(10-04-2015 04:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 04:12 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Strong the next HC at Miami or VT?

Texas doesn't even have an AD right now. It would be extremely dysfunctional for a school to fire its head football coach when the school doesn't have an AD, so it's very unlikely there. Strong is probably safe at least until a full-time AD has been hired, and the timing of that means Strong probably has the rest of this season and all of next to do enough there, whatever "enough" might be.

He's not in danger right now. But if he goes 2-10 the temporary AD will not hesitate to can him. When you have the two worst starts in nearly 60 years (since 1956), you have to finish a lot better than you started.

(10-04-2015 04:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 04:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 04:12 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Strong the next HC at Miami or VT?

Texas doesn't even have an AD right now. It would be extremely dysfunctional for a school to fire its head football coach when the school doesn't have an AD, so it's very unlikely there. Strong is probably safe at least until a full-time AD has been hired, and the timing of that means Strong probably has the rest of this season and all of next to do enough there, whatever "enough" might be.

He's not in danger right now. But if he goes 2-10 the temporary AD will not hesitate to can him. When you have the two worst starts in nearly 60 years (since 1956), you have to finish a lot better than you started.

He could go 3-9.... However, I think Texas will struggle with Iowa St so it likely will be 2-10. Strong is faced with many challenges that I don't think he can overcome:

1) Big $$$ boosters didn't/don't want him.

2) He was too drastic from the start by getting rid of and questioning the heart of players while implementing his boot camp style program.

3) He is a defensive specialist that has given up 38, 45, and 50 points in his first 4 games... and it doesn't seem like it will get any better until Texas plays Kansas and Iowa St.

4) ATM is surpassing Texas as a national brand by successfully playing in the SEC. Consequently, you have a Texas player tweeting at halftime of a game about transferring to ATM.... L L

5) Baylor, TCU, and probably TT are much better talent wise than the once dominant Long Horns, which makes it the 6th best football program in Texas (it's also behind Houston).

6) The empty seats were noticeable at Texas' home games this season... which means it could be losing fan support.

(10-04-2015 04:12 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Strong the next HC at Miami or VT?

Or UCF?

Only if Texas allows it. They'd have to grant permission for the interview. There's also the buyout clause. Another school would owe Texas money if it hired Charlie away before his UT deal is up. If Texas wanted Charlie to go, they might waive that payment.

(10-04-2015 08:18 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 04:12 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Strong the next HC at Miami or VT?

Or UCF?

Only if Texas allows it. They'd have to grant permission for the interview. There's also the buyout clause. Another school would owe Texas money if it hired Charlie away before his UT deal is up. If Texas wanted Charlie to go, they might waive that payment.

UCF and Texas play each other in 2017 I believe. Not sure if that would play any part in it. Besides that, Strong would be better off taking a high paying coordinator job at a P5 program than taking the UCF HC position, imo.

I could now see Texas and Strong agreeing to part ways at the end of the season.Not fired though. I really didn't feel before hand it Could happen , but with Texas players not buying into the system, screaming boosters and negative press there, it is possible that Charlie will become Miami's next HC. Back home in Florida, where He is a recruiting Guru, He could build Miami back into a powerhouse program

(10-04-2015 06:00 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 04:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 04:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 04:12 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Strong the next HC at Miami or VT?

Texas doesn't even have an AD right now. It would be extremely dysfunctional for a school to fire its head football coach when the school doesn't have an AD, so it's very unlikely there. Strong is probably safe at least until a full-time AD has been hired, and the timing of that means Strong probably has the rest of this season and all of next to do enough there, whatever "enough" might be.

He's not in danger right now. But if he goes 2-10 the temporary AD will not hesitate to can him. When you have the two worst starts in nearly 60 years (since 1956), you have to finish a lot better than you started.

He could go 3-9.... However, I think Texas will struggle with Iowa St so it likely will be 2-10. Strong is faced with many challenges that I don't think he can overcome:

1) Big $$$ boosters didn't/don't want him.

2) He was too drastic from the start by getting rid of and questioning the heart of players while implementing his boot camp style program.

3) He is a defensive specialist that has given up 38, 45, and 50 points in his first 4 games... and it doesn't seem like it will get any better until Texas plays Kansas and Iowa St.

4) ATM is surpassing Texas as a national brand by successfully playing in the SEC. Consequently, you have a Texas player tweeting at halftime of a game about transferring to ATM.... L L

5) Baylor, TCU, and probably TT are much better talent wise than the once dominant Long Horns, which makes it the 6th best football program in Texas (it's also behind Houston).

