ESPN: BIG XII v. Pac 12 Debate

[spursncowboys]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...llege-football

There's not a league that can compete with the Big 12's depth, and at the top of the two conferences, there's plenty of debate.

The Big 12 has clearly proved itself as the deepest league in college football

[DesignatedT]

It's David Ubben bro.

A big 12 blogger says the big12 is better. Shocking.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It's David Ubben bro.

A big 12 blogger says the big12 is better. Shocking.

All that big 12 depth and their 4th best team lost to the Pac's 8th best team this year. The end of bowl season should give a pretty good idea as to which conference is better.

[Blake]

Yeah Ubben is a big big 12 honk

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Both Oregon and Stanford won 11 games, but Stanford won only 11 games because it got to beat UCLA in consecutive weekends, counting the Pac-12 championship. Kansas State won 11, but Oklahoma won 10 games with losses to K-State and national le participant Notre Dame.

This is some amazing intellectual dishonesty. Oklahoma got walloped at home by Notre Dame, Stanford lost to Notre Dame in OT @ South Bend, yet this Big-12 sucker mentions one of Oklahoma's losses was to Notre Dame but doesn't mention one of Stanford's losses was too. There's no way around the fact him using Notre Dame to prop up Oklahoma but not Stanford is bias and dishonest.

[Bill_Brasky]

Both conferences looked very good at the midway point of the season, then the B12 went on a huge streak re ed, head scratching play that resulted in losses for their better schools while teams like Oregon, Stanford etc in the Pac played well at the end of the season. Right now OU is our best team and there are 2-3 in the Pac that could beat them soundly and a few more that could give them a game.

Basically, even though MBTF has Texas in the ter and OU isn't great, no other team in the B12 seems to want to emerge.

[stretch]

Top to bottom, I guess you could technically say Big-12 is the best conference in college football, since they only had one team in the whole conference with a below .500 record. But that doesn't really mean much. SEC is extremely top heavy, while their bottom schools blow, but at least they have been winning championships. Pac-12 is the most bipolar conference every year. You never know what to expect from them. They have had a very solid year, but next year they could end up being complete crap. Big 12 and SEC generally will have a solid 3 teams that are making pushes for the national le or BCS bowls. Pac-12 is kinda random. That's the way it seems to me anyways, maybe I'm wrong. Too lazy to look it up.

FWIW, I don't get why people get so worked up over conference pride. It's stupid. It's every bit as stupid as getting worked up over whether the East or the West wins the championship in the NBA, or the AFC/NFC in football. WGAF?

[Sisk]

FWIW, I don't get why people get so worked up over conference pride. It's stupid. It's every bit as stupid as getting worked up over whether the East or the West wins the championship in the NBA, or the AFC/NFC in football. WGAF?

Not true. The SEC going to more/better bowls = more money for the rest of the conference.

[DesignatedT]

Being apart of a collegiate conference is much different then being apart of a pro sport conference. It covers nearly every sport + academics. A lot of reasons to take pride in what conference you are apart of and to want your conference to succeed.

[Blake]

UT, OU and KST need to go at least 2-1 between the three of them this bowl season.

0-3 would be brutal for the conference.

[stretch]

Not true. The SEC going to more/better bowls = more money for the rest of the conference.

Being apart of a collegiate conference is much different then being apart of a pro sport conference. It covers nearly every sport + academics. A lot of reasons to take pride in what conference you are apart of and to want your conference to succeed.

Which is re ed IMO. Why do schools feel their s get bigger, when big-time schools are more successful than them? How about do well in your own sports and academics, instead of relying on others to do work for you?

I understand how that works and all, but it's still re ed to be rooting for your biggest rivals, simply for the sake of your conference. Not much of a rivalry, nor much compe ion IMO. It basically gives people reason to not try their hardest if they are simply going to rely on other teams/schools to be successful and mooch off of them.

[dirk4mvp]

Not true. The SEC going to more/better bowls = more money for the rest of the conference.

Where's all this money at tbh? Can they direct deposit a little bit into my bank account?

