(06-21-2020 08:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 08:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 08:28 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Another thing I see when the data is arrayed this was is that BC, Rutgers, West Virginia, Wake Forest, Vandy, and MD are making little to no money despite television contracts. There are various reasons of course. But they are also somewhat clustered as a group.

The truth is Vandy simply doesn't even try. That's a rub. What's more their venues are substandard to the rest of the SEC and there is little incentive on their part to address the matter.

People get upset when breakaway talk enters the picture, but the laggards are pulling down everyone's payouts. A new association of 48-56 is what I hear and see kicked around and when you look at the investment levels it becomes pretty obvious as to why.

Duke football rode the ACC like a Tick and after bitching at them they hired Spurrier. Then they went back to the old ways. We bitched again and they hired Cutcliffe. Duke likes money but needs no money. That can raise what they need in a few days. However making Duke field a competitive football team takes about 3 recruits a year from State, 5 from Carolina, and 5 from Wake Forest. If half of them pan out by the senior year that's 6 kids from State, 10 from Carolina and 10 from Wake, not to mention football games played in the backyard that create little exposure outside a band running from Charlotte to Richmond.

Everyone dumps on Texas for underachieving. Texas made one mistake in seeking the Big 12''s creation. They should have moved with Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Arkansas. Then Baylor and T.C.U. would have been relegated to a lower tier. That alone would have meant that UT had that many more top recruits from Texas on their team. It would have helped A&M in similar proportions and would have helped Tech some too.

If UT does that they have the depth to be in contention in the Big 12 at the end of the year. Oklahoma is like Alabama. Their history is so storied and deep they get who they want from Oklahoma and a good number from DFW. They also recruit nationally. It is the elevation of T.C.U. and Baylor in addition to Tech and A&M that has Texas thin. The same thing is happening in North Carolina. Even Wake gets some solid players. By keeping 4 P5 teams in North Carolina and a usually competitive East Carolina the talent is spread way too thin.

The growth of UCF and USF have cut into the talent pool for UF, FSU and especially Miami and it shows.

Why has USC football tanked? In part it's because High School participation dipped in California and the talent is being split 5 ways counting San Diego State. 6 more 4 to 5 star players on a roster means you have quality depth by the 7th game of the season and when those late season injuries start to pile up that is essential to winning a conference title or better.

Having F.S.U., Tennessee, Georgia Tech, Florida and Florida State all sub par in addition to Spurrier leaving South Carolina is what helped Dabo grow what he has at Clemson. With Georgia and possibly Tennessee and Florida trending up I'll be interested to see if this lasts.

Consolidation is going to happen. It will happen within states and thereby in conferences. The available talent pool is shrinking nationally with parents concerned about CTE's. The upper tier will shrink to match that pool either by the manipulations of the best established state schools, or the loss of donations following multiple loosing seasons for the 3rd, 4th, and sometimes 5th school in the state's pecking order. In Florida the demographics could actually flip some of the order over time simply due to graduating class sizes. It will be interesting to watch.

Can this be normalized without TV revenue and ergo remove the inflated total behind smaller schools in conferences with big TV paydays? E.g. - How much do you make from just donations and the gate?

(06-21-2020 09:09 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Can this be normalized without TV revenue and ergo remove the inflated total behind smaller schools in conferences with big TV paydays? E.g. - How much do you make from just donations and the gate?

If you go to the equity in athletics site I think you will see that the way the accounting works it would be very difficult to do. First of all the Big 12 keeps its T3 rights separate and then different conferences include different sources as T3. So just removing what a conference claims as media revenue would be tough. The SEC includes the conference's portion of bowl payouts and tournament credits in their totals. The school's portion of bowl payouts is not included. So since there is no uniformity that is why I annually use the only straight information we ever get, Gross Total Revenue. The rest is a mish mash of accounting.

[/quote]JRsec..

Everyone dumps on Texas for underachieving. Texas made one mistake in seeking the Big 12''s creation. They should have moved with Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Arkansas. Then Baylor and T.C.U. would have been relegated to a lower tier. That alone would have meant that UT had that many more top recruits from Texas on their team. It would have helped A&M in similar proportions and would have helped Tech some too.
[/quote]



JR, I definitely agree that Texas should have joined the Big8 with those four teams.

Your point about Baylor and TCU being relegated to a lower tier and that would have meant UT would have many more top recruits from Texas on their team is certainly valid.

That is one reason why I disagree with the theory that Texas wants or needs to play the other Texas teams like Baylor and TCU.

JRsec..