6) The empty seats were noticeable at Texas' home games this season... which means it could be losing fan support.

1.TCU 5-0
2.Texas A&M 5-0
3.Baylor 4-0
4.Houston 4-0
5.Angelo State 4-1
6.Texas A&M-Commerce 4-1
7.Texas Tech 3-2
8.Incarnate Word 3-2
9.Lamar 2-2
10.Sam Houston State 2-2
11.Abilene Christian 2-2
12.West Texas A&M 2-2
13.Prairie View 2-2
14.Rice 2-3
15.UTEP 2-3
16.Texas Southern 2-3
17.Houston Baptist 1-3
18.Texas 1-4
19.SMU 1-4
20.Texas State 1-4
21.UTSA 1-4

If I added D3 and NAIA Texas schools? Those schools would knock Texas out of the top 20 best Texas colleges and universities football teams.

(10-04-2015 06:00 PM)Underdog Wrote:  4) ATM is surpassing Texas as a national brand by successfully playing in the SEC. Consequently, you have a Texas player tweeting at halftime of a game about transferring to ATM.... L L

Of all the things you mention, this is the most galling/worrisome to burnt-orange fanatics. Even though you never like it, everyone knows yearly results are transitory, and you can't expect Texas to always, every year, have the best football team in the state.

But you CAN always expect that Texas is, regardless of who happened to have the hottest last season, the undisputed #1 football brand name in Texas, and is always among the handful of top blue-chip elites nationally. Anything that threatens that is a mortal danger, and yeah, the evidence seems to be that TAMU has actually made inroads on that status within the state.

(10-05-2015 08:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 06:00 PM)Underdog Wrote:  4) ATM is surpassing Texas as a national brand by successfully playing in the SEC. Consequently, you have a Texas player tweeting at halftime of a game about transferring to ATM.... L L

Of all the things you mention, this is the most galling/worrisome to burnt-orange fanatics. Even though you never like it, everyone knows yearly results are transitory, and you can't expect Texas to always, every year, have the best football team in the state.

But you CAN always expect that Texas is, regardless of who happened to have the hottest last season, the undisputed #1 football brand name in Texas, and is always among the handful of top blue-chip elites nationally. Anything that threatens that is a mortal danger, and yeah, the evidence seems to be that TAMU has actually made inroads on that status within the state.

Love it or hate it, No one can deny that the SEC is a game changer.

Even just the narrowing of the gap between the Aggies and the Longhorns has many UT folks a little worried.

I still wouldn't call the Aggies the leading college football brand in the state but it is most certainly moving in that direction.

I don't expect to be able to continue laughing at Texas' slide for the next 5 years. I don't think they will allow themselves to go the way of Tennessee.

(10-05-2015 09:20 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Love it or hate it, No one can deny that the SEC is a game changer.

Every conference talks about adding a school and that school getting better, but the SEC seems to do the best job of that. E.g., Missouri and TAMU have thrived in the SEC, as has South Carolina since joining in 1992.

In contrast, additions to the B1G such as Nebraska, and even Penn State, have fallen off or not improved compared to where they were before they joined. Jury is still out on Rutgers and Maryland.

(10-05-2015 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 09:20 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Love it or hate it, No one can deny that the SEC is a game changer.

Every conference talks about adding a school and that school getting better, but the SEC seems to do the best job of that. E.g., Missouri and TAMU have thrived in the SEC, as has South Carolina since joining in 1992.

In contrast, additions to the B1G such as Nebraska, and even Penn State, have fallen off or not improved compared to where they were before they joined. Jury is still out on Rutgers and Maryland.

Quo, Rutgers and Maryland have very little margin to decline. When you enter at the all time low of a program you had better have an upside in your new conference.

(10-05-2015 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 09:20 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Love it or hate it, No one can deny that the SEC is a game changer.

Every conference talks about adding a school and that school getting better, but the SEC seems to do the best job of that. E.g., Missouri and TAMU have thrived in the SEC, as has South Carolina since joining in 1992.

In contrast, additions to the B1G such as Nebraska, and even Penn State, have fallen off or not improved compared to where they were before they joined. Jury is still out on Rutgers and Maryland.

Missouri was doing pretty well in the Big 12.
Arkansas fell off the cliff.
Hard to tell what A&M would have done with Sumlin in the Big 12.
South Carolina definitely did better than before.

