Tracer Bullet

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.

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?

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?

No. Every conference would love to have either of those teams. but every conference would pick Texas first without a second thought. And I'm not so sure the Big Ten would take them. Especially if they aren't attached to Texas you mean now that they have 12 or instead of Nebraska?

No. Every conference would love to have either of those teams. but every conference would pick Texas first without a second thought.

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.

yeah, i think hyperbole has made it more difficult, but foulacy's ultimate conclusion is right: there is no big 3 in the Big 12. OU/Texas are alone at the top. Well, Texas is alone at the top. Certainly historically and in the last few years. Though OU had a pretty good run there. I think the separation between Texas and OU (currently) is significantly smaller than that between OU and the rest of the field.

yeah, i think hyperbole has made it more difficult, but foulacy's ultimate conclusion is right: there is no big 3 in the Big 12. OU/Texas are alone at the top.

In a vacuum, no. But what really makes no sense is benching Fukudome indefinitely, or making your priority Colvin above all others. I don't care about the platoon for matchups sake as much as I don't think he should play everyday. i'm not sure what you're after here. What does a vacuum have to do with anything? And what does platooning Colving have to do with Fukudome? I'm not advocating playing Colvin as the everyday RF over Fukudome. But if the GM decides he wants to know whether Colvin can be an everyday RF, then he should play everyday (this requires a trade of Fukudome). There isn't enough evidence to establish that he needs a platoon. Alternatively, send Colvin back to AAA and let him play everyday in hopes he gets better. Play Fukudome in RF and use Nady or whomever as his platoon partner. I don't see the need of seeing him play everyday to determine if he can play everyday. All evidence suggests he can't be an everyday RF. So, play him regularly, and if by some miracle his numbers don't slip, as time goes on, play him more. But there's no need to castoff Fukudome for pennies on the dollar because you have to see how Colvin handles everyday duty. Fukudome is an asset. whoa. I agree that Fukudome is an asset. My only point is that there is no need to platoon Colvin at this point. The whole debate about whether Colvin plays everyday or gets platooned sort of assumes Fukudome is traded (or, I suppose, Byrd or Soriano is traded) and the Cubs decide to use this year to see what they have for the future. If that decision is made and Fukudome is traded, I think Colvin should play against essentially everyone (and not platooned) to give you a better idea of how good he can be. But there's no need to dump Fukudome.

In a vacuum, no. But what really makes no sense is benching Fukudome indefinitely, or making your priority Colvin above all others. I don't care about the platoon for matchups sake as much as I don't think he should play everyday. i'm not sure what you're after here. What does a vacuum have to do with anything? And what does platooning Colving have to do with Fukudome? I'm not advocating playing Colvin as the everyday RF over Fukudome. But if the GM decides he wants to know whether Colvin can be an everyday RF, then he should play everyday (this requires a trade of Fukudome). There isn't enough evidence to establish that he needs a platoon. Alternatively, send Colvin back to AAA and let him play everyday in hopes he gets better. Play Fukudome in RF and use Nady or whomever as his platoon partner.

yeah, but if you want him to play every day there's no reason to assume he can hit RHP better than he can hit LHP. Either play him every day and find out something about his major league ability or send him to Iowa to play every day. Platooning him makes no sense.

As jersey pointed out it's been quite a while since Wisconsin sucked for long stretches of time. Iowa hasn't sucked for long stretches of time since Hayden arrived. In the last 30 years Iowa has two 3-year stretches where they were .500 (one under Fry, one under Ferentz) and one 3-year stretch where they sucked (Hayden's last year, Kirk's first two). And that was the time where Hayden stayed on too long and left things bare. 5 losing seasons spread out over 30 years compared to 15 top 3 finishes and 19 times in the top 4 of the Big Ten. 4 of the last 8 years they've finished ranked in the top 8 in the nation. They're not going back to sucking for a long stretch under Ferentz which should be a while. it has been quite a while for Wisconsin and I'm not totally familiar with their history, but they haven't been a consistent 9-10 game winner for the entirety of my 20+ year CFB life. And I've been an Iowa fan for every day of my 32 years. There were some great times when I was too young to really remember. But there was a big stretch from then until the last 8 years or so where they pretty much sucked. They had a season or two of good times, but most seasons, the best you could hope for was bowl eligibility. That's not a good team. You can nitpick with my using the word "suck" but the point remains. Even great programs go through rough stretches. Decent to good programs go through even more of them. I'd put Iowa and Wisconsin in the decent-to-good program level, which means they aren't likely to be 8-10 game winners forever without some rough stretches. More to the overall point, I'd put Nebraska in that same category. They're in a rough stretch, but won't be forever, b/c they're a good program on the whole.