Everyone dumps on Texas for underachieving. Texas made one mistake in seeking the Big 12''s creation. They should have moved with Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Arkansas. Then Baylor and T.C.U. would have been relegated to a lower tier. That alone would have meant that UT had that many more top recruits from Texas on their team. It would have helped A&M in similar proportions and would have helped Tech some too.
[/quote]



JR, I definitely agree that Texas should have joined the Big8 with those four teams.

Your point about Baylor and TCU being relegated to a lower tier and that would have meant UT would have many more top recruits from Texas on their team is certainly valid.

That is one reason why I disagree with the theory that Texas wants or needs to play the other Texas teams like Baylor and TCU.
[/quote]

What plagued Mack late at his stay in Austin was not signing the top rated players in the state, it was the fact that he had some really bad evaluations and luck with injuries.. While Baylor, Tech, TCU, oklahoma st got some studs disguised as 3 stars. Now, they are fighting multiple schools for the top players in state, however.. if they can break through they will get back into getting the majority of the top 12. Baylor, TCU, or aggy won't have a say. It's schools like tosu, jawja and bama that will have to really fight if Texas can prove it's on the cusp of competing for the championship.

Til then Texas will lose out on some, but it's not because of TCU or Baylor

JRsec..

Everyone dumps on Texas for underachieving. Texas made one mistake in seeking the Big 12''s creation. They should have moved with Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Arkansas. Then Baylor and T.C.U. would have been relegated to a lower tier. That alone would have meant that UT had that many more top recruits from Texas on their team. It would have helped A&M in similar proportions and would have helped Tech some too.
[/quote]



JR, I definitely agree that Texas should have joined the Big8 with those four teams.

Your point about Baylor and TCU being relegated to a lower tier and that would have meant UT would have many more top recruits from Texas on their team is certainly valid.

That is one reason why I disagree with the theory that Texas wants or needs to play the other Texas teams like Baylor and TCU.
[/quote]

Baylor and TCU don't really pull many from Texas. During Mack Brown's prime years, even OU and A&M didn't win many recruiting battles vs. Texas.

Mack just got complacent and lazy in evaluating talent in his later years and Charlie Strong was always a lazy recruiter. Its going to take a couple more years to offset 5 or 6 years of relative weak recruiting.

(06-22-2020 12:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 10:16 AM)texoma Wrote:  

JRsec Wrote:Everyone dumps on Texas for underachieving. Texas made one mistake in seeking the Big 12''s creation. They should have moved with Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Arkansas. Then Baylor and T.C.U. would have been relegated to a lower tier. That alone would have meant that UT had that many more top recruits from Texas on their team. It would have helped A&M in similar proportions and would have helped Tech some too.

JR, I definitely agree that Texas should have joined the Big8 with those four teams.

Your point about Baylor and TCU being relegated to a lower tier and that would have meant UT would have many more top recruits from Texas on their team is certainly valid.

That is one reason why I disagree with the theory that Texas wants or needs to play the other Texas teams like Baylor and TCU.

Baylor and TCU don't really pull many from Texas. During Mack Brown's prime years, even OU and A&M didn't win many recruiting battles vs. Texas.

Mack just got complacent and lazy in evaluating talent in his later years and Charlie Strong was always a lazy recruiter. Its going to take a couple more years to offset 5 or 6 years of relative weak recruiting.

Not to be prickly, but it doesn't take that long to overcome a period of poor recruiting.

Alabama had a strong group in 1999 and won the SEC. For the next couple of years, the program fell apart. By 2002, we were dealing with reduced scholarships due to NCAA sanctions. The seasons of 2003-2006 were marked with mostly mediocre recruits although we had a top 10 class during that period.

Saban arrived in 2007 and by 2008, we were back in the SEC title game.

Now obviously any program needs a stable of talent to make a real run, but it doesn't take a long time to replenish if you're a program with resources. Texas has had some bumps in the road the last decade, but there's really no reason they shouldn't be competing at a high level right now.

(06-22-2020 01:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 12:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 10:16 AM)texoma Wrote:  

JRsec Wrote:Everyone dumps on Texas for underachieving. Texas made one mistake in seeking the Big 12''s creation. They should have moved with Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Arkansas. Then Baylor and T.C.U. would have been relegated to a lower tier. That alone would have meant that UT had that many more top recruits from Texas on their team. It would have helped A&M in similar proportions and would have helped Tech some too.

JR, I definitely agree that Texas should have joined the Big8 with those four teams.

Your point about Baylor and TCU being relegated to a lower tier and that would have meant UT would have many more top recruits from Texas on their team is certainly valid.

That is one reason why I disagree with the theory that Texas wants or needs to play the other Texas teams like Baylor and TCU.