So 1 much better, 1 much worse, 1 about the same and 1 hard to tell.

(10-05-2015 04:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 09:20 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Love it or hate it, No one can deny that the SEC is a game changer.

Every conference talks about adding a school and that school getting better, but the SEC seems to do the best job of that. E.g., Missouri and TAMU have thrived in the SEC, as has South Carolina since joining in 1992.

In contrast, additions to the B1G such as Nebraska, and even Penn State, have fallen off or not improved compared to where they were before they joined. Jury is still out on Rutgers and Maryland.

Missouri was doing pretty well in the Big 12.
Arkansas fell off the cliff.
Hard to tell what A&M would have done with Sumlin in the Big 12.
South Carolina definitely did better than before.

So 1 much better, 1 much worse, 1 about the same and 1 hard to tell.

Arkansas has fallen off a cliff the last couple years but they've had some good years in the SEC. As programs, TAMU and Missouri have never been in better shape.

(10-05-2015 05:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 04:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 09:20 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Love it or hate it, No one can deny that the SEC is a game changer.

Every conference talks about adding a school and that school getting better, but the SEC seems to do the best job of that. E.g., Missouri and TAMU have thrived in the SEC, as has South Carolina since joining in 1992.

In contrast, additions to the B1G such as Nebraska, and even Penn State, have fallen off or not improved compared to where they were before they joined. Jury is still out on Rutgers and Maryland.

Missouri was doing pretty well in the Big 12.
Arkansas fell off the cliff.
Hard to tell what A&M would have done with Sumlin in the Big 12.
South Carolina definitely did better than before.

So 1 much better, 1 much worse, 1 about the same and 1 hard to tell.

Arkansas has fallen off a cliff the last couple years but they've had some good years in the SEC. As programs, TAMU and Missouri have never been in better shape.

And in typical Big 12 apologist mode Bullet is using today's context to talk about a situation that made the Hogs practically say please take us to the SEC, but one that was far different two decades ago. In '91 it was evident that the SWC was blowing apart and as a relatively low population state with average academics and their best years already in their past (the 60's through early 70's) Arkansas wanted out of what seemed to them to be a losing proposition the Big 8 merger (and as things turned out they were right). Their athletic programs have fared very well in the SEC, just not as much in football as they would like.

The SEC took them as a bridge to Texas. That turned out very well too.

So spin as you might the SEC has had the best selections in realignment and it could easily be argued that without Arkansas we wouldn't have landed A&M or Missouri. The Hogs were a great get for the SEC in '92. South Carolina was a bridge to North Carolina. We'll wait and see about that one. The Gamecocks are a nice add just on their own merit, but they may yet prove to be a valuable bridge as well.

So unlike the Big 12 where if the school is outside of the state of Texas the Horns have a difficult time reading a map, the SEC took the two states they needed to set up acquisitions that they coveted for their future. But, foresight tends to happen when you think about the good of the whole conference rather than establishing the desired fiefdom for El Supremo!

(10-05-2015 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 04:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 09:20 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Love it or hate it, No one can deny that the SEC is a game changer.

Every conference talks about adding a school and that school getting better, but the SEC seems to do the best job of that. E.g., Missouri and TAMU have thrived in the SEC, as has South Carolina since joining in 1992.

In contrast, additions to the B1G such as Nebraska, and even Penn State, have fallen off or not improved compared to where they were before they joined. Jury is still out on Rutgers and Maryland.

Missouri was doing pretty well in the Big 12.
Arkansas fell off the cliff.
Hard to tell what A&M would have done with Sumlin in the Big 12.
South Carolina definitely did better than before.

So 1 much better, 1 much worse, 1 about the same and 1 hard to tell.

Arkansas has fallen off a cliff the last couple years but they've had some good years in the SEC. As programs, TAMU and Missouri have never been in better shape.

And in typical Big 12 apologist mode Bullet is using today's context to talk about a situation that made the Hogs practically say please take us to the SEC. In '91 it was evident that the SWC was blowing apart and as a relatively low population state with average academics and their best years already in their past (the 60's through early 70's) Arkansas wanted out of what seemed to them to be a losing proposition the Big 8 merger (and as things turned out they were right). Their athletic programs have fared very well in the SEC, just not as much in football as they would like.

The SEC took them as a bridge to Texas. That turned out very well too.

So spin as you might the SEC has had the best selections in realignment and it could easily be argued that without Arkansas we wouldn't have landed A&M or Missouri. The Hogs were a great get for the SEC in '92. South Carolina was a bridge to North Carolina. We'll wait and see about that one. The Gamecocks are a nice add just on their own merit, but they may yet prove to be a valuable bridge as well.

