(12-03-2013 10:25 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 08:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 08:32 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 08:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 08:06 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  As a reminder, it was the PAC's invitation to B12 schools that started this whole realignment mess....neither B12 or Texas Longhorns are to blame.

None of the B12 schools accepted PAC's invitation except one.....Colorado. So you cannot blame B12 for Colorado's current woes.

more proof about how clueless you are!!!!!!!!!!

guess what genius.....

only 2 schools were given unconditional p12 invites. texas & colorado.

if tech, osu aggie or ou wanted to join the pac ==> they couldnt unless texas said yes first.

i love how you keep bringing up lie after lie & i keep debunking them. (remember your mythical colorado texas recruiting pipeline)

and in case you are wondering. the p12 offered unconditional invites to colorado & texas during the formation of the b12 in the 90s (the only b12 schools they did that for back then.)

Yes, the PAC had an open invitation to Colorado on the table for years. Twice, CU regents voted and reject it. The 3rd time the regents voted yes.

Texas rejected the PAC offer of course. So CU cannot blame any of its current problems on B12 as you state. The B12 did not throw Colorado into the dumpster as you state; CU did that all by itself.

you keep showing your ignorance.

how is CU being a well sought after p12 target a bad thing? im really baffled by that one. im not sure if you got the memo but in conference realignment the good schools are the ones that get targeted.

CU didnt exactly ignore the first 2 p12 offers. they were hotly contested and debated within boulder. the votes on those p10 invites were 4-5 & 3-6 respectively. at the time CU was torn between the two conferences and the traditionalists ultimately won out. and it led to the destruction of our football program. and dont say it didnt because all the chaos of CUs current issues is caused by the b12. we were considered a football power before & during the early years of the b12 move. we were the only b8 school that saw a decrease in texas recruiting, we suffered under an unequal revenue sharing model. we struggled to fill our stadium with the likes of baylor & iowa state.and when the fellow b8 programs such as ksu started takin a nose dive for similar reasons they only further dragged us down with them.

CU opting for the b12 over the p12 is (and rightfully so) the worst conf. realignment decision of all time.

oh and another note. you know damn well that texas was very close to accepting that p12 offer so dont get all high and mighty thinking that they flat out rejected the pac <== and its starting to look like austin is now regretting that decision

If B12 put Colorado into the Dumpster as you contend, why is it that Nebraska (85,517 attendance), TAMU (87,014 attendance), and Missouri (67,476 attendance) didn't end up in the Dumpster too?

because they are far different states. CU was a b12 outlier from a cultural standpoint. show me another b12 member who had to recruit outside the b12 footprint at the rate that CU did? or have to deal with an alumni base located mostly outside the b12 footprint

are you really this dense to think that colorado's situation in the b12 was exactly the same as texas a&m??????

please.....

(12-03-2013 10:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 10:25 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 08:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 08:32 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 08:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  more proof about how clueless you are!!!!!!!!!!

guess what genius.....

only 2 schools were given unconditional p12 invites. texas & colorado.

if tech, osu aggie or ou wanted to join the pac ==> they couldnt unless texas said yes first.

i love how you keep bringing up lie after lie & i keep debunking them. (remember your mythical colorado texas recruiting pipeline)

and in case you are wondering. the p12 offered unconditional invites to colorado & texas during the formation of the b12 in the 90s (the only b12 schools they did that for back then.)

Yes, the PAC had an open invitation to Colorado on the table for years. Twice, CU regents voted and reject it. The 3rd time the regents voted yes.

Texas rejected the PAC offer of course. So CU cannot blame any of its current problems on B12 as you state. The B12 did not throw Colorado into the dumpster as you state; CU did that all by itself.

you keep showing your ignorance.

how is CU being a well sought after p12 target a bad thing? im really baffled by that one. im not sure if you got the memo but in conference realignment the good schools are the ones that get targeted.

