NCAA Conference Realignment

[Guest]

foulacy is arguing something completely different than everyone else is talking about. everyone knows OU has a good football tradition, but that doesn't matter.

 

What's that? Value to a conference? I said that Texas brings more money to a conference than OU does, but OU has a far better football program than Texas does.

 

Then why have you been arguing with people for two pages?

[SouthSideRyan]

Yeah I read the California schools are going to be broken up. I don't like that.

 

I would put CU and Utah with the Oregon/Washington schools and put the CA schools with the AZ schools.

 

Yeah that seems like the obvious breakdown.

[UMFan83]

Yeah I read the California schools are going to be broken up. I don't like that.

 

I would put CU and Utah with the Oregon/Washington schools and put the CA schools with the AZ schools.

 

I don't think it really matters geographically as it applies to Colorado. It's 900 miles from every original Pac 10 school (basically the closest Pac 10 school besides Utah is the distance from Chicago to New Orleans driving)

 

Provo, UT - 502 MI

Tempe, AZ - 882 MI

Tucson, AZ - 922 MI

Los Angeles, CA - 1,038 MI

Pullman, WA - 1,142 MI

Eugene, OR - 1,226 MI

San Francisco, CA - 1,268 MI

Seattle, WA - 1,300 MI

Corvallis, OR - 1,305 MI

 

Based on this, it makes slightly more sense to put them in a south division with the LA and Arizona schools. It would save around 400 miles of travel to play at ASU every other year vs. playing at Oregon State every other year. But either way it's far away.

[TruffleShuffle]

byu is in provo... u. of utah is in SLC. not that it makes a big difference as far as mileage.

[SpongeWorthy]

Yeah I could understand if there was some big geographic difference but there isn't and you're probably breaking up some rivalries.

 

The CA schools don't really have rivalries with any of the Pac NW schools (maybe Cal and Oregon) but USC/Cal and UCLA/Cal is pretty decent. Even Stanford and USC has gotten pretty snippy.

[UMFan83]

byu is in provo... u. of utah is in SLC. not that it makes a big difference as far as mileage.

 

gah, my bad thanks.

[shnsajax]

foulacy is arguing something completely different than everyone else is talking about. everyone knows OU has a good football tradition, but that doesn't matter.

 

What's that? Value to a conference? I said that Texas brings more money to a conference than OU does, but OU has a far better football program than Texas does.

 

OU had a far better tradition than Texas does, but I would hardly argue that point now and has zero relevance to this current situation.

[Tracer Bullet]

Aren't we talking about value to a conference? Is there any conference that would pause for a second when having a choice between Texas and Oklahoma?

 

I guess I was thinking of quality of their football programs with my last post. In terms of value to a conference, Texas is alone at #1. But OU is still head and shoulders above any other team in the conference. I think you can reasonably refer to them as the top 2 in the conference.

 

Historically OU's football program is better than Texas'.

 

Since 1945 OU has the best winning percentage out of any football program, most wins, most weeks ranked #1, most weeks ranked in the top 5, weeks ranked #1 in the BCS, Weeks ranked in the top 5 of the BCS, and the most all-americans.

 

http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/m-footbl-no1-program-modern-era.html

 

OU has 7 AP national championships, Texas has 3

Ou has 42 conference championships, Texas has 32

OU has 142 All-americans, Texas has 129

OU has had 5 heisman winners, Texas has 2

OU has 21 players in the College hall of fame, Texas has 11

 

OU also has the record for most consecutive victories with 47, a record that will never be broken.

 

But Texas brings more money to a conference because the size of their state and all the viewers in that state. So in terms of bringing money, Texas is number one. In terms of the actual football team, OU is by far number one.

 

wait, why is 1945 the cut off? Texas has the 2nd overall win % and the 2nd most victories all time right?

[Tracer Bullet]

you mean now that they have 12 or instead of Nebraska?

 

Well I meant now, but yes both.

 

you think the Big Ten would prefer Nebraska to Oklahoma as a 12th team? other than geography, what's the advantage?

[CubInOK]

 

wait, why is 1945 the cut off?

The year WWII ended. OU didn't start getting good at football until at least 2 years later.

 

Starting there also makes Notre Dame look like Colorado.

Edited June 17, 2010 by CubInOK

[Guest]

Aren't we talking about value to a conference? Is there any conference that would pause for a second when having a choice between Texas and Oklahoma?