So unlike the Big 12 where if the school is outside of the state of Texas the Horns have a difficult time reading a map, the SEC took the two states they needed to set up acquisitions that they coveted for their future.

So you agree. The younger people don't understand how good a get Arkansas was in 1989. Arkansas has declined so much people don't understand. They were very good in the 80s and one of the top teams in the country in the 60s and 70s. They were 3rd, just behind Texas and Alabama for the best record in the 60s and tied with Texas for 2nd in AP poll points. They were 10th in AP poll points in the 70s. Its been a football disaster for the Hogs.

A&M was better in the mid 80s to around 1999 for you younger people as well than they are now. They are definitely better now than in the latter years of the Big 12, but its hard to say how much is Kevin Sumlin and how much is the move.

Missouri was Big 12 north champs in 2007, 2008 and 2010. They were sitting #1 in the polls until they lost the conference championship game to OU in 2007.

Now South Carolina was a nobody in 1989. They have significantly improved.

(10-05-2015 05:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 04:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Every conference talks about adding a school and that school getting better, but the SEC seems to do the best job of that. E.g., Missouri and TAMU have thrived in the SEC, as has South Carolina since joining in 1992.

In contrast, additions to the B1G such as Nebraska, and even Penn State, have fallen off or not improved compared to where they were before they joined. Jury is still out on Rutgers and Maryland.

Missouri was doing pretty well in the Big 12.
Arkansas fell off the cliff.
Hard to tell what A&M would have done with Sumlin in the Big 12.
South Carolina definitely did better than before.

So 1 much better, 1 much worse, 1 about the same and 1 hard to tell.

Arkansas has fallen off a cliff the last couple years but they've had some good years in the SEC. As programs, TAMU and Missouri have never been in better shape.

And in typical Big 12 apologist mode Bullet is using today's context to talk about a situation that made the Hogs practically say please take us to the SEC. In '91 it was evident that the SWC was blowing apart and as a relatively low population state with average academics and their best years already in their past (the 60's through early 70's) Arkansas wanted out of what seemed to them to be a losing proposition the Big 8 merger (and as things turned out they were right). Their athletic programs have fared very well in the SEC, just not as much in football as they would like.

The SEC took them as a bridge to Texas. That turned out very well too.

So spin as you might the SEC has had the best selections in realignment and it could easily be argued that without Arkansas we wouldn't have landed A&M or Missouri. The Hogs were a great get for the SEC in '92. South Carolina was a bridge to North Carolina. We'll wait and see about that one. The Gamecocks are a nice add just on their own merit, but they may yet prove to be a valuable bridge as well.

So unlike the Big 12 where if the school is outside of the state of Texas the Horns have a difficult time reading a map, the SEC took the two states they needed to set up acquisitions that they coveted for their future.

So you agree. The younger people don't understand how good a get Arkansas was in 1989. Arkansas has declined so much people don't understand. They were very good in the 80s and one of the top teams in the country in the 60s and 70s. They were 3rd, just behind Texas and Alabama for the best record in the 60s and tied with Texas for 2nd in AP poll points. They were 10th in AP poll points in the 70s. Its been a football disaster for the Hogs.

A&M was better in the mid 80s to around 1999 for you younger people as well than they are now. They are definitely better now than in the latter years of the Big 12, but its hard to say how much is Kevin Sumlin and how much is the move.

Missouri was Big 12 north champs in 2007, 2008 and 2010. They were sitting #1 in the polls until they lost the conference championship game to OU in 2007.

Now South Carolina was a nobody in 1989. They have significantly improved.

Then you also admit that Arkansas had started its fall in status in football prior to entering the SEC. BTW I agree that the Aggie teams of the 80's were some of their best in relatively recent history (although that was 30 years ago).

(10-05-2015 05:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 04:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  Missouri was doing pretty well in the Big 12.
Arkansas fell off the cliff.
Hard to tell what A&M would have done with Sumlin in the Big 12.
South Carolina definitely did better than before.

So 1 much better, 1 much worse, 1 about the same and 1 hard to tell.

Arkansas has fallen off a cliff the last couple years but they've had some good years in the SEC. As programs, TAMU and Missouri have never been in better shape.

