Reply With Quote
im not saying its 100% due to the layoff, but if you think that the layoff doesnt give rhythm-based teams a disadvantage (especially being that these are still kids), you are a moron.
you ing idiotbelieve it or not, there are lots of people in America who aren't fans of the traditional powers of college football,there are lots of fans of the little guy, the underdog, the Cinderella story, and of course other teams.
yes college football would be well served to alienate them.
if anything, a playoff system would actually give teams like Boise St and TCU a good chance to play for a National Championship, like they have probably deserved a couple times by now
this should most definitely be something you would be in favor of.
idaho
im not saying its 100% due to the layoff, but if you think that the layoff doesnt give rhythm-based teams a disadvantage (especially being that these are still kids), you are a moron.
also, there is a reason that there are many Cinderella stories in NCAA basketball, but basically never in NCAA football.believe it or not, there are lots of people in America who aren't fans of the traditional powers of college football,
yes college football would be well served to alienate them.
its called the playoff system.
I'm not claiming to be the expert. You are.
But this isn't about me ( or you I thought).
so an Arizona booster with ties to SoCal schools says Larry Scott wants Rice over Tech.Fact is I moderate for multiple recruiting sites premium boards, and am comped unlimited subscriptions for my information and services. I know plenty of people, and while I've not talked to Scott, I've talked to others. While I'm not the main source on this, and I've never claimed to be, even in secret, the truth is I know actual Insiders within the Pac and Arizona athletics who are legitimate sources, who do talk to school athletic directors and conference commissioners. You act as though you've never heard of subscription-based premium information before. Do some get paid as primary Insiders? Sure. Did this guy? No. He's a booster to Arizona with direct ties to the SoCal schools. And I told you this was for Rivals.com (Owned and promoted by Yahoo Sports) and Scout.com (Owned and promoted by Fox Sports). So the standards are not just some POS blog, mind you, not that you can be convinced.
The standards for any rumor remains the same: put up, shut the up or look stupid.
Oh snap.But cool. Glad you call bull . Good to have you in the Pac, even if you were the third state-of-Texas option.
How lmfao funny would it be to invite Rice just because they are super smart, only to have drunk Tech stumble in the room and spill their beer all over them, right before beating them 70-10 on the field.
why do you keep narrowing it down to just Boise?
Texas fans are going to watch Texas regardless, the big TV money is in the casual fans everywhere. how is a playoff system between the 4 elite conferences going to attract casual fans and outsider team fans?
The same way the BCS championship game has attracted casual fans and outsider team fans.
By existing.
broaden it then.
Throw out a number of the total loss of college football fans
no, it's because basketball requires one great player to be a contender, one hot hand to beat a better team. football teams are slow-built empires. most of those cinderellas never have a real chance anyways. who cares if some 16 seed makes it to the second round? just means that some great team lost it's chance at the le on one bad game after 30+ games of dominance in the regular season. college basketball should cut down to 16 team playoffs with best of 3 in round 1, best of 5 the rest of the way. how often does the best team actually win out in college basketball? half the time?
and do you want the college football regular season to be as irrelevant as college basketballs?
playoffs between just the 4 super-conferences without the BCS would eliminate the BSUs, Utahs, and TCUs.
and eliminate the must-win nature of the regular season
if I want to see inferior teams winning playoff games I've got the NFL playoffs.
you really want to see 2 and 3 loss championship teams?
You do realize that USC ups have been one of the most powerful in pushing for this, and that Arizona has been one of the schools with the most concerns, so being tapped into both thought processes, especially when one is connected, can yield valuable information?
And I never claimed to be an expert. I posted content from an Insider I trust that said this past week Scott was working to get Oklahoma without State and Texas without Tech to free up two spots to bring in Kansas (without State) for basketall and, another target, first being Missouri who expressed no interest, then Rice for their academics, their baseball, and their market. Everyone knows Tech destroys Rice in football. Once the Pac gained Texas and Oklahoma, I have to say the other schools better than Rice but worse than USC/Texas/Oklahoma are basically meaningless in football. Texas brings the Texas market largely, and Rice adds a school in Houston, the largest market in the state, plus helps buoy academics along with Texas, Stanford and the public California schools.
When you took exception, I explained where I got it. Then you impugned everything involved based upon your opinion that anyone wanting Rice would already have them if they liked academics over athletics, a seemingly absurd position to you, as if strong conferences have never added lesser compe ive schools based upon their academic prowess (I see you SEC and Vanderbilt, Big-10 and Northwestern).
I'm fine if you disagree. I know the value of the information and the informer. Since it looks pretty clear the discussed ideal didn't come into existence due to politics, I shared the information I discussed with DoK via PM a week ago. It's probably not going to happen, and the furthered expansion to 18/20 seems impractical, so the expansion becomes almost solely for football and avoiding destructive politics to make it happen, another provision I discussed a week ago with DoK. But whatever. I can't link you the Insiders premium content, and quoted one section from his post on the matter. It's what I can do. It's cool if you don't see the value in it.