CU didnt exactly ignore the first 2 p12 offers. they were hotly contested and debated within boulder. the votes on those p10 invites were 4-5 & 3-6 respectively. at the time CU was torn between the two conferences and the traditionalists ultimately won out. and it led to the destruction of our football program. and dont say it didnt because all the chaos of CUs current issues is caused by the b12. we were considered a football power before & during the early years of the b12 move. we were the only b8 school that saw a decrease in texas recruiting, we suffered under an unequal revenue sharing model. we struggled to fill our stadium with the likes of baylor & iowa state.and when the fellow b8 programs such as ksu started takin a nose dive for similar reasons they only further dragged us down with them.

CU opting for the b12 over the p12 is (and rightfully so) the worst conf. realignment decision of all time.

oh and another note. you know damn well that texas was very close to accepting that p12 offer so dont get all high and mighty thinking that they flat out rejected the pac <== and its starting to look like austin is now regretting that decision

If B12 put Colorado into the Dumpster as you contend, why is it that Nebraska (85,517 attendance), TAMU (87,014 attendance), and Missouri (67,476 attendance) didn't end up in the Dumpster too?

because they are far different states. CU was a b12 outlier from a cultural standpoint. show me another b12 member who had to recruit outside the b12 footprint at the rate that CU did? or have to deal with an alumni base located mostly outside the b12 footprint

are you really this dense to think that colorado's situation in the b12 was exactly the same as texas a&m??????

please.....

Drop the CU argument and find something else within this thread to discuss. What had been an interesting read has become a yawner.

[quote='Tallgrass' pid='10116480' dateline='1386094342']

Arkansas thought bringing in TAMU into SEC would boost their Texas recruiting. That hasn't happened. Sumlin, an ace recruiter who enjoys recruiting like Barry Switzer did at OU, has shut out Arkansas and TAMU/Sumlin are recruiting at a very, very high level in Texas.

Sumlin has not shut Arkansas out. If anything Arkansas has shut Arkansas out. We have had two years of turmoil and have had an entire season in which the headcoach didn't bother recruiting. But in case you didn't notice. Our recruiting of Louisiana,Florida,and Missouri has picked up tremendously.

Since Arkansas, Colorado, and Nebraska have lost the Texas high school recruiting ground, who has been the beneficiary(s)? That is simple enough. Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas Tech, and TCU have been the primary beneficiaries.

They should benefit. They are in the primary conference of the state. The real question is. What will be the long term effects now that the SEC has a team in Texas.

on a side note wvu had 5 texas commits in their last BE recruiting class before joining the b12. however now wvu has had a combined 1 texas recruit in their last 2 recruiting classes since joining the b12..........

i wonder why the OP didnt mention that

(12-03-2013 11:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  on a side note wvu had 5 texas commits in their last BE recruiting class before joining the b12. however now wvu has had a combined 1 texas recruit in their last 2 recruiting classes since joining the b12..........

i wonder why the OP didnt mention that

Recruiting is weird like that. The MAC combined had about 11% of its football players from the state of Florida with absolutely no teams in Florida. How do you account for that if having a team there is so important to getting those players?

Is it possible that there is more to recruiting than what teams you have in a conference?

(12-03-2013 11:24 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 11:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  on a side note wvu had 5 texas commits in their last BE recruiting class before joining the b12. however now wvu has had a combined 1 texas recruit in their last 2 recruiting classes since joining the b12..........

i wonder why the OP didnt mention that

Recruiting is weird like that. The MAC combined had about 11% of its football players from the state of Florida with absolutely no teams in Florida. How do you account for that if having a team there is so important to getting those players?

Is it possible that there is more to recruiting than what teams you have in a conference?

it has to do with output of recruits by state.

cali & florida are very good at exporting. the mac is not alone in cashing in on florida. a conference can collectively build a presence anywhere.

the reason why i brought up the wvu TX thing was just to screw with the OP and give him a taste of his own medicine (although those stats are true)

(12-03-2013 11:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 11:24 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 11:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  on a side note wvu had 5 texas commits in their last BE recruiting class before joining the b12. however now wvu has had a combined 1 texas recruit in their last 2 recruiting classes since joining the b12..........

i wonder why the OP didnt mention that

Recruiting is weird like that. The MAC combined had about 11% of its football players from the state of Florida with absolutely no teams in Florida. How do you account for that if having a team there is so important to getting those players?