And in typical Big 12 apologist mode Bullet is using today's context to talk about a situation that made the Hogs practically say please take us to the SEC. In '91 it was evident that the SWC was blowing apart and as a relatively low population state with average academics and their best years already in their past (the 60's through early 70's) Arkansas wanted out of what seemed to them to be a losing proposition the Big 8 merger (and as things turned out they were right). Their athletic programs have fared very well in the SEC, just not as much in football as they would like.

The SEC took them as a bridge to Texas. That turned out very well too.

So spin as you might the SEC has had the best selections in realignment and it could easily be argued that without Arkansas we wouldn't have landed A&M or Missouri. The Hogs were a great get for the SEC in '92. South Carolina was a bridge to North Carolina. We'll wait and see about that one. The Gamecocks are a nice add just on their own merit, but they may yet prove to be a valuable bridge as well.

So unlike the Big 12 where if the school is outside of the state of Texas the Horns have a difficult time reading a map, the SEC took the two states they needed to set up acquisitions that they coveted for their future.

So you agree. The younger people don't understand how good a get Arkansas was in 1989. Arkansas has declined so much people don't understand. They were very good in the 80s and one of the top teams in the country in the 60s and 70s. They were 3rd, just behind Texas and Alabama for the best record in the 60s and tied with Texas for 2nd in AP poll points. They were 10th in AP poll points in the 70s. Its been a football disaster for the Hogs.

A&M was better in the mid 80s to around 1999 for you younger people as well than they are now. They are definitely better now than in the latter years of the Big 12, but its hard to say how much is Kevin Sumlin and how much is the move.

Missouri was Big 12 north champs in 2007, 2008 and 2010. They were sitting #1 in the polls until they lost the conference championship game to OU in 2007.

Now South Carolina was a nobody in 1989. They have significantly improved.

Then you also admit that Arkansas had started its fall in status in football prior to entering the SEC. BTW I agree that the Aggie teams of the 80's were some of their best in relatively recent history (although that was 30 years ago).

Yes, but they were still #20 in the AP poll points in the 80s. That fell to #42 and #37 in their first two decades in the SEC. When they entered the SEC, they were probably a bigger name than LSU, Georgia or Auburn and had surpassed Tennessee. Florida still had never even won an SEC championship.

(10-05-2015 06:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Arkansas has fallen off a cliff the last couple years but they've had some good years in the SEC. As programs, TAMU and Missouri have never been in better shape.

And in typical Big 12 apologist mode Bullet is using today's context to talk about a situation that made the Hogs practically say please take us to the SEC. In '91 it was evident that the SWC was blowing apart and as a relatively low population state with average academics and their best years already in their past (the 60's through early 70's) Arkansas wanted out of what seemed to them to be a losing proposition the Big 8 merger (and as things turned out they were right). Their athletic programs have fared very well in the SEC, just not as much in football as they would like.

The SEC took them as a bridge to Texas. That turned out very well too.

So spin as you might the SEC has had the best selections in realignment and it could easily be argued that without Arkansas we wouldn't have landed A&M or Missouri. The Hogs were a great get for the SEC in '92. South Carolina was a bridge to North Carolina. We'll wait and see about that one. The Gamecocks are a nice add just on their own merit, but they may yet prove to be a valuable bridge as well.

So unlike the Big 12 where if the school is outside of the state of Texas the Horns have a difficult time reading a map, the SEC took the two states they needed to set up acquisitions that they coveted for their future.

So you agree. The younger people don't understand how good a get Arkansas was in 1989. Arkansas has declined so much people don't understand. They were very good in the 80s and one of the top teams in the country in the 60s and 70s. They were 3rd, just behind Texas and Alabama for the best record in the 60s and tied with Texas for 2nd in AP poll points. They were 10th in AP poll points in the 70s. Its been a football disaster for the Hogs.

A&M was better in the mid 80s to around 1999 for you younger people as well than they are now. They are definitely better now than in the latter years of the Big 12, but its hard to say how much is Kevin Sumlin and how much is the move.

Missouri was Big 12 north champs in 2007, 2008 and 2010. They were sitting #1 in the polls until they lost the conference championship game to OU in 2007.

Now South Carolina was a nobody in 1989. They have significantly improved.

Then you also admit that Arkansas had started its fall in status in football prior to entering the SEC. BTW I agree that the Aggie teams of the 80's were some of their best in relatively recent history (although that was 30 years ago).

Yes, but they were still #20 in the AP poll points in the 80s. That fell to #42 and #37 in their first two decades in the SEC. When they entered the SEC, they were probably a bigger name than LSU, Georgia or Auburn and had surpassed Tennessee. Florida still had never even won an SEC championship.