 

I guess I was thinking of quality of their football programs with my last post. In terms of value to a conference, Texas is alone at #1. But OU is still head and shoulders above any other team in the conference. I think you can reasonably refer to them as the top 2 in the conference.

 

Historically OU's football program is better than Texas'.

 

Since 1945 OU has the best winning percentage out of any football program, most wins, most weeks ranked #1, most weeks ranked in the top 5, weeks ranked #1 in the BCS, Weeks ranked in the top 5 of the BCS, and the most all-americans.

 

http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/m-footbl-no1-program-modern-era.html

 

OU has 7 AP national championships, Texas has 3

Ou has 42 conference championships, Texas has 32

OU has 142 All-americans, Texas has 129

OU has had 5 heisman winners, Texas has 2

OU has 21 players in the College hall of fame, Texas has 11

 

OU also has the record for most consecutive victories with 47, a record that will never be broken.

 

But Texas brings more money to a conference because the size of their state and all the viewers in that state. So in terms of bringing money, Texas is number one. In terms of the actual football team, OU is by far number one.

 

wait, why is 1945 the cut off? Texas has the 2nd overall win % and the 2nd most victories all time right?

Best dataset for his argument.

[Tracer Bullet]

Aren't we talking about value to a conference? Is there any conference that would pause for a second when having a choice between Texas and Oklahoma?

 

I guess I was thinking of quality of their football programs with my last post. In terms of value to a conference, Texas is alone at #1. But OU is still head and shoulders above any other team in the conference. I think you can reasonably refer to them as the top 2 in the conference.

 

Historically OU's football program is better than Texas'.

 

Since 1945 OU has the best winning percentage out of any football program, most wins, most weeks ranked #1, most weeks ranked in the top 5, weeks ranked #1 in the BCS, Weeks ranked in the top 5 of the BCS, and the most all-americans.

 

http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/m-footbl-no1-program-modern-era.html

 

OU has 7 AP national championships, Texas has 3

Ou has 42 conference championships, Texas has 32

OU has 142 All-americans, Texas has 129

OU has had 5 heisman winners, Texas has 2

OU has 21 players in the College hall of fame, Texas has 11

 

OU also has the record for most consecutive victories with 47, a record that will never be broken.

 

But Texas brings more money to a conference because the size of their state and all the viewers in that state. So in terms of bringing money, Texas is number one. In terms of the actual football team, OU is by far number one.

 

wait, why is 1945 the cut off? Texas has the 2nd overall win % and the 2nd most victories all time right?

Best dataset for his argument.

 

that's what I thought. Historically, Texas has been better. Using an arbitrary cut off date to make your team look better doesn't change that.

[CubInOK]

OU has 7 AP national championships, Texas has 3

Ou has 42 conference championships, Texas has 32

OU has 142 All-americans, Texas has 129

OU has had 5 heisman winners, Texas has 2

OU has 21 players in the College hall of fame, Texas has 11

None of this is after a cutoff date, though.

[Foulacy]

I just used that date because it is easier to find much more reliable statistics. That date is considered when the "modern era' started, and sense we are in the "modern era" i thought those stats would be more relevant. Since wins and losses in the early 1900's have been reported differently by different schools and some schools pull an alabama and just start crediting themselves with wins and championships I figured this would be more accurate. It was no intention to skewer stats, just make them more accurate.

[Foulacy]

 

I guess I was thinking of quality of their football programs with my last post. In terms of value to a conference, Texas is alone at #1. But OU is still head and shoulders above any other team in the conference. I think you can reasonably refer to them as the top 2 in the conference.

 

Historically OU's football program is better than Texas'.

 

Since 1945 OU has the best winning percentage out of any football program, most wins, most weeks ranked #1, most weeks ranked in the top 5, weeks ranked #1 in the BCS, Weeks ranked in the top 5 of the BCS, and the most all-americans.

 

http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/m-footbl-no1-program-modern-era.html

 

OU has 7 AP national championships, Texas has 3

Ou has 42 conference championships, Texas has 32

OU has 142 All-americans, Texas has 129

OU has had 5 heisman winners, Texas has 2

OU has 21 players in the College hall of fame, Texas has 11

 

OU also has the record for most consecutive victories with 47, a record that will never be broken.

 

But Texas brings more money to a conference because the size of their state and all the viewers in that state. So in terms of bringing money, Texas is number one. In terms of the actual football team, OU is by far number one.

 

wait, why is 1945 the cut off? Texas has the 2nd overall win % and the 2nd most victories all time right?

Best dataset for his argument.