Is it possible that there is more to recruiting than what teams you have in a conference?

it has to do with output of recruits by state.

cali & florida are very good at exporting. the mac is not alone in cashing in on florida. a conference can collectively build a presence anywhere.

the reason why i brought up the wvu TX thing was just to screw with the OP and give him a taste of his own medicine (although those stats are true)

I know Florida exports a lot my main point was that the MAC (and others here) show that you don't need to have a team in these places to pick up their recruits. I hear some people come here and claim just that however and I just don't see it.

In my opinion, the in state advantage really is mostly to do with the top end recruits. Those are the guys who are sitting at home with like ten letters offering a football athletic scholarship to Major Universities. At that point they may very well be more likely to pick a school that they have grown up watching and idolizing.


In the case of a State like Florida, those kids might have some seriously biased feelings towards Florida State, Florida and maybe Miami but beyond that? Well beyond that, Florida has hordes of kids at the 2 star to 3 star level of ranking. That means pretty much any school can come in and get themselves some recruits.

John01992,

This old man has lived in five parts of the country in my lifetime and, based on my experience, people are people are people, generally good folks. I don't understand your "cultural affinity" observation and how it boosts Colorado in PAC over B12. I think you are stating that "cultural affinity" boosts recruiting or something like that. I checked the recruiting boards and find this "cultural affinity" argument does not hold up. CU is unable to recruit California with any degree of success. CU's recruiting is currently a total mess, and the downward spiral continues.

For example, CU has verbaled only 2 out of the top 10 state recruits in Colorado. In fact, Kansas State has verbaled 2 top 10 state recruits in Colorado, the same as the Buffs. It seems that the state recruits in Colorado are rejecting CU, and so this "cultural affinity" argument does not hold up even in the state of Colorado. As I look at that top 10 Colorado high school list, it could be argued that CU's entry into PAC has made it easier for PAC schools to come into the state of Colorado and sign recruits.

The "cultural affinity" argument does not hold water in the state of California either. CU is not getting top recruits out of California, but is recruiting second and third tier recruits. Most of CU's recruits are being recruiting by MWC schools. CU is recruiting at a level of MWC.

Of the 15 recruits verbaled by Colorado, 8 recruits, more than 50% of the class, have no other BCS offer. That's a staggering statistic of futility.

Of the 15 recruits verbaled by Colorado, 5 recruits have only one other BCS offer, generally from the lower level PAC teams of Utah, Washington State, and Arizona.

Of the 15 recruits verbaled by Colorado, only 2 recruits have more than one BCS offer. RB Dolson has BCS offers from Arizona State, Iowa State, and Northwestern. OL Rodriquez has BCS offers from Arizona State, Illinois, and Kansas State.

(12-04-2013 09:37 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  John01992,

This old man has lived in five parts of the country in my lifetime and, based on my experience, people are people are people, generally good folks. I don't understand your "cultural affinity" observation and how it boosts Colorado in PAC over B12. I think you are stating that "cultural affinity" boosts recruiting or something like that. I checked the recruiting boards and find this "cultural affinity" argument does not hold up. CU is unable to recruit California with any degree of success. CU's recruiting is currently a total mess, and the downward spiral continues.

For example, CU has verbaled only 2 out of the top 10 state recruits in Colorado. In fact, Kansas State has verbaled 2 top 10 state recruits in Colorado, the same as the Buffs. It seems that the state recruits in Colorado are rejecting CU, and so this "cultural affinity" argument does not hold up even in the state of Colorado. As I look at that top 10 Colorado high school list, it could be argued that CU's entry into PAC has made it easier for PAC schools to come into the state of Colorado and sign recruits.

The "cultural affinity" argument does not hold water in the state of California either. CU is not getting top recruits out of California, but is recruiting second and third tier recruits. Most of CU's recruits are being recruiting by MWC schools. CU is recruiting at a level of MWC.

Of the 15 recruits verbaled by Colorado, 8 recruits, more than 50% of the class, have no other BCS offer. That's a staggering statistic of futility.

Of the 15 recruits verbaled by Colorado, 5 recruits have only one other BCS offer, generally from the lower level PAC teams of Utah, Washington State, and Arizona.