[DesignatedT]

Some schools don't have the resources as other schools lol. It isn't a level playing field tbqh.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The fact B-12 fans don't see how re ed the, "Look how many of our teams are over .500!" argument is is pretty amazing. It's so logically flawed and stupid I don't even feel like explaining why. Anyone dumb enough to think it's a legitimate argument probably wouldn't understand why it's stupid.

And no, this isn't bias. In 2009, Pac-12 fans used the same, "We have a whole bunch of 7-8 win teams because we're really compe ive!" argument and it was equally dumb when they used it.

[Sisk]

Which is re ed IMO. Why do schools feel their s get bigger, when big-time schools are more successful than them? How about do well in your own sports and academics, instead of relying on others to do work for you?

I understand how that works and all, but it's still re ed to be rooting for your biggest rivals, simply for the sake of your conference. Not much of a rivalry, nor much compe ion IMO. It basically gives people reason to not try their hardest if they are simply going to rely on other teams/schools to be successful and mooch off of them.

As "re ed" as it is - it works. What is better for the conference as a whole makes the conference more valuable. Means more money and success for everybody. Your approach, the same as the b12's, does not work. See: Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas A&M departures.

[stretch]

The fact B-12 fans don't see how re ed the, "Look how many of our teams are over .500!" argument is is pretty amazing. It's so logically flawed and stupid I don't even feel like explaining why. Anyone dumb enough to think it's a legitimate argument probably wouldn't understand why it's stupid.

And no, this isn't bias. In 2009, Pac-12 fans used the same, "We have a whole bunch of 7-8 win teams because we're really compe ive!" argument and it was equally dumb when they used it.

No one said its a good argument. In fact, I believe I said it was pretty much meaningless.

[Blake]

As "re ed" as it is - it works. What is better for the conference as a whole makes the conference more valuable. Means more money and success for everybody. Your approach, the same as the b12's, does not work. See: Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas A&M departures.

Why doesn't the b12's approach work?

How much more money will A&M get in the next 5-10 years than Tech?

[stretch]

As "re ed" as it is - it works. What is better for the conference as a whole makes the conference more valuable. Means more money and success for everybody. Your approach, the same as the b12's, does not work. See: Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas A&M departures.

Interesting, because Colorado and Nebraska hasn't done crap since leaving, while Missou and A&M have just left, but Missou doesn't appear headed to being any better than they previously were, and who knows if A&M will either, because they are may end up just doing the same cycle they always do... suck for 4-5 years, have a couple years where they win some games and have a nice recruiting class, then go back to sucking for another 4-5 years. The jury is still out on those two.

And yeah, the SEC style is working great for their lesser schools, like Vandy, Ole Piss, Kentucky, Mississippi State, and Arkansas . Those schools are having basically no more success than teams like Missouri, A&M, Tech, K-State, and Okie State have had in the Big-12. Occasionally a breakout season here and there, but generally are just average programs that sit usually on the outskirts of the top 25 every year. Basically the only difference is the SEC is more top heavy as Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, and LSU are all highly respected football programs and have been for quite some time, while the Big-12 has only two real big name schools, Texas and Oklahoma. It's fully understandable why lesser schools would want to leave their conferences for the SEC, but it would make no sense at all for most any high-end, respectable program to leave their conference. In the end, how much of a benefit is it really, to bag some average programs?

So is it the management style that makes the SEC a superior conference than all others? Or is it the fact that they have a larger number of high-profile football programs? Take a couple of those high-profile teams away, and are they really much, if any better than the Pac-12 or Big-12? Not saying they would or wouldn't be, but I think they are legit questions.

[BUMP]

Interesting, because Colorado and Nebraska hasn't done crap since leaving, while Missou and A&M have just left, but Missou doesn't appear headed to being any better than they previously were, and who knows if A&M will either, because they are may end up just doing the same cycle they always do... suck for 4-5 years, have a couple years where they win some games and have a nice recruiting class, then go back to sucking for another 4-5 years. The jury is still out on those two.

