(07-03-2019 10:12 AM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:25 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 09:03 PM)NDTiger Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 08:23 PM)uskjtc02 Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:56 PM)k2tigers Wrote:  What Norvell and STAFF are doing on the recruiting trail is nothing short of amazing....Penny has more toys to sell, Mike doesn't and he is killing it

Norvell is doing a great job recruiting, but he is not recruiting on Penny’s level by any means.

We have the top G5 class so far, and we have been top 3 for several years. The quality of our breadth and depth improves every year!

If Norvell ever recruits on Penny’s level while at Memphis, it will be the greatest feat in the history of college football. It’s not an apples to apples comparison. Going back to CUSA (2), Memphis wasn’t considered mid major by talking heads or polls even though the rest of the conference was. Fans and blogger/media types might take jabs, but when reading/viewing the majority of national media pieces be it, recruiting, coaches, player positions..., Tiger basketball has been and continues to be grouped in the major category (or at worst straddles the line). This hasn’t been the case with Tiger football. Not even BYU, who meets P5 scheduling requirements for some conferences, is treated as major in mass media. They are lumped into G5 categories when discussing, polls, recruiting, top players positions...

ETA: Basketball classifications are much more fluid and Memphis has been in the major category (can get back there if not currently in that category to some) whereas football is more rigid and solidified. It’s more so tied to conference affiliation. If CN is able to recruit at Pastner’s level, it’d be a major feat.

Memphis has always been a high major program in basketball by any criteria reasonably used.

A long time ago maybe

Not really dude.

The Revival to me:

Tommy West
Danny Wimprine
DeAngelo Williams
S Gostowski
Justin Fuente
Paxton Lynch
Mike Norvell
Riley Ferguson
Anthony Miller
Darrell Henderson

The future??

Wimprine but no Elliott.

Checks out.

(07-19-2019 08:55 PM)dan o Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 10:12 AM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:25 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 09:03 PM)NDTiger Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 08:23 PM)uskjtc02 Wrote:  Norvell is doing a great job recruiting, but he is not recruiting on Penny’s level by any means.

We have the top G5 class so far, and we have been top 3 for several years. The quality of our breadth and depth improves every year!

If Norvell ever recruits on Penny’s level while at Memphis, it will be the greatest feat in the history of college football. It’s not an apples to apples comparison. Going back to CUSA (2), Memphis wasn’t considered mid major by talking heads or polls even though the rest of the conference was. Fans and blogger/media types might take jabs, but when reading/viewing the majority of national media pieces be it, recruiting, coaches, player positions..., Tiger basketball has been and continues to be grouped in the major category (or at worst straddles the line). This hasn’t been the case with Tiger football. Not even BYU, who meets P5 scheduling requirements for some conferences, is treated as major in mass media. They are lumped into G5 categories when discussing, polls, recruiting, top players positions...

ETA: Basketball classifications are much more fluid and Memphis has been in the major category (can get back there if not currently in that category to some) whereas football is more rigid and solidified. It’s more so tied to conference affiliation. If CN is able to recruit at Pastner’s level, it’d be a major feat.

Memphis has always been a high major program in basketball by any criteria reasonably used.

A long time ago maybe

Even people on this board forget Pastner took us to NCAA tournament 4 of 5 years following the great run under Cal. I’ve asked several CBB writers over past few years and all said Tigers are high D1. Criteria is not the last 4 years but tournament history in modern era, facilities, attendance and interest in the program for a few major things.

I will argue all day long about this because you are dead wrong and every ranking done by reputable media outlets that take into account a long time frame (most start in the modern era of 1970s or 1980s). Either way , we are top 25. ESPN has us at 15 after 2011 season and docked us 4 spots for probations ranking the Tigers at 19th in past 50 years. We have been to 4 NCAA tournaments since that study.

(07-20-2019 10:40 AM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 08:55 PM)dan o Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 10:12 AM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:25 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 09:03 PM)NDTiger Wrote:  We have the top G5 class so far, and we have been top 3 for several years. The quality of our breadth and depth improves every year!

If Norvell ever recruits on Penny’s level while at Memphis, it will be the greatest feat in the history of college football. It’s not an apples to apples comparison. Going back to CUSA (2), Memphis wasn’t considered mid major by talking heads or polls even though the rest of the conference was. Fans and blogger/media types might take jabs, but when reading/viewing the majority of national media pieces be it, recruiting, coaches, player positions..., Tiger basketball has been and continues to be grouped in the major category (or at worst straddles the line). This hasn’t been the case with Tiger football. Not even BYU, who meets P5 scheduling requirements for some conferences, is treated as major in mass media. They are lumped into G5 categories when discussing, polls, recruiting, top players positions...

ETA: Basketball classifications are much more fluid and Memphis has been in the major category (can get back there if not currently in that category to some) whereas football is more rigid and solidified. It’s more so tied to conference affiliation. If CN is able to recruit at Pastner’s level, it’d be a major feat.

Memphis has always been a high major program in basketball by any criteria reasonably used.

A long time ago maybe

Even people on this board forget Pastner took us to NCAA tournament 4 of 5 years following the great run under Cal. I’ve asked several CBB writers over past few years and all said Tigers are high D1. Criteria is not the last 4 years but tournament history in modern era, facilities, attendance and interest in the program for a few major things.

I will argue all day long about this because you are dead wrong and every ranking done by reputable media outlets that take into account a long time frame (most start in the modern era of 1970s or 1980s). Either way , we are top 25. ESPN has us at 15 after 2011 season and docked us 4 spots for probations ranking the Tigers at 19th in past 50 years. We have been to 4 NCAA tournaments since that study.

Dude, you are right, and you don't even have to go to all THAT rigamoroll to argue we are high major. High-major means above mid-major. Mid-major means Arky-State, Middle TN, UTEP, Toledo, anybody in the WAC not named Gonzaga, etc.

(07-01-2019 12:48 PM)cmt Wrote:  Before West we did have some good seasons under Stobart and Bailey and even before them, but all in all, we were one of the very worst football programs in the history of the sport. Memphis, Rice and Temple were all three considered awful over the decades, losses, lack of bowl appearances, etc. I remember being ranked in the bottom ten football programs over time more than once.

These days, that seems to be behind us with several new teams in "D1" and the fact that we've been good for more a decade. I'm just glad those days are over and when the next round of expansion happens, I now feel like we are one of the very first to be added.

Partially our bad record was due to insane strength of schedule though. Go back and look at who we were playing in the 80s and 90s

(07-20-2019 12:12 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 10:40 AM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 08:55 PM)dan o Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 10:12 AM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:25 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  If Norvell ever recruits on Penny’s level while at Memphis, it will be the greatest feat in the history of college football. It’s not an apples to apples comparison. Going back to CUSA (2), Memphis wasn’t considered mid major by talking heads or polls even though the rest of the conference was. Fans and blogger/media types might take jabs, but when reading/viewing the majority of national media pieces be it, recruiting, coaches, player positions..., Tiger basketball has been and continues to be grouped in the major category (or at worst straddles the line). This hasn’t been the case with Tiger football. Not even BYU, who meets P5 scheduling requirements for some conferences, is treated as major in mass media. They are lumped into G5 categories when discussing, polls, recruiting, top players positions...

ETA: Basketball classifications are much more fluid and Memphis has been in the major category (can get back there if not currently in that category to some) whereas football is more rigid and solidified. It’s more so tied to conference affiliation. If CN is able to recruit at Pastner’s level, it’d be a major feat.

Memphis has always been a high major program in basketball by any criteria reasonably used.

A long time ago maybe

Even people on this board forget Pastner took us to NCAA tournament 4 of 5 years following the great run under Cal. I’ve asked several CBB writers over past few years and all said Tigers are high D1. Criteria is not the last 4 years but tournament history in modern era, facilities, attendance and interest in the program for a few major things.

I will argue all day long about this because you are dead wrong and every ranking done by reputable media outlets that take into account a long time frame (most start in the modern era of 1970s or 1980s). Either way , we are top 25. ESPN has us at 15 after 2011 season and docked us 4 spots for probations ranking the Tigers at 19th in past 50 years. We have been to 4 NCAA tournaments since that study.

Dude, you are right, and you don't even have to go to all THAT rigamoroll to argue we are high major. High-major means above mid-major. Mid-major means Arky-State, Middle TN, UTEP, Toledo, anybody in the WAC not named Gonzaga, etc.

Actually there is some disagreement on this but the consensus is the the criteria I posted in the ESPN ranking of teams is the same as a high D1.

Not all P5s are considered high D1: to be high D1 a school must have good tournament history in modern era, facilities, attendance and fan interest in the program and a commitment to the program by the schools to have and maintain a good basketball program.

