Conference Realignment?

[WETSU]

10 minutes ago, MavGrad99 said:

Hard to dispute that...  there are plenty of programs with 1st tier talent that can't get on the downside of the hill though...

Like I said before, if you’re going to include Texas tier 1, there are many others with 3 conference titles in 25 years that could make a case. And eventually you get a watered down tier 1. Texas is upper end tier 2. Nothing wrong with that. 

[DB2point0]

12 minutes ago, MavGrad99 said:

You must be talking about Pflugerville?  Some of those other years, you could tell the Lobos were going to drop a game vs a good team along the way.

Denton Guyer in semifinal at Ford Field

[DB2point0]

I guess I’ll be waiting a while.

[Valhalla]

Let’s not turn this into a Longview thread. 

God knows there is plenty of that in high school section if you want to read/talk about it.

[WETSU]

We can talk about this until we are blue in the face, but I really think that it’s foolish to look at college football as an all time thing. Yes we can talk about titles won in the 1920s or 60s. Yes we can compare head to heads and it’s fun to trash talk. But I think to truly talk about tiers and compare teams you need to do it when they are all on equal footing. The start of scholarship restrictions in 1972. That puts everyone on equal footing for really the first time in college football history. Some teams got better, some got worse, some stayed the same... the point is it’s all, for the first time, fair and equal. 

[Baron]

1 hour ago, WETSU said:

Well it depends on if we are talking nationally or within conferences. Nationally, you are correct. You simply cannot group Texas in with that group over the last 25 years. Texas won a lot of games under Mack but didn’t win the conference titles as much and at the end of the day that’s what separates the tier 1s from the upper end tier 2s. 

There are only imo 5-6 teams over since big 12 started(again I’m using that because that’s when the initial argument started) who are tier 1. There are probably 25 who are tier 2. Teams like Michigan, Texas, LSU, Florida st... teams that won a lot and had some good moments but aren’t as consistent as tier 1. 

 

Now as as far as conference... you simply cannot put Texas and OU in the same group. You cannot put OU in the same group as anyone in the conference. They have created a class of their own since the big 12 started. So if Texas can’t be tier 1 with ou then they have to be tier 2. That’s not an insult against Texas, it’s just that ou has dominated that conference for its entirety. 

Just make sure you apply the same standard if Fisher leads y'all to several 10 win seasons without a conference championship. That's all I'm saying.

[Baron]

53 minutes ago, WETSU said:

We can talk about this until we are blue in the face, but I really think that it’s foolish to look at college football as an all time thing. Yes we can talk about titles won in the 1920s or 60s. Yes we can compare head to heads and it’s fun to trash talk. But I think to truly talk about tiers and compare teams you need to do it when they are all on equal footing. The start of scholarship restrictions in 1972. That puts everyone on equal footing for really the first time in college football history. Some teams got better, some got worse, some stayed the same... the point is it’s all, for the first time, fair and equal. 

You must be fairly young. I remember the 69, 70 and 05 NC. I always factor those in because it's relevant to my lifespan.

[WETSU]

2 minutes ago, Baron said:

Just make sure you apply the same standard if Fisher leads y'all to several 10 win seasons without a conference championship. That's all I'm saying.

Oh I will. I don’t think winning 10 games is much different than winning 8 games if there’s no trophy involved. 

[WETSU]

2 minutes ago, Baron said:

You must be fairly young. I remember the 69, 70 and 05 NC. I always factor those in because it's relevant to my lifespan.

Relevant to your lifespan and on equal footing from a competitive standpoint are two different things. 

[DB2point0]

1 hour ago, WETSU said:

We can talk about this until we are blue in the face, but I really think that it’s foolish to look at college football as an all time thing. Yes we can talk about titles won in the 1920s or 60s. Yes we can compare head to heads and it’s fun to trash talk. But I think to truly talk about tiers and compare teams you need to do it when they are all on equal footing. The start of scholarship restrictions in 1972. That puts everyone on equal footing for really the first time in college football history. Some teams got better, some got worse, some stayed the same... the point is it’s all, for the first time, fair and equal. 

Didn’t some use partial qualifiers for a long time?

[WETSU]

7 minutes ago, DB2point0 said:

Didn’t some use partial qualifiers for a long time?

I’m assuming you’re talking about Nebraska? Yes they used some partial qualifiers as some weird loophole for some time. That was 80s-90s I believe. At the time it wasn’t necessarily illegal it was some sort of weird loophole. If I remember right they (Nebraska) manipulated the rule in a way that wasn’t strictly illegal but it was enough to appear unfair and the rule changed. It wasn’t a widely used tactic though. 

[Valhalla]

1 hour ago, WETSU said:

We can talk about this until we are blue in the face, but I really think that it’s foolish to look at college football as an all time thing. Yes we can talk about titles won in the 1920s or 60s. Yes we can compare head to heads and it’s fun to trash talk. But I think to truly talk about tiers and compare teams you need to do it when they are all on equal footing. The start of scholarship restrictions in 1972. That puts everyone on equal footing for really the first time in college football history. Some teams got better, some got worse, some stayed the same... the point is it’s all, for the first time, fair and equal. 

Add to that you have to really examine how some teams were awarded some of the national titles that they “claim”.

[Coach Rab]

29 minutes ago, Baron said:

Just make sure you apply the same standard if Fisher leads y'all to several 10 win seasons without a conference championship. That's all I'm saying.

QUit hating on LSU!

[WETSU]

1 minute ago, Valhalla said:

Add to that you have to really examine how some teams were awarded some of the national titles that they “claim”.