Of the 15 recruits verbaled by Colorado, only 2 recruits have more than one BCS offer. RB Dolson has BCS offers from Arizona State, Iowa State, and Northwestern. OL Rodriquez has BCS offers from Arizona State, Illinois, and Kansas State.

considering that a mod just said to knock it of with the colorado debate im not even gonna respond to this.

but you are dead wrong on so many issue's regarding colorado and should not talk about something that you dont have a clue about

(12-04-2013 10:10 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 09:37 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  John01992,

This old man has lived in five parts of the country in my lifetime and, based on my experience, people are people are people, generally good folks. I don't understand your "cultural affinity" observation and how it boosts Colorado in PAC over B12. I think you are stating that "cultural affinity" boosts recruiting or something like that. I checked the recruiting boards and find this "cultural affinity" argument does not hold up. CU is unable to recruit California with any degree of success. CU's recruiting is currently a total mess, and the downward spiral continues.

For example, CU has verbaled only 2 out of the top 10 state recruits in Colorado. In fact, Kansas State has verbaled 2 top 10 state recruits in Colorado, the same as the Buffs. It seems that the state recruits in Colorado are rejecting CU, and so this "cultural affinity" argument does not hold up even in the state of Colorado. As I look at that top 10 Colorado high school list, it could be argued that CU's entry into PAC has made it easier for PAC schools to come into the state of Colorado and sign recruits.

The "cultural affinity" argument does not hold water in the state of California either. CU is not getting top recruits out of California, but is recruiting second and third tier recruits. Most of CU's recruits are being recruiting by MWC schools. CU is recruiting at a level of MWC.

Of the 15 recruits verbaled by Colorado, 8 recruits, more than 50% of the class, have no other BCS offer. That's a staggering statistic of futility.

Of the 15 recruits verbaled by Colorado, 5 recruits have only one other BCS offer, generally from the lower level PAC teams of Utah, Washington State, and Arizona.

Of the 15 recruits verbaled by Colorado, only 2 recruits have more than one BCS offer. RB Dolson has BCS offers from Arizona State, Iowa State, and Northwestern. OL Rodriquez has BCS offers from Arizona State, Illinois, and Kansas State.

considering that a mod just said to knock it of with the colorado debate im not even gonna respond to this.

but you are dead wrong on so many issue's regarding colorado and should not talk about something that you dont have a clue about

Fair enough. No more Colorado debate.

Colorado was much more successful as a Big 8 team with no precense in Texas than they ever were in the Big-12. The same could be said for Nebraska to some degree. Arkansas has has considerable success in the SEC post SWC, and they were of course never a member of the Big-12. The recent struggles for these programs has much more to do with inconsistency at coaching than anything to do with proximmity to Texas recruits. If proximity to Texas recruits was the answer, why are Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State not perennial powerhouses? If the Big-12 was the answer, why have the programs of TCU and WVU gone backwards since entering the Big-12...?

Colorado, Nebraska and Arkansas will all achieve success again, but it will be because they finally have consistency with a head coach. They are never coming to the Big-12, you can lay that hope to rest.

(12-04-2013 10:17 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 10:10 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 09:37 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  John01992,

This old man has lived in five parts of the country in my lifetime and, based on my experience, people are people are people, generally good folks. I don't understand your "cultural affinity" observation and how it boosts Colorado in PAC over B12. I think you are stating that "cultural affinity" boosts recruiting or something like that. I checked the recruiting boards and find this "cultural affinity" argument does not hold up. CU is unable to recruit California with any degree of success. CU's recruiting is currently a total mess, and the downward spiral continues.

For example, CU has verbaled only 2 out of the top 10 state recruits in Colorado. In fact, Kansas State has verbaled 2 top 10 state recruits in Colorado, the same as the Buffs. It seems that the state recruits in Colorado are rejecting CU, and so this "cultural affinity" argument does not hold up even in the state of Colorado. As I look at that top 10 Colorado high school list, it could be argued that CU's entry into PAC has made it easier for PAC schools to come into the state of Colorado and sign recruits.