HAHAHAHAHA

(10-27-2015 11:37 AM)High Plains Drifter Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 06:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And in typical Big 12 apologist mode Bullet is using today's context to talk about a situation that made the Hogs practically say please take us to the SEC. In '91 it was evident that the SWC was blowing apart and as a relatively low population state with average academics and their best years already in their past (the 60's through early 70's) Arkansas wanted out of what seemed to them to be a losing proposition the Big 8 merger (and as things turned out they were right). Their athletic programs have fared very well in the SEC, just not as much in football as they would like.

The SEC took them as a bridge to Texas. That turned out very well too.

So spin as you might the SEC has had the best selections in realignment and it could easily be argued that without Arkansas we wouldn't have landed A&M or Missouri. The Hogs were a great get for the SEC in '92. South Carolina was a bridge to North Carolina. We'll wait and see about that one. The Gamecocks are a nice add just on their own merit, but they may yet prove to be a valuable bridge as well.

So unlike the Big 12 where if the school is outside of the state of Texas the Horns have a difficult time reading a map, the SEC took the two states they needed to set up acquisitions that they coveted for their future.

So you agree. The younger people don't understand how good a get Arkansas was in 1989. Arkansas has declined so much people don't understand. They were very good in the 80s and one of the top teams in the country in the 60s and 70s. They were 3rd, just behind Texas and Alabama for the best record in the 60s and tied with Texas for 2nd in AP poll points. They were 10th in AP poll points in the 70s. Its been a football disaster for the Hogs.

A&M was better in the mid 80s to around 1999 for you younger people as well than they are now. They are definitely better now than in the latter years of the Big 12, but its hard to say how much is Kevin Sumlin and how much is the move.

Missouri was Big 12 north champs in 2007, 2008 and 2010. They were sitting #1 in the polls until they lost the conference championship game to OU in 2007.

Now South Carolina was a nobody in 1989. They have significantly improved.

Then you also admit that Arkansas had started its fall in status in football prior to entering the SEC. BTW I agree that the Aggie teams of the 80's were some of their best in relatively recent history (although that was 30 years ago).

Yes, but they were still #20 in the AP poll points in the 80s. That fell to #42 and #37 in their first two decades in the SEC. When they entered the SEC, they were probably a bigger name than LSU, Georgia or Auburn and had surpassed Tennessee. Florida still had never even won an SEC championship.

HAHAHAHAHA

Proves my point. You are too young or have too poor a memory to remember. Try looking up LSU and Tennessee's records in the 70s and 80s.

(10-27-2015 12:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 11:37 AM)High Plains Drifter Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 06:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 05:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  So you agree. The younger people don't understand how good a get Arkansas was in 1989. Arkansas has declined so much people don't understand. They were very good in the 80s and one of the top teams in the country in the 60s and 70s. They were 3rd, just behind Texas and Alabama for the best record in the 60s and tied with Texas for 2nd in AP poll points. They were 10th in AP poll points in the 70s. Its been a football disaster for the Hogs.

A&M was better in the mid 80s to around 1999 for you younger people as well than they are now. They are definitely better now than in the latter years of the Big 12, but its hard to say how much is Kevin Sumlin and how much is the move.

Missouri was Big 12 north champs in 2007, 2008 and 2010. They were sitting #1 in the polls until they lost the conference championship game to OU in 2007.

Now South Carolina was a nobody in 1989. They have significantly improved.

Then you also admit that Arkansas had started its fall in status in football prior to entering the SEC. BTW I agree that the Aggie teams of the 80's were some of their best in relatively recent history (although that was 30 years ago).

Yes, but they were still #20 in the AP poll points in the 80s. That fell to #42 and #37 in their first two decades in the SEC. When they entered the SEC, they were probably a bigger name than LSU, Georgia or Auburn and had surpassed Tennessee. Florida still had never even won an SEC championship.

HAHAHAHAHA

Proves my point. You are too young or have too poor a memory to remember. Try looking up LSU and Tennessee's records in the 70s and 80s.

Even more recent, LSU football was a disaster in the Nineties under Mike Archer, Curley "I bang cheerleaders" Hallman and to a lesser extent, Gerry DiNardo.

LSU had eight losing seasons in eleven years (think about that, 8 of 11 below .500) , including five in a row from 1990-94, until Nick Saban fell into their lap after the 1999 season.




http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act...esults.php

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act...esults.php