I know you’re talking about A&M. You bring this up all the time and I’m not sure why... But I’ve explained in detail several times. Back before the BCS there was no true champion. It was just a poll. So many teams over the years have claimed titles just because some different outlet named them a champion. It happened many times over the years. I agree with you A&M adding those “titles” was ridiculously stupid. But by definition of what a title was back then, they technically hold as much claim as the other “winners” that year. Which is why the whole system sucked and was changed to bcs and now to what we have today. Point is, why keep talking about it lol. 

For the record though, I’m pretty sure one of those titles A&M “claimed” they finished the season without allowing a single point and finished undefeated. If that doesn’t qualify for a claim who does lol

[Valhalla]

2 minutes ago, WETSU said:

I know you’re talking about A&M. You bring this up all the time and I’m not sure why... But I’ve explained in detail several times. Back before the BCS there was no true champion. It was just a poll. So many teams over the years have claimed titles just because some different outlet named them a champion. It happened many times over the years. I agree with you A&M adding those “titles” was ridiculously stupid. But by definition of what a title was back then, they technically hold as much claim as the other “winners” that year. Which is why the whole system sucked and was changed to bcs and now to what we have today. Point is, why keep talking about it lol. 

For the record though, I’m pretty sure one of those titles A&M “claimed” they finished the season without allowing a single point and finished undefeated. If that doesn’t qualify for a claim who does lol

I was not really thinking of A&M in that post as much as college football in general. 

Several schools do it.

[DB2point0]

17 minutes ago, WETSU said:

I’m assuming you’re talking about Nebraska? Yes they used some partial qualifiers as some weird loophole for some time. That was 80s-90s I believe. At the time it wasn’t necessarily illegal it was some sort of weird loophole. If I remember right they (Nebraska) manipulated the rule in a way that wasn’t strictly illegal but it was enough to appear unfair and the rule changed. It wasn’t a widely used tactic though. 

I thought several did it 

[WETSU]

4 minutes ago, Valhalla said:

I was not really thinking of A&M in that post as much as college football in general. 

Several schools do it.

I know and I agree it’s dumb. Why add a title 50+ years later.... But that goes along the same lines as what I’m talking about though. Using a newspaper poll (different ones btw) to determine champion(s), having essentially no rules or guidelines on how teams recruit, having some teams be some of the leaders in total titles not even have D1 programs anymore (Princeton and Yale.) There’s just so much that happened before “modern football” that makes it almost like comparing two different worlds. And that was my argument. 

[WETSU]

2 minutes ago, DB2point0 said:

I thought several did it 

No. The big 8 teams were really the only ones who even allowed that sort of thing and Nebraska was really the only one who used it. In fact, Texas refused to join the big 12 if the conference didn’t implement a rule for Nebraska to stop it. That’s why there was bad blood from Nebraska and Texas from the beginning, and a big reason why Nebraska left, Texas essentially strong armed the entire conference into forcing Nebraska to change its ways, and it essentially was the start of the decline of Nebraska football. 

[Stoney]

Didn’t Nixon crown a national champion? 

[Baron]

11 minutes ago, Stoney said:

Didn’t Nixon crown a national champion? 

Indeed he did. It was a current declaration at the time. Not several decades later. 

[Stoney]

5 minutes ago, Baron said:

Indeed he did. It was a current declaration at the time. Not several decades later. 

I don’t trust anything from before 1983.

[JohnnyFootball]

5 hours ago, DB2point0 said:

page 29

 

Huh I'll be damned- I WAS indeed wrong there. As you can see I had left that topic a while before and missed that. I was wrong about that thread but talking about the one where Longview played Rockwall and you said King would never win a state championship. I bumped it and instead of saying "I was wrong" you moved the goalposts. 

[DB2point0]

14 hours ago, MavGrad99 said:

Those wins vs Vandy and Missouri was HUGE for the B12 in trying to make this point    
In games that mattered, only Texas had the big win over Georgia.  OU should have beat Alabama, but they didn't...  but beat your chest over the low tier victories...  It's very similar to Lion with his SEC chants.

The thing is, it’s the sec’ers that brag on how tough their whole conference is, not just the top couple of teams that typically bring all the notoriety.  Just in the last couple days right here you saw some bragging that 4 ooc weak games don’t matter because they play sec teams and that ultimately makes their schedules tougher.  But yet when those teams they claim make their schedule better lose to other teams from other conferences it doesn’t matter.  Beating Vandy or Missouri doesn’t matter all of the sudden

[JohnnyFootball]

2 hours ago, DB2point0 said:

The thing is, it’s the sec’ers that brag on how tough their whole conference is, not just the top couple of teams that typically bring all the notoriety.  Just in the last couple days right here you saw some bragging that 4 ooc weak games don’t matter because they play sec teams and that ultimately makes their schedules tougher.  

Who said that and where?

[Coach Rab]

2 hours ago, DB2point0 said:

The thing is, it’s the sec’ers that brag on how tough their whole conference is, not just the top couple of teams that typically bring all the notoriety.  Just in the last couple days right here you saw some bragging that 4 ooc weak games don’t matter because they play sec teams and that ultimately makes their schedules tougher.  But yet when those teams they claim make their schedule better lose to other teams from other conferences it doesn’t matter.  Beating Vandy or Missouri doesn’t matter all of the sudden

The only thing that matters is how the season finishes for all teams.  Quite honestly, Texas may have had the best season out of anyone in any conference?  Why?  Because they had a great season and beat some great teams along the way.