I'd bet Iowa and Wisconsin take turns beating them regularly, and Northwestern will win a few as well. those are obviously the 2 teams in the western division (if that's how they do it) that could regularly beat them. But I look at both of those teams and wonder when they'll go back to sucking for long stretches of time. And to TT's point, I can easily see Nebraska losing an easy game here or there. They aren't a top tier program right now by any means. But I also think they'll be good enough to beat the dregs of the Big Ten. And in the west half, that includes Illinois, NW, and Minnesota. My guess is they split East/West and play the 5 other teams in their division, 3 of the 6 in the other division (some every other year rotation), and 4 OOC games. Some B10 teams schedule 4 crap OOC games, some just 3. But that's probably 6-7 (or even 8, in years like this when teams like Michigan suck) puff games. Most years, I think Nebraska wins 8-10 games in the Big Ten, with a rare 11 win season (or even title run) and a slightly less rare 5-7 win season. Could be way off, but that's my guess. So basically...Wisconsin, Iowa (of late), PSU, etc.

yeah, i hate Nebraska football, but I can see them being a consistent 8-10 game winner with a title chance every so often when things fall right. It's not like the Big Ten is really a tougher conference than the Big 12 was. I guess it depends on how they set up divisions and who plays whom every year, but they'll probably miss OSU, PSU, UM every few years. And if they adopt the fairly standard Big Ten OOC schedule (1 good/decent team and 3 patsies), the schedule will probably have 7 no-doubt wins for Nebraska almost every year. TT - maybe you just hate Nebraska, which I can fully understand since I'm also from a neighboring state. But I don't really get your argument. I don't expect it to be a popular position, and I admit that I really loathe Nebraska(mostly because they get the benefit of the doubt because they're Nebraska), but I think you're overrating them. They don't score points, and I'm not sold on their defense without a once-in-a-decade defensive player destroying offensive lines. I expect them to lose 4 games this year even though their two most difficult games are at home, they miss OU, etc. I don't know how they'll do this year. But that's not really my point. I'm talking about post-joining the Big Ten Nebraska. And their 2011 schedule is Fresno St, Washington, and @ Wyoming + conference games. Washington might be good by 2011, but that's not a daunting schedule. A lot depends on how the new Big Ten divides itself, but other than OSU, there isn't a team in the Big Ten that's clearly better than Nebraska right now. Several are arguably better and have been for the past 5-10 years, but I wouldn't bet my life on any team other than OSU beating Nebraska more than 50% of the time in the next 5 years. This could all change if it turns out Pelini sucks, but I can't say for sure one way or the other right now.

yeah, i hate Nebraska football, but I can see them being a consistent 8-10 game winner with a title chance every so often when things fall right. It's not like the Big Ten is really a tougher conference than the Big 12 was. I guess it depends on how they set up divisions and who plays whom every year, but they'll probably miss OSU, PSU, UM every few years. And if they adopt the fairly standard Big Ten OOC schedule (1 good/decent team and 3 patsies), the schedule will probably have 7 no-doubt wins for Nebraska almost every year. TT - maybe you just hate Nebraska, which I can fully understand since I'm also from a neighboring state. But I don't really get your argument.

it seems OU would be better off without being in the shadow of Texas, but maybe Texas is holding OU more than we realize. I'd think the Pac 10 will get to 12 and then there probably won't be much action for a while. Seems like Delaney's hope for global media domination didn't really pan out.

of course there was You can submit whatever you like, but you apparently have no idea what you're talking about. "trying" to be independent? it's pathetic. What were these significantly better achievements that occurred under Weis? I'm sure you'll point to the unwarranted BCS berths which I suppose plays. I'd say those are at least canceled out by the 2007 season, losing to Navy, the lack of a signature win, and the fact that he had a worse win percentage. In my mind the absolute apex of ND football in the 2000s was probably the win over FSU in 02, though. And I meant trying to maintain its independence. Sorry for the lack of clarity. I'm guessing if Weis' record had matched the bluster ND would be independent as long as it wanted to. And I'm not privy to any negotiations but if being independent is a priority then I would say having a strong product on the field is better than having a bad one. I didn't say anything about achievements. But Davie and Willingham didn't achieve [expletive] on the field, so that bar is pretty low. But Willingham left the team with a death-penalty number of scholarship players. You'll have some sense of what that feels like if a couple of juniors and seniors jump ship in addition to your scholarship penalties. But try to compound that with having a coach that only recruited 10 OL in 4 years (and to a program that wasn't coming off several years of success gained by cheating). Weis was able to recruit incredibly well, esp given the job he took in 2004. Every coach on the planet saw the roster and how few scholarship players (and esp lineman) would be there in 2007 said "um thanks, but no thanks." Compare that with 2009 when dozens of coaches inquired about the job when Weis was fired and 2 of the most successful coaches currently in CFB strongly considered leaving their programs for it. I have no idea if BK will be the college coach that Weis wasn't, but he's got a much better program. ND is independent and will remain so for the foreseeable future. But, they could join a BCS conference in seconds just by picking up the phone and saying they're interested. How is that "trying" again?

of course there was You can submit whatever you like, but you apparently have no idea what you're talking about. "trying" to be independent? it's pathetic.

penn state beat nebraska 40-7, and i thought their fans were wonderful. they seemed really good