I think JMark is telling it like it is. I think there have been strong concerns regarding Tech's academics.
But they are thinking of taking OK State, right?
to all of this
also, cinderella stories aren't all that they're cracked up to be. Butler made the national championship unwatchable last year because of how much they didn't belong.
Not in the ideal I said was being discussed. The ideal was Texas and Okahoma plus two of Kansas, Missouri and Rice. KU for basketball. Once Missouri said no thanks they were discussing Rice for academics, baseball and Houston foothold.
Scott was wanting to improve the Pacls overall brand, not just keep up with SEC in football.
Alright. I can see Texas' moving on without Tech, but OU without State seems to be a much harder sell.
Idk how much interest they ever truly had in Rice, but the Kansas part makes sense. Pac-12 basketball has been terrible for 2 straight years now and no program with the exception of Arizona is making any noise with recruits. Another basketball powerhouse would give the Pac-12 the jolt it needs in basketball, which is something IMO that's as big a concern as football.
That's exactly what I thought. I don't see OU and OK State separating from each other.
Oklahoma isnt going anywhere without OSU. 0 chance.
There are to many words there for Blake to comprehend. Unless it is a story feed to him by BSPN he calls it BS. Same old story.
Ultimately the politics to gain the "ideal" were impossible, so it's Oklahoma with OK-State, and Texas with Tech. Likely as expected, but not necessarily preferred.
As for how much interest Rice ever generated, I don't know. To what degree, I am not sure. It wasn't my content, but the info is from a good source who's had a finger on the pulse of this for over a year now, and who said stuff was going down this last week, the weekend prior to it all going down. If he says Rice, I don't distrust it.
Rice makes sense if Tech isn't a prerequisite for UT's joining. Rice can always decide to spend more money on athletics.
It woulda been nice if they coulda just gotten one of the schools without having to take the little brother. I loved the idea of Kansas joining the Pac when I first heard about it. OU, OK state, UT and Kansas woulda really made it a "superconference" in both football and basketball.
At one point it seemed like the ideal could occur. Once Missouri expressed zero interest Rice was mentioned as a way to bring in two Texas schools, as well, likely a token attempt to appease the Texas legislature should Texas join without Tech. However, in addition to politics, Rice added prowess in areas other than football, which was already deemed strong enough. Now it seems it's Tech with Texas or nothing.
sure, but you havent talked to Scott yourself.
BS as far as I'm concerned.
A matter of semantics as to what you claim to be,And I never claimed to be an expert.
-OU isnt going anywhere without OSUI posted content from an Insider I trust that said this past week Scott was working to get Oklahoma without State and Texas without Tech to free up two spots to bring in Kansas (without State) for basketall and, another target, first being Missouri who expressed no interest, then Rice for their academics, their baseball, and their market. Everyone knows Tech destroys Rice in football. Once the Pac gained Texas and Oklahoma, I have to say the other schools better than Rice but worse than USC/Texas/Oklahoma are basically meaningless in football. Texas brings the Texas market largely, and Rice adds a school in Houston, the largest market in the state, plus helps buoy academics along with Texas, Stanford and the public California schools.
-UT owns the Houston market more than Rice.
Basically if what you say is true and Scott does want Rice, all he wants is a nerd to throw to the front when someone asks how the Pac is doing academically.
Honestly, that's stupid a reason when we are talking athletic realignments.
I could see several scenarios where Tech gets left out of the mix. I can't see any logical scenario where a commissioner would want Rice instead.
I think someone ass talked and several posters like you ran with it.When you took exception, I explained where I got it. Then you impugned everything involved based upon your opinion that anyone wanting Rice would already have them if they liked academics over athletics, a seemingly absurd position to you, as if strong conferences have never added lesser compe ive schools based upon their academic prowess (I see you SEC and Vanderbilt, Big-10 and Northwestern).
I'm fine if you disagree. I know the value of the information and the informer. Since it looks pretty clear the discussed ideal didn't come into existence due to politics, I shared the information I discussed with DoK via PM a week ago. It's probably not going to happen, and the furthered expansion to 18/20 seems impractical, so the expansion becomes almost solely for football and avoiding destructive politics to make it happen, another provision I discussed a week ago with DoK. But whatever. I can't link you the Insiders premium content, and quoted one section from his post on the matter. It's what I can do. It's cool if you don't see the value in it.
lol you still being butthurt because your rumors were proven to be .
Or you're asshurt and ran with it.
Like I said, doesn't seem to matter now. Politics of Texas with Tech and Oklahoma with State won, so ideals now become maintaining this so the seminal ideal behind all of this in adding Texas and Oklahoma stays in place.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