And yeah, the SEC style is working great for their lesser schools, like Vandy, Ole Piss, Kentucky, Mississippi State, and Arkansas . Those schools are having basically no more success than teams like Missouri, A&M, Tech, K-State, and Okie State have had in the Big-12. Occasionally a breakout season here and there, but generally are just average programs that sit usually on the outskirts of the top 25 every year. Basically the only difference is the SEC is more top heavy as Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, and LSU are all highly respected football programs and have been for quite some time, while the Big-12 has only two real big name schools, Texas and Oklahoma. It's fully understandable why lesser schools would want to leave their conferences for the SEC, but it would make no sense at all for most any high-end, respectable program to leave their conference. In the end, how much of a benefit is it really, to bag some average programs?

So is it the management style that makes the SEC a superior conference than all others? Or is it the fact that they have a larger number of high-profile football programs? Take a couple of those high-profile teams away, and are they really much, if any better than the Pac-12 or Big-12? Not saying they would or wouldn't be, but I think they are legit questions.

Hey stretch, do you know the procedure for when you discover a weapon that doesn't belong to you?
1. Stop
2. Dont touch
3. Leave the area
4. Tell an adult

And your mother's a

[coyotes_geek]

And yeah, the SEC style is working great for their lesser schools, like Vandy, Ole Piss, Kentucky, Mississippi State, and Arkansas .

Apparently it's working well enough for all of those schools to stick around. There's a reason we see teams who have won a bunch of games like TCU and Boise State trying to get into the major conferences where they're not likely to win as much as they were and we don't see teams like Vandy, Kentucky, Baylor and Iowa State trying to leave those major conferences to go somewhere where they could theoretically win more games than they currently are. Conference matters. Every school that has jumped conferences over the last few years has jumped into the bigger pond, regardless of whether or not they'll be a big fish or a little fish in that bigger pond.

So is it the management style that makes the SEC a superior conference than all others?

Partly.

Or is it the fact that they have a larger number of high-profile football programs?

A bigger part.

[stretch]

Apparently it's working well enough for all of those schools to stick around. There's a reason we see teams who have won a bunch of games like TCU and Boise State trying to get into the major conferences where they're not likely to win as much as they were and we don't see teams like Vandy, Kentucky, Baylor and Iowa State trying to leave those major conferences to go somewhere where they could theoretically win more games than they currently are. Conference matters. Every school that has jumped conferences over the last few years has jumped into the bigger pond, regardless of whether or not they'll be a big fish or a little fish in that bigger pond.

I'm not saying conference doesn't matter. It absolutely does. I just think having conference pride, to the point that you are rooting for your biggest "rival" to win in order to have "conference bragging rights" is re ed.

That, and SEC fans who constantly act like the SEC management style is the biggest reason they have been so successful over the past decade is re ed. The reason they have been successful has little to nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fact that they have a large number of high-profile football programs. The small programs mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. It's all about how your high-profile programs are doing, and as long as they are doing well and are happy, and the voters keep a high opinion of your conference (which is tied directly to how your high-profile teams are doing), you will be fine.

[spursncowboys]

Interesting, because Colorado and Nebraska hasn't done crap since leaving, while Missou and A&M have just left, but Missou doesn't appear headed to being any better than they previously were, and who knows if A&M will either, because they are may end up just doing the same cycle they always do... suck for 4-5 years, have a couple years where they win some games and have a nice recruiting class, then go back to sucking for another 4-5 years. The jury is still out on those two.

And yeah, the SEC style is working great for their lesser schools, like Vandy, Ole Piss, Kentucky, Mississippi State, and Arkansas . Those schools are having basically no more success than teams like Missouri, A&M, Tech, K-State, and Okie State have had in the Big-12. Occasionally a breakout season here and there, but generally are just average programs that sit usually on the outskirts of the top 25 every year. Basically the only difference is the SEC is more top heavy as Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, and LSU are all highly respected football programs and have been for quite some time, while the Big-12 has only two real big name schools, Texas and Oklahoma. It's fully understandable why lesser schools would want to leave their conferences for the SEC, but it would make no sense at all for most any high-end, respectable program to leave their conference. In the end, how much of a benefit is it really, to bag some average programs?