Baylor and TCU don't really pull many from Texas. During Mack Brown's prime years, even OU and A&M didn't win many recruiting battles vs. Texas.

Mack just got complacent and lazy in evaluating talent in his later years and Charlie Strong was always a lazy recruiter. Its going to take a couple more years to offset 5 or 6 years of relative weak recruiting.

Not to be prickly, but it doesn't take that long to overcome a period of poor recruiting.

Alabama had a strong group in 1999 and won the SEC. For the next couple of years, the program fell apart. By 2002, we were dealing with reduced scholarships due to NCAA sanctions. The seasons of 2003-2006 were marked with mostly mediocre recruits although we had a top 10 class during that period.

Saban arrived in 2007 and by 2008, we were back in the SEC title game.

Now obviously any program needs a stable of talent to make a real run, but it doesn't take a long time to replenish if you're a program with resources. Texas has had some bumps in the road the last decade, but there's really no reason they shouldn't be competing at a high level right now.

This is accurate. What really happened with the Big 12 (and Texas) and is beginning show up in the SEC, is that when schools recognize a talent deficit they funnel their best athletes to offense. The growing dearth of talent and the many programs that dip from it, are why the Big 12 had the knock of having no defenses. You can see this everywhere in High School ball today, and I'm seeing more and more of it at the college level. The differences between CFP champions and the also rans is almost exclusively attributable to defense. Georgia didn't prevail ultimately against Alabama the year they beat Oklahoma in the semis because Georgia's defense was just slightly more suspect than Alabama's and Alabama's was not up to typical Alabama form.

Each passing year I'm seeing less defensive capability among SEC teams. Oddly the most Big 10 like SEC school in terms of actual play is probably Auburn. Steele continues to put a solid defense on the field. But Gus, for all of his accolades, seldom puts a stellar offense on the field. The Defense might only allow 23 points a game to great offenses but if the Auburn offense can't score consistently (usually 3 points at the time with a great FG kicker) then you wind up just out of the money. I see the same thing at Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, and sometimes at Ohio State though their offenses are usually better than all of the aforementioned. When Ohio State beat Alabama it was because their defense stopped the Tide. Ditto for Clemson.

Right now the CFP contenders tend to have better than average defenses with solid offense and the champions have solid defense with solid offense. The fact that this combination is getting rarer and rarer is mute testimony to how the skill levels are truly slipping in the game versus some teams of the past.

But as long as scoring makes fans excited and as long as talent pools continue to shrink I expect to see more and more erosion of defensive skills on the field and the better athletes to be intentionally placed on the offensive side of the ball.

Texas has definitely experienced a diminishment of talent in numbers. Competition for players may be part of that and Brown's getting ready to retire might have contributed as well, but what I'm seeing is that the talent just isn't there and their defense shows that in spades.

(06-22-2020 01:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 12:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 10:16 AM)texoma Wrote:  

JRsec Wrote:Everyone dumps on Texas for underachieving. Texas made one mistake in seeking the Big 12''s creation. They should have moved with Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Arkansas. Then Baylor and T.C.U. would have been relegated to a lower tier. That alone would have meant that UT had that many more top recruits from Texas on their team. It would have helped A&M in similar proportions and would have helped Tech some too.

JR, I definitely agree that Texas should have joined the Big8 with those four teams.

Your point about Baylor and TCU being relegated to a lower tier and that would have meant UT would have many more top recruits from Texas on their team is certainly valid.

That is one reason why I disagree with the theory that Texas wants or needs to play the other Texas teams like Baylor and TCU.

Baylor and TCU don't really pull many from Texas. During Mack Brown's prime years, even OU and A&M didn't win many recruiting battles vs. Texas.

Mack just got complacent and lazy in evaluating talent in his later years and Charlie Strong was always a lazy recruiter. Its going to take a couple more years to offset 5 or 6 years of relative weak recruiting.

Not to be prickly, but it doesn't take that long to overcome a period of poor recruiting.

Alabama had a strong group in 1999 and won the SEC. For the next couple of years, the program fell apart. By 2002, we were dealing with reduced scholarships due to NCAA sanctions. The seasons of 2003-2006 were marked with mostly mediocre recruits although we had a top 10 class during that period.

Saban arrived in 2007 and by 2008, we were back in the SEC title game.

Now obviously any program needs a stable of talent to make a real run, but it doesn't take a long time to replenish if you're a program with resources. Texas has had some bumps in the road the last decade, but there's really no reason they shouldn't be competing at a high level right now.

Well they were top 10 year before last, but to compete for an MNC, you need to have depth or get really lucky. Texas doesn't have the depth yet.