(06-19-2015 09:38 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 04:13 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 12:10 PM)goofus Wrote:  BYU - national champion in 80's, considered for original Big 12, then got passed up by Utah, TCU and Boise

BYU has made it as independent and left the conference Boise was promoted too. BYU games count as G5 for some schools. Not sure they've been passed by Boise.

In terms of being viable for the B12...BYU because of factors such as SLC location, 65,000 seater, easy FB only situation is still ahead of Boise in the B12 discussion.

Boise State from a limelight perspective has taken the mantle of being that little school in the mountains with a really good football team away from BYU. From this perspective Boise has left BYU in the dust. They've done more in the last 15 years on a national level as what BYU had done in 40. Of course BYU has solid basketball program which Boise does not have.

Check your math. BYU won the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP less than 40 years ago. That's worth more than a few BCS wins folks.

(06-22-2015 08:16 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-21-2015 08:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Arkansas had years going 10-2 late in the SWC and they didn't even finish in the top 10 with those. A few years ago they finished 11-2 and finished #5.

You go back and look at where the SWC was back in 1990. Behind the SEC, Big Ten, Pac 10, Big 8 for sure. That's a huge upgrade for Arkansas. Definitely not the biggest loser.

They were 12th and 13th in 1988 and 1989 at 10-2. First poll I looked at to see where some 10-2 teams were was 2000. Mississippi St. was 10-2 and 13th from the SEC. And Arkansas lost their last 2 games in 1988 and their bowl game in 1989. That drops you in the polls relative to other teams with the same record. And 12th and 13th beats the heck out of not being ranked at all. They won a division title in the SEC in 1995 and weren't ranked at all at the end of the season. They were only ranked once (1999) in their first 15 years in the league. They've only beat that 12th place finish once (2011-#5) in 24 years in the SEC.

Just because you are in a more expensive, safer "home" doesn't mean you are better off. A mansion in Mississippi doesn't help if you have to commute to Texas to work.

Such SWC BS. The SWC in 1990 was a dying conference. Arkansas is in a completely better place now than they were back in 1990. Only a Texas fan would call Arkansas a loser in realignment in the last 25 years.

People underestimate the job that Jack Swarbrick did to keep ND football out of a conference.

At the same time, he took care of ND's other sports, late season scheduling issues and minor bowl bids.

He did this through the turmoil of conference realignment and the end of the Big East Conference.

He successfully steered ND away from the clutches of Jim Delany and the Big Ten. Bravo!

For all of that, I think that ND is a winner in conference realignment.

I don't know. I mean, ND now has 5 games a year scheduled by the ACC out of 12, instead of 0/11 when the period started. That's not a great thing. Also, we don't know how the CFP committee will treat ND when they are a factor in the national race.

Tough to call them a winner or a loser right now.

(06-21-2015 08:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-21-2015 07:49 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(06-19-2015 02:56 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 01:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing about this- the title is completely bogus. It's the most MUTUALLY Beneficial partnership...

As far as the conference- ACC benefitted from FSU more than any other conference addition.

As far as teams- I don't know how you can say South Carolina wasn't the biggest realignment winner..... They were an afterthought 25 years ago.

I agree. Until 1990, Florida St, Miami, Penn St, South Carolina, AND ECU were in the same category technically. They were all considered Major Independents. The Big East forming, along with Penn St joining the Big 10 and Florida St joining the ACC, stunted what was then phenomenal momentum for ECU football in the state of North Carolina and on the east coast. ECU was at least on the same footing as all the BE members picked for football in 1991 and SC. Miami had some great years in the 80's no doubt, but ECU smashed Miami a couple times too before anyone goes there. How I hate Miami

Crazy talk. Completely wrong.

Agreed. The Big East invited Miami in October of 1990 and they decided upon which programs to approach for Big East football that winter and Spring 1991.

The decade they looked at would have been the 1980s. Pitt, BC, and SU were already in the Big East, but they had strong football overall that decade WVU and VT were both superior to ECU during the 80s as well.