The "cultural affinity" argument does not hold water in the state of California either. CU is not getting top recruits out of California, but is recruiting second and third tier recruits. Most of CU's recruits are being recruiting by MWC schools. CU is recruiting at a level of MWC.

Of the 15 recruits verbaled by Colorado, 8 recruits, more than 50% of the class, have no other BCS offer. That's a staggering statistic of futility.

Of the 15 recruits verbaled by Colorado, 5 recruits have only one other BCS offer, generally from the lower level PAC teams of Utah, Washington State, and Arizona.

Of the 15 recruits verbaled by Colorado, only 2 recruits have more than one BCS offer. RB Dolson has BCS offers from Arizona State, Iowa State, and Northwestern. OL Rodriquez has BCS offers from Arizona State, Illinois, and Kansas State.

considering that a mod just said to knock it of with the colorado debate im not even gonna respond to this.

but you are dead wrong on so many issue's regarding colorado and should not talk about something that you dont have a clue about

Fair enough. No more Colorado debate.

just in this thread......

i just sent you my rebuttal in PM

anyone else who wants in on this topic can start a new thread or pm me

(12-04-2013 10:25 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  Colorado was much more successful as a Big 8 team with no precense in Texas than they ever were in the Big-12. The same could be said for Nebraska to some degree. Arkansas has has considerable success in the SEC post SWC, and they were of course never a member of the Big-12. The recent struggles for these programs has much more to do with inconsistency at coaching than anything to do with proximmity to Texas recruits. If proximity to Texas recruits was the answer, why are Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State not perennial powerhouses? If the Big-12 was the answer, why have the programs of TCU and WVU gone backwards since entering the Big-12...?

Colorado, Nebraska and Arkansas will all achieve success again, but it will be because they finally have consistency with a head coach. They are never coming to the Big-12, you can lay that hope to rest.

good stuff

one thing that gets overlooked in this thread is that nebraska (although to a much smaller degree than CU) also has traditionally had a california presence as well

UNL class commits

2002
2 TX
2 CA

2003
6 TX
1 CA

2004
1 TX
4 CA

2005
4 TX
8 CA

2006
1 TX
9 CA

2007
7 TX
4 CA

2008
9 TX
3 CA

2009
8 TX
6 CA

UNL was dominate in the 90s and of their best seasons.....

1994 (won natty
-had double the amount of california players than texas players

1995 (won natty)
-had more california players than texas players

1997 (won natty)
-had just one more player from texas than california

1999 (unclaimed natty)
-same amount of players for texas as california

i think the conclusion that we can draw from this is that what UNL lost with cali recruiting in their b12 move they did not make up for it in texas recruiting.

the whole "texas provides ample recruits for every b8 school" is a total myth. that simply can not be said for nebraska & colorado as they rarely had more than 15 players from texas. the only time UNL broke 15 was towards the very end of their b12 tenure.

it was schools like ou, osu, ku mizz & ksu that got the biggest boost in recruiting and it came at the expense of schools like cu, UNL & isu

(12-04-2013 10:25 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  Colorado was much more successful as a Big 8 team with no precense in Texas than they ever were in the Big-12. The same could be said for Nebraska to some degree. Arkansas has has considerable success in the SEC post SWC, and they were of course never a member of the Big-12. The recent struggles for these programs has much more to do with inconsistency at coaching than anything to do with proximmity to Texas recruits. If proximity to Texas recruits was the answer, why are Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State not perennial powerhouses? If the Big-12 was the answer, why have the programs of TCU and WVU gone backwards since entering the Big-12...?

Colorado, Nebraska and Arkansas will all achieve success again, but it will be because they finally have consistency with a head coach. They are never coming to the Big-12, you can lay that hope to rest.

TCU and WVA are a one year thing. QB issues at B12 schools have made for a dismal B12 season. OU and Texas always have and always will have success, regardless of conference affiliation. But the B12 provides formerly hopeless and hapless schools like Oklahoma State, Baylor, TT, and TCU a platform a strong success.

Iowa State, located in a small populated state, is expanding its football stadium by filling in the end zone and is currently averaging 50,000 fans. The B12 conference affiliation is obviously provides a platform for success for ISU. Ditto for KSU, which is basically in the same boat.

