big points in the same order of priority.

It's not just shifting of teams around there is a reason behind each and every invite.

What do I think the SEC wants? Historically academic schools in the South with decent to above average athletic programs. If it isn't that I would guess its highly unlikely the SEC is interested.

(10-14-2013 10:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 09:37 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Not all schools are created equal and not all conference place the big points in the same order of priority.

It's not just shifting of teams around there is a reason behind each and every invite.

What do I think the SEC wants? Historically academic schools in the South with decent to above average athletic programs. If it isn't that I would guess its highly unlikely the SEC is interested.

We are complete agreement on this. Right now the most perfect expansion possible is OU & UT, and if Aggie is inconsolable, OU & KU.

I've laid out on numerous occasions why I think that the Arkansas add was a bridge to Texas in 1992 and why A&M & Mizzou were terrific in their own right, but also made OU have to consider a more natural fit with the SEC should the Big 12 blow up. Obviously North Carolina and Virginia would be a major coup. I just think it becomes easier to get North Carolina and Virginia if you already have Texas and Oklahoma.

The home run scenario is to add those last 4 and break into 3 balanced, regional divisions of 6 each and have 3 divisional champs and the remaining team with the best record to comprise the conference championship playoff with one game in the West for exposure and one game in the East with the CCG staying in Atlanta, or alternating between Atlanta and Dallas.

But, Vandiver's presentation has merit for 1 very big reason. If any conference lands both Texas and OU the other's are not going to cooperate to absorb the Big 12 remnants so that one walks away with the jewels. So compromise might lead to something like he has listed.

The dissolution of the Big 12 adds that share of the playoff revenue back to the portions received by the other 4 conferences. That's going to be a little over a million per team for the remaining conferences. That's a pretty good reason to cooperate more than would normally be expected.