 

that's what I thought. Historically, Texas has been better. Using an arbitrary cut off date to make your team look better doesn't change that.

 

These are counted before the 1945 cut off date

 

OU has 7 AP national championships, Texas has 3

Ou has 42 conference championships, Texas has 32

OU has 142 All-americans, Texas has 129

OU has had 5 heisman winners, Texas has 2

OU has 21 players in the College hall of fame, Texas has 11

 

I don't really see how you can say Texas has the better football program

[TruffleShuffle]

i thought this was a thread about ncaa conference realignment

[Guest]

Yeah I could understand if there was some big geographic difference but there isn't and you're probably breaking up some rivalries.

 

The CA schools don't really have rivalries with any of the Pac NW schools (maybe Cal and Oregon) but USC/Cal and UCLA/Cal is pretty decent. Even Stanford and USC has gotten pretty snippy.

 

Ugh. I'm going to be pissed if UCLA doesn't play Berkeley every year.

[snoodmonger]

you mean now that they have 12 or instead of Nebraska?

 

Well I meant now, but yes both.

 

you think the Big Ten would prefer Nebraska to Oklahoma as a 12th team? other than geography, what's the advantage?

 

Well, geography is a pretty big part of the consideration, so I'm not sure why it should be dismissed. But Nebraska is a better fit academically, too. I think the only non-AAU team the Big 10 would consider is Notre Dame.

[SouthSideRyan]

quote snood

[Andy]

The Utah to Pac-10 move makes sense to me, they've been pretty good the last 15 years in both of the big sports.

 

If I were the Big 12 I'd think about adding BYU and another team (maybe TCU, maybe somebody else), but it doesn't seem like they're interested in doing that.

[Foulacy]

The Utah to Pac-10 move makes sense to me, they've been pretty good the last 15 years in both of the big sports.

 

If I were the Big 12 I'd think about adding BYU and another team (maybe TCU, maybe somebody else), but it doesn't seem like they're interested in doing that.

 

Sadly, this is what the big 12 wanted. They are not going to expand even though it's dumb not to

[hawkeyecub]

i thought this was a thread about ncaa conference realignment

 

It was, but if Iowa and Iowa State can't play each other every year, what's the point? That rivalry could have been HUGE. Now they'll never play...

[Butterscup1679666578]

The Utah to Pac-10 move makes sense to me, they've been pretty good the last 15 years in both of the big sports.

 

If I were the Big 12 I'd think about adding BYU and another team (maybe TCU, maybe somebody else), but it doesn't seem like they're interested in doing that.

 

Sadly, this is what the big 12 wanted. They are not going to expand even though it's dumb not to

 

The Big 12 will be dead in a few years anyways, so why bring more teams down with them

[Tracer Bullet]

you mean now that they have 12 or instead of Nebraska?

 

Well I meant now, but yes both.

 

you think the Big Ten would prefer Nebraska to Oklahoma as a 12th team? other than geography, what's the advantage?

 

Well, geography is a pretty big part of the consideration, so I'm not sure why it should be dismissed. But Nebraska is a better fit academically, too. I think the only non-AAU team the Big 10 would consider is Notre Dame.

 

I don't think geography should be dismissed, but how much longer is the flight to OKC than to Lincoln for everyone but 2-3 schools?

 

I guess I didn't realize how poor academics were at OU. My experience with Nebraska grads is significant and I wouldn't say favorable. My experience with OU grads is pretty much limited to imb...so, I guess I should have known.

[NeifiIsMyHomeBoy]

I've been reading up on the Big 10 and how it plans to distribute the schools throughout divisions. It seems the major concern is the balance of power between the divisions, as the Big Ten is looking to avoid a Big 12 South Redux with PSU, OSU, and Michigan in the same division.

 

I think the Michigan-OSU rivalry must be preserved and played on the last Saturday of the regular season. It's the marquee game in the league, and should occur every year. This means Penn State will probably end up getting screwed, and have to go west. I don't think Penn State will go quietly. If the conference were to ensure that PSU would play OSU every year then I think the option becomes more palatable. PSU would then play OSU and Nebraska every year. OSU would play Michigan and PSU each year, and Michigan would preserve it's rivalries with MSU and OSU. I think the divisions should look like this:

 

East (Or whatever it ends up being called): OSU, Michigan, MSU, Purdue, IU, Wisconsin

West: Illinois, NU, Iowa, Penn State, Nebraska, Minnesota

 

I don't know how pissed PSU will be about this but they don't have much leverage. This could all change quickly depending upon future expansion as well.