So is it the management style that makes the SEC a superior conference than all others? Or is it the fact that they have a larger number of high-profile football programs? Take a couple of those high-profile teams away, and are they really much, if any better than the Pac-12 or Big-12? Not saying they would or wouldn't be, but I think they are legit questions.

school=money
conference=tv markets.

[Sisk]

Why doesn't the b12's approach work?

How much more money will A&M get in the next 5-10 years than Tech?

Tech is only there because they have no other choice. We will make a lot more.

Interesting, because Colorado and Nebraska hasn't done crap since leaving, while Missou and A&M have just left, but Missou doesn't appear headed to being any better than they previously were, and who knows if A&M will either, because they are may end up just doing the same cycle they always do... suck for 4-5 years, have a couple years where they win some games and have a nice recruiting class, then go back to sucking for another 4-5 years. The jury is still out on those two.

And yeah, the SEC style is working great for their lesser schools, like Vandy, Ole Piss, Kentucky, Mississippi State, and Arkansas . Those schools are having basically no more success than teams like Missouri, A&M, Tech, K-State, and Okie State have had in the Big-12. Occasionally a breakout season here and there, but generally are just average programs that sit usually on the outskirts of the top 25 every year. Basically the only difference is the SEC is more top heavy as Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, and LSU are all highly respected football programs and have been for quite some time, while the Big-12 has only two real big name schools, Texas and Oklahoma. It's fully understandable why lesser schools would want to leave their conferences for the SEC, but it would make no sense at all for most any high-end, respectable program to leave their conference. In the end, how much of a benefit is it really, to bag some average programs?

So is it the management style that makes the SEC a superior conference than all others? Or is it the fact that they have a larger number of high-profile football programs? Take a couple of those high-profile teams away, and are they really much, if any better than the Pac-12 or Big-12? Not saying they would or wouldn't be, but I think they are legit questions.

All of the schools that have left the b12 will make more money and get more exposure. We also are all in stable conferences. An example of just how stable the SEC is: there is no buyout clause. You can leave whenever you want.

[stretch]

All of the schools that have left the b12 will make more money and get more exposure. We also are all in stable conferences. An example of just how stable the SEC is: there is no buyout clause. You can leave whenever you want.

And why are they making more money and getting more exposure? Because of the system? Or because of the number of high profile schools? Let's say that the SEC only had Alabama and Auburn, and take away Georgia, Florida, and LSU. How successful is the SEC and their system now?

The system only works because they have so many high end football programs. If they didn't, things would be much different, and most likely Alabama and Auburn would be wanting a Big-12 type system. They are only cool with it now, because it doesn't hurt them with the other big name schools being there and keeping the cash flow high. But without those schools helping keep the total conference income higher, they end up giving away a lot of money for absolutely nothing, and will be making considerably less than if they just kept their own rightfully earned money. The extra money they share with the other schools isn't going to make them any better of football programs. At this point, football programs are pretty much entirely based on their history. It's next to impossible for any low-profile football teams to make a leap into annually being one of the big dogs. Pretty much, what the programs are now, are what they will be for the rest of their existence. MAYBE one or two programs across the nation will get lucky and somehow make the leap into being a consistently elite program, and that's a huge maybe.

The SEC and their system works for one reason and one reason only. Which makes it even more stupid when everyone whines "oh look how greedy Texas is!!! " If any other top school was in the same situation (basically carrying a conference with one other high profile football program), they would be wanting the exact same thing. No conference relies on one school as much as the Big-12 relies on Texas. If you take them out of the conference, its completely done. No other program can say that. And I'm not saying that is a good thing, just that it's the truth. I would prefer there being more high profile teams in the Big-12, but that's not going to happen unless they decide to create one of those "superconferences" there has been talk about in the past.

[Blake]

Tech is only there because they have no other choice. We will make a lot more.



All of the schools that have left the b12 will make more money and get more exposure. We also are all in stable conferences. An example of just how stable the SEC is: there is no buyout clause. You can leave whenever you want.

you're talking out of your ass.