Only teams ECU could possibly claim being better than in the 80s who became part of Big East football are Rutgers and Temple.

The other 7 were clearly a notch above the Pirates at that time.

Of course this is a case where the whole was definitely less than the sum of the parts. Considering how strong the records of Miami, WVU, Pitt, BC, SU, and VT were in the 80s they didn't do as well when in the same conference together.

Cheers,
Neil

From 1984-1990, ECU ranged from bad to mediocre. They had a nice breakout year in 1991, but that was too late to be considered by the Big East in making their decision about additions. http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/scho...-carolina/

It is certainly true that Rutgers and Temple were not much better, if at all, during the same period. However, they had the advantages of already being part of the regular schedules of BC, Pitt and Syracuse, being in the East, and being located in major media markets.

Virginia Tech had a pair of rough seasons in '87 and '88. Otherwise they were a pretty competitive program in the '80's. They also were in a contiguous state with a large population and the prestige of being a Land Grant University, a status that shouldn't be underestimated in importance to any major conference.

yeah ECU had the misfortune a few times of being really down when realignment happened. Late 80's like you mentioned(25-51-1 from 84-90), and then 2003-04 when they were 3-20.

84-90 period-
Rutgers was 31-41-4
Temple was 26-51

VT in that period- 41-36-2.

(06-22-2015 10:12 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't know. I mean, ND now has 5 games a year scheduled by the ACC out of 12, instead of 0/11 when the period started. That's not a great thing. Also, we don't know how the CFP committee will treat ND when they are a factor in the national race.

Tough to call them a winner or a loser right now.

We tremendously and completely disagree. But, that is no surprise now, is it?

Schools get most of their money from the academic side. And the academic side of FSU has benefited tremendously from being in the ACC.

It also hasn't hurt that they've had an easier route to an undefeated season than they would have in the SEC.

(06-18-2015 10:55 AM)Okielite Wrote:  I don't agree. Considering they went undefeated with an OOC schedule of Florida, Notre Dame, and OSU and won their CC game and still dropped in the rankings it's pretty clear that it is going to take an undefeated season for them to get in the playoff moving forward. All the other blue bloods in other conferences can likely absorb 1 loss and still get in.football programs in the coutry they compete against.

That had everything to do with "how" they were winning, not who they were beating. Also, they went UP in the rankings after winning their CCG, not down. They also went down after beating Florida.

FSU should have bolted to B12 when they had the chance.

(06-22-2015 12:10 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  FSU should have bolted to B12 when they had the chance.

There was nothing preventing them if they wanted too, so obviously.....

(06-22-2015 08:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-21-2015 09:05 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-21-2015 08:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-21-2015 08:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-21-2015 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Arkansas? Texan schadenfreude. The Hogs are about where they've been since Broyles & Royal were a recent memory. But then with a few minor blips of glory so are the Horns.

You're old enough to know better JR. Some of these others may be too young. But even you've forgotten about the Hogs.

No I haven't forgotten, it's just that they were on the way down when they came to the SEC. I was one of the millions riveted to the fuzzy channel to watch Darrel Royal beat the Hogs in a close one. The games were once, but just for the 60's, better than Texas / OU.

Arkansas was on the way down with the SWC and make a move to the SEC, it is lauded by you as a positive.

Nebraska was on the way down with the big 12, which is the SWC 2.0, and make a move to the Big Ten where they have had success and...its a negative?

Tsk tsk.

Wow. Just making up your own facts.

Nebraska lost 4 games all 7 years Bo Pellini was there. He won 2 division titles and tied for one the last 3 years in the Big 12 and was ranked in the top 20 2 of those years. Nebraska has won 1 division title in 4 years in the Big 10 and was ranked 23rd-25th in 3 of those 4 years.

You post ranks higher than Arkansas as the biggest loser.

The rest of the Big 12 North was absolutely atrocious, that is why the conference imploded. To deny that would be the biggest nonfactual stance you could possibly take. On the other hand, an unbalanced Big Ten West never caused The Big Ten to lose anybody. It wasn't all that unbalanced, Wisconsin was the dominant program and Nebraska was holding their own despite playing at the tail end of Pelini's tailspin.

Your attempts to attack any school that didn't want to be part of your Texas centric jerk off festival are hilariously atrocious. But hey, don't let everyone disagreeing with you stop you from insulting everyone that thinks your listing is hilarious.

(06-22-2015 06:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 08:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-21-2015 09:05 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-21-2015 08:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-21-2015 08:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  You're old enough to know better JR. Some of these others may be too young. But even you've forgotten about the Hogs.

No I haven't forgotten, it's just that they were on the way down when they came to the SEC. I was one of the millions riveted to the fuzzy channel to watch Darrel Royal beat the Hogs in a close one. The games were once, but just for the 60's, better than Texas / OU.

Arkansas was on the way down with the SWC and make a move to the SEC, it is lauded by you as a positive.

Nebraska was on the way down with the big 12, which is the SWC 2.0, and make a move to the Big Ten where they have had success and...its a negative?

Tsk tsk.

Wow. Just making up your own facts.

Nebraska lost 4 games all 7 years Bo Pellini was there. He won 2 division titles and tied for one the last 3 years in the Big 12 and was ranked in the top 20 2 of those years. Nebraska has won 1 division title in 4 years in the Big 10 and was ranked 23rd-25th in 3 of those 4 years.

You post ranks higher than Arkansas as the biggest loser.

The rest of the Big 12 North was absolutely atrocious, that is why the conference imploded. To deny that would be the biggest nonfactual stance you could possibly take. On the other hand, an unbalanced Big Ten West never caused The Big Ten to lose anybody. It wasn't all that unbalanced, Wisconsin was the dominant program and Nebraska was holding their own despite playing at the tail end of Pelini's tailspin.

Your attempts to attack any school that didn't want to be part of your Texas centric jerk off festival are hilariously atrocious. But hey, don't let everyone disagreeing with you stop you from insulting everyone that thinks your listing is hilarious.

The Big 10 has mostly been absolutely atrocious. To deny that would be the biggest non-factual stance you could possibly take. The Big 10 was so bad for a while before realignment they practically helped the MWC qualify as a BCS conference. The MWC rated ahead of them on several metrics when they set those up to determine qualification.

Your attempts to build up any school that wants to be part of your Midwestern snob festival are hilariously atrocious.

See that's easy. But I used facts and you have NONE that back up your point so you result to insults.

(06-22-2015 07:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 06:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 08:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-21-2015 09:05 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-21-2015 08:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  No I haven't forgotten, it's just that they were on the way down when they came to the SEC. I was one of the millions riveted to the fuzzy channel to watch Darrel Royal beat the Hogs in a close one. The games were once, but just for the 60's, better than Texas / OU.

Arkansas was on the way down with the SWC and make a move to the SEC, it is lauded by you as a positive.

Nebraska was on the way down with the big 12, which is the SWC 2.0, and make a move to the Big Ten where they have had success and...its a negative?

Tsk tsk.

Wow. Just making up your own facts.

Nebraska lost 4 games all 7 years Bo Pellini was there. He won 2 division titles and tied for one the last 3 years in the Big 12 and was ranked in the top 20 2 of those years. Nebraska has won 1 division title in 4 years in the Big 10 and was ranked 23rd-25th in 3 of those 4 years.

You post ranks higher than Arkansas as the biggest loser.

The rest of the Big 12 North was absolutely atrocious, that is why the conference imploded. To deny that would be the biggest nonfactual stance you could possibly take. On the other hand, an unbalanced Big Ten West never caused The Big Ten to lose anybody. It wasn't all that unbalanced, Wisconsin was the dominant program and Nebraska was holding their own despite playing at the tail end of Pelini's tailspin.

Your attempts to attack any school that didn't want to be part of your Texas centric jerk off festival are hilariously atrocious. But hey, don't let everyone disagreeing with you stop you from insulting everyone that thinks your listing is hilarious.

The Big 10 has mostly been absolutely atrocious. To deny that would be the biggest non-factual stance you could possibly take. The Big 10 was so bad for a while before realignment they practically helped the MWC qualify as a BCS conference. The MWC rated ahead of them on several metrics when they set those up to determine qualification.

Your attempts to build up any school that wants to be part of your Midwestern snob festival are hilariously atrocious.

See that's easy. But I used facts and you have NONE that back up your point so you result to insults.

Pathetic. Atrocious? The big 12 lost Texas A&M, Missouri, Colorado and of course Nebraska. What did you gain in return? West Virginia and TCU. You want to talk about atrocious?

Nebraska is part of a better conference, period. Of all the Major Conferences, the little 12 supports less sports than any other.

You have nothing.

(06-22-2015 08:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Nebraska is part of a better conference, period. Of all the Major Conferences, the little 12 supports less sports than any other.

Nebraska football is slowly choking to death in the B1G, and their 25 year home sellout streak is in danger of being interrupted.

Yep. Nebraska made out like a bandit. Getting away from the Big XII was worth losing a dominant football program, I guess.

Nebraska football was hardly dominant in the 10 years before joining the Big Ten. In those 10 years they were 84-46. Good for #23 in winning percentage, #18 in P5. That's good, but no where near dominant.

(06-23-2015 09:31 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Nebraska football was hardly dominant in the 10 years before joining the Big Ten. In those 10 years they were 84-46. Good for #23 in winning percentage, #18 in P5. That's good, but no where near dominant.

Yup. Nebraska is 37-16 since joining the Big Ten, that's a .698 winning percentage, which is better than their .646 winning percentage over their last 10 years in the Big 12.

Yeah since Osborne retired after 1997, Nebraska has had 2 11+ win seasons- in 99 and 01. Nebraska stopped being a dominating football program long before they left the Big 12. They lost at least 4 games in the last 7 years being in the Big 12.

Nebraska has not even won their conference since the 90's for god sakes. They did win a bunch of games but have not been a factor in quite some time and when they had a chance they **** the bed getting blown out by a 5-6 loss Wisconsin team in the BTN CCG.

Nebraska is now in a stable conference but they are the retarded overall wearing red headed academic step child of the conference looked down upon by all as the only non AAU member. The funny thing was how your own conference schools voted yout out of the AAU, clearly they don't think much of the huskers. They also play a terrible schedule with literally nothing to get excited about aside from playing the good programs in the East once every 5 years,. Schedule is absolutely terrible with FAU, Wyoming,South Dakota,Sotuhern Miss, etc for the most part. No regional games for fans to attend aside from Iowa.

Just hired a low profile coach with limited success in the college game while Michigan hired the best available coach who has had great success in college and NFL. At this point I'm not even sure if Nebraska has a coach in the top half of the B1G and clearly not even close to being a top coach nationally while both Baylor and TCU have top 10 coaches.

It's been a long slide from the glory years but things have not looked good for Nebraska in over a decade with no sign of improvement. Any Husker fan who tells you differently is living in the past and not being realistic.

(06-23-2015 10:06 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 09:31 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Nebraska football was hardly dominant in the 10 years before joining the Big Ten. In those 10 years they were 84-46. Good for #23 in winning percentage, #18 in P5. That's good, but no where near dominant.

Yup. Nebraska is 37-16 since joining the Big Ten, that's a .698 winning percentage, which is better than their .646 winning percentage over their last 10 years in the Big 12.

They've been a steady 4 loss team for the last 7 years-3 in the Big 12 and 4 in the Big 10. They're fading from the national conversation. The decline has been more pronounced since they joined the Big 10 where they are overshadowed by Ohio St., Michigan and Penn St.

Their decline is not necessarily permanent, but 4 years in, hasn't been promising.