The number of high D1 programs has actually grown from the huge TV contracts given to P5 conferences (even though the B10 or Pac12 have not won a national championship in this century: AZ in ‘97 and Mich St in 2000). That aside, take Ole Miss as an example: played in mostly empty, crappy 8K arena (Duke is special so please leave that alone), no support from school to have a good basketball program, no investment in facilities and not a good tournament history. Yet, because AL, LSU, GA, FL, A&M, etc draw huge number when they play, OM piggybacks that into $43M a year subsidy for athletic program and builds a very nice 10K arena, pays their coach 3 times what they hired AK for and have and has more support to build their program.

They are borderline high D1 whereas 5 years ago they weren’t close. Nebraska is a similar situation along with Washington St. I think you see the pattern here. This is a huge advantage for a basketball program that is in a P5 league (depending on how much of that TV money the basketball program is able to get).

Then you have teams outside of the P5 leagues that are much better and true high D1 programs. In our league, you have us, Cincy, Houston, Temple, with Wichita St on the outside (just don’t have the history-are they a Gregg Marshall team?).

I should have noted that the only way the term P5 pertains to basketball is in TV contract revenue and required appearances on those networks per contract along with favorable treatment by NCAA committee each year based on numbers that are rigged to favor them at the beginning of the season-they get more bids.

(07-19-2019 07:53 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 12:43 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 10:29 AM)slktigers Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 10:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 09:28 AM)cmt Wrote:  We were rarely the worst team, but we had never been great, ever, the Burley Bowl (1956) and Pasadena Bowl (1971) were our only claims to fame. We won the MVC in 1968, 69 and 71. The problem was almost every other team had won something at some point.

Baylor has been to 24 bowl games, way back tho the Orange bowl in 1951, Gator in 1956 and 1960, Sugar in 1956, Cotton in 1974 and 80, etc, etc, etc.

Kansas State didn't do anything until the 1990's

Northwestern won the Rose bowl in 1948 and lost there in 1995 and had a few other brief moments of glory.

Even Tulane had been to the Sugar and Rose Bowls in the 1930's and the Liberty Bowl in 1970 and 79 and had the 12-0 season with a Liberty Bowl win in 1998.

We hadn't accomplished very much and are still looking for an AAC championship game victory.

We had never been great, ever? We were for 4 years, at least, from 1960-63. We went 8-2, 8-2, 8-1 and 9-0-1.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/memphis/

In 1960, we had the 12th best record (8-2) out of 113 football schools. We were 2nd nationally in points per game (30.3), and 22nd in points allowed (8.5). Our only losses were to Ole Miss, who was great that year, and Miss State.

In 1961, our record (8-2) was 10th best out of 111. We were 3rd in the country in points scored per game (33.2), and 8th in defensive points allowed (7.5)

In 1962, our record (8-1) was 5th best out of 120 teams. We were 3rd in the country in scoring offense, and 10th in scoring defense.

In 1963, we had our best team ever (9-0-1). Second best record out of 120 teams. 27th in scoring offense, 2nd in scoring defense. Harry Schuh was a first team All American, and went on to play in the NFL for several years before injuries got him. IIRC, we had another All-American, and a couple others went on to the NFL.

And the capper, we finished 14th in the national poll that year. Our only blemish was a scoreless tie with Ole Miss, a game we should have won (I was there). Ole Miss was ranked #2 in the country at the time, and finished 3rd in the poll that year, IIRC.

We also beat Miss State, who was 7-2-2 that year, a team that beat Tennessee, Auburn and LSU, and tied Ole Miss and Florida.

Our only drawbacks were not being in a conference, thus not getting a bowl game each year (you had to be in a conference to make one, and there weren't many bowl games), and not having a great strength of schedule. But back then, there weren't that many great teams we could schedule.

At any rate, it's just not true that we were never great in football. It just happened so long ago that only really old Tiger fans remember it.

What is the actual story about why Memphis was an Independent during those year?

There were tons of independents until SC joined the SEC and FSU joined the ACC. It is not accurate that you had to be in a conference to get a bowl bid. That just isn't true at all.

You're right. I should have clarified. There weren't many bowl games back then, and it was definitely a handicap if you weren't in a football conference. Not impossible, but more difficult being an independent, as opposed to winning a conference.

I do recall that some bowls had rules that you had to be a conference champ, or at least have a conference affiliation, to get a bid. Certainly the Rose Bowl did, for example. Their ties with the B10 and Pac go back as long as I can remember.

I just looked up 1960 as a baseline, since that's the era I was referencing. There were 9 bowls that year. 18 teams. Three of them were independents. Navy in the Orange Bowl, and Penn State and Oregon in the Liberty Bowl. So, not impossible, as I incorrectly stated, but certainly a big obstacle.

What sticks with me from then is that schools who didn't have seasons as good as ours were picked over us, and conference affiliation was a big reason.

And according to this site, there weren't "tons of independents." I counted 27, while there were 11 conferences with a total of 86 teams, or 76% of the 113 football schools listed. Assuming this site is accurate.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/yea...bowls.html

I have often wondered why the , so called "Blue Bloods" Kansas, Duke, Kentucky etc. can be P5 when when their football programs are barely Mid Major. It seems they might have developed into great BB schools because football was taking a backseat or because BB was cheaper. Just wondering...

(07-21-2019 03:39 PM)DALLAS TIGER 78 Wrote:  I have often wondered why the , so called "Blue Bloods" Kansas, Duke, Kentucky etc. can be P5 when when their football programs are barely Mid Major. It seems they might have developed into great BB schools because football was taking a backseat or because BB was cheaper. Just wondering...

What?

They're referring to hoops blue bloods....are you seriously combining those?

oh boy

(07-21-2019 03:57 PM)k2tigers Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 03:39 PM)DALLAS TIGER 78 Wrote:  I have often wondered why the , so called "Blue Bloods" Kansas, Duke, Kentucky etc. can be P5 when when their football programs are barely Mid Major. It seems they might have developed into great BB schools because football was taking a backseat or because BB was cheaper. Just wondering...

What?

They're referring to hoops blue bloods....are you seriou combining those?
through
oh boy

P5 refers to football, I'm aware of that. Why is it that schools like the ones I listed above are in Power Five conferences with less than P5 football programs when football is the P5?

I don't know

To most of the media re: Memphis, basketball is the front porch for the UofM Tigers, followed by the GRIZZ

To one or few others, "Football drives the bus, MATE"

And that person should really be more plugged in to the city and media's pulse, not wishing otherwise on his agenda

Thoughts and prayers to him though

(07-21-2019 04:20 PM)k2tigers Wrote:  I don't know

To most of the media re: Memphis, basketball is the front porch for the UofM Tigers, followed by the GRIZZ

To one or few others, "Football drives the bus, MATE"

And that person should really be more plugged in to the city and media's pulse, not wishing otherwise on his agenda

Thoughts and prayers to him though

Anybody that disagrees that basketball is the biggest thing in Memphis is being dishonest.

Anyone that disagrees that football drives NCAA, both in future realignment as well as tv deals and everything else is being stupid.

(07-22-2019 06:55 PM)tigernole79 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 04:20 PM)k2tigers Wrote:  I don't know

To most of the media re: Memphis, basketball is the front porch for the UofM Tigers, followed by the GRIZZ

To one or few others, "Football drives the bus, MATE"

And that person should really be more plugged in to the city and media's pulse, not wishing otherwise on his agenda

Thoughts and prayers to him though

Anybody that disagrees that basketball is the biggest thing in Memphis is being dishonest.

Anyone that disagrees that football drives NCAA, both in future realignment as well as tv deals and everything else is being stupid.

don't disagree here

and this was not directed at you

(07-22-2019 08:26 PM)k2tigers Wrote:  

(07-22-2019 06:55 PM)tigernole79 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 04:20 PM)k2tigers Wrote:  I don't know

To most of the media re: Memphis, basketball is the front porch for the UofM Tigers, followed by the GRIZZ

To one or few others, "Football drives the bus, MATE"

And that person should really be more plugged in to the city and media's pulse, not wishing otherwise on his agenda

Thoughts and prayers to him though

Anybody that disagrees that basketball is the biggest thing in Memphis is being dishonest.

Anyone that disagrees that football drives NCAA, both in future realignment as well as tv deals and everything else is being stupid.

don't disagree here

and this was not directed at you

My response wasn't really directed towards you, just a clarification of thought.
I believe this is a basketball town, but slowly becoming football friendly. But, it will never replace basketball.
However, the focus of the administration is a different story. While they should never neglect basketball, the focus should be on building the football program because that is where the greatest potential of reaching our real goals lie.