The overall great game changer as I look over the national recruiting landscape, is that formerly hopeless and hapless schools--but located in strong recruiting areas--have stepped up with better facilities, more institutional support, and an enhanced tv broadcast outlet--and are now taking recruits that formerly went to the powerhouses of the respective BCS conferences.

For example, when I was a kid growing up in Oklahoma, there were only two football games on tv of interest to me, Oklahoma vs Texas and Oklahoma vs Nebraska. With this very limited tv, no wonder Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska took all the top recruits.

But, today, goodness gracious! For example, little itty bitty Tulsa, with all of its 4,167 students, is on tv 10 times a year. So, now and then, Tulsa takes a recruit offered by a BCS school. Tulsa "upset" Iowa State in the Liberty Bowl and Notre Dame prior to that. For this upset to occur, you still have to have some talent on your squad.

So schools like, for example, Vanderbilt and Duke, along with the Oklahoma States and Baylors and TCU, are now taking recruits that might, in the past, gone to a Nebraska or Michigan.

Another example is UCF and USF in Florida. These two schools, although not in ACC, BiG, or SEC, are taking recruits that, in past times, would have gone to ACC, BiG, and SEC.

Fresno, SDSU, Boise State....and other NonBCS schools are improving their facilities, and are on tv. It is a more level playing field for recruiting and this is making it tougher for some BCS schools that didn't face this degree of recruiting competition in the past.

(12-04-2013 11:12 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 10:25 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  Colorado was much more successful as a Big 8 team with no precense in Texas than they ever were in the Big-12. The same could be said for Nebraska to some degree. Arkansas has has considerable success in the SEC post SWC, and they were of course never a member of the Big-12. The recent struggles for these programs has much more to do with inconsistency at coaching than anything to do with proximmity to Texas recruits. If proximity to Texas recruits was the answer, why are Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State not perennial powerhouses? If the Big-12 was the answer, why have the programs of TCU and WVU gone backwards since entering the Big-12...?

Colorado, Nebraska and Arkansas will all achieve success again, but it will be because they finally have consistency with a head coach. They are never coming to the Big-12, you can lay that hope to rest.

TCU and WVA are a one year thing. QB issues at B12 school have made for a dismal B12 season. OU and Texas always have and always will have success, regardless of conference affiliation. But the B12 provides formerly hopeless and hapless schools like Oklahoma State, Baylor, TT, and TCU a platform a strong success.

Iowa State, located in a small populated state, is expanding its football stadium by filling in the end zone and is currently averaging 50,000 fans. The B12 conference affiliation is obviously provides a platform for success for ISU. Ditto for KSU, which is basically in the same boat.

The overall great game changer as I look over the national recruiting landscape, is that formerly hopeless and hapless schools--but located in strong recruiting areas--have stepped up with better facilities, more institutional support, and an enhanced tv broadcast outlet--and are now taking recruits that formerly went to the powerhouses of the respective BCS conferences.

For example, when I was a kid growing up in Oklahoma, there were only two football games on tv of interest to me, Oklahoma vs Texas and Oklahoma vs Nebraska. With this very limited tv, no wonder Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska took all the top recruits.

But, today, goodness gracious! For example, little itty bitty Tulsa, with all of its 4,167 students, is on tv 10 times a year. So, now and then, Tulsa takes a recruit offered by a BCS school. Tulsa "upset" Iowa State in the Liberty Bowl and Notre Dame prior to that. For this upset to occur, you still have to have some talent on your squad.

So schools like, for example, Vanderbilt and Duke, along with the Oklahoma States and Baylors and TCU, are now taking recruits that might, in the past, gone to a Nebraska or Michigan.

Another example is UCF and USF in Florida. These two schools, although not in ACC, BiG, or SEC, are taking recruits that, in past times, would have gone to ACC, BiG, and SEC.

Fresno, SDSU, Boise State....and other NonBCS schools are improving their facilities, and are on tv. It is a more level playing field for recruiting and this is making it tougher for some BCS schools that didn't face this degree of recruiting competition in the past.

i dont think this trend is limited to just the b12 at the power level......

duke, northwestern, vandy, stanford, asu, zona, ore st, oregon msu, wisky, & wake forest have all considerably stepped up their game as well since the formation of the b12.

(12-04-2013 11:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 11:12 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(12-04-2013 10:25 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  Colorado was much more successful as a Big 8 team with no precense in Texas than they ever were in the Big-12. The same could be said for Nebraska to some degree. Arkansas has has considerable success in the SEC post SWC, and they were of course never a member of the Big-12. The recent struggles for these programs has much more to do with inconsistency at coaching than anything to do with proximmity to Texas recruits. If proximity to Texas recruits was the answer, why are Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State not perennial powerhouses? If the Big-12 was the answer, why have the programs of TCU and WVU gone backwards since entering the Big-12...?

Colorado, Nebraska and Arkansas will all achieve success again, but it will be because they finally have consistency with a head coach. They are never coming to the Big-12, you can lay that hope to rest.

TCU and WVA are a one year thing. QB issues at B12 school have made for a dismal B12 season. OU and Texas always have and always will have success, regardless of conference affiliation. But the B12 provides formerly hopeless and hapless schools like Oklahoma State, Baylor, TT, and TCU a platform a strong success.

Iowa State, located in a small populated state, is expanding its football stadium by filling in the end zone and is currently averaging 50,000 fans. The B12 conference affiliation is obviously provides a platform for success for ISU. Ditto for KSU, which is basically in the same boat.

The overall great game changer as I look over the national recruiting landscape, is that formerly hopeless and hapless schools--but located in strong recruiting areas--have stepped up with better facilities, more institutional support, and an enhanced tv broadcast outlet--and are now taking recruits that formerly went to the powerhouses of the respective BCS conferences.

For example, when I was a kid growing up in Oklahoma, there were only two football games on tv of interest to me, Oklahoma vs Texas and Oklahoma vs Nebraska. With this very limited tv, no wonder Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska took all the top recruits.

But, today, goodness gracious! For example, little itty bitty Tulsa, with all of its 4,167 students, is on tv 10 times a year. So, now and then, Tulsa takes a recruit offered by a BCS school. Tulsa "upset" Iowa State in the Liberty Bowl and Notre Dame prior to that. For this upset to occur, you still have to have some talent on your squad.

So schools like, for example, Vanderbilt and Duke, along with the Oklahoma States and Baylors and TCU, are now taking recruits that might, in the past, gone to a Nebraska or Michigan.

Another example is UCF and USF in Florida. These two schools, although not in ACC, BiG, or SEC, are taking recruits that, in past times, would have gone to ACC, BiG, and SEC.

Fresno, SDSU, Boise State....and other NonBCS schools are improving their facilities, and are on tv. It is a more level playing field for recruiting and this is making it tougher for some BCS schools that didn't face this degree of recruiting competition in the past.

i dont think this trend is limited to just the b12 at the power level......

duke, northwestern, vandy, stanford, asu, zona, ore st, oregon msu, wisky, & wake forest have all considerably stepped up their game as well since the formation of the b12.

Agreed. And throw in my old school, Wazzu!

(12-04-2013 10:25 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  Colorado was much more successful as a Big 8 team with no precense in Texas than they ever were in the Big-12. The same could be said for Nebraska to some degree. Arkansas has has considerable success in the SEC post SWC, and they were of course never a member of the Big-12. The recent struggles for these programs has much more to do with inconsistency at coaching than anything to do with proximmity to Texas recruits. If proximity to Texas recruits was the answer, why are Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State not perennial powerhouses? If the Big-12 was the answer, why have the programs of TCU and WVU gone backwards since entering the Big-12...?

Colorado, Nebraska and Arkansas will all achieve success again, but it will be because they finally have consistency with a head coach. They are never coming to the Big-12, you can lay that hope to rest.

Arkansas should have hired Briles. Brett has no recruiting ties in the South. That whole episode following Petrino's motorcycle mama incident is a head scratcher. Obviously with Texas recruiting being somewhat important to the Razorbacks the focus should have been on a coach with talent that has Texas ties. Patterson or Briles fit that bill.

Do they really call themselves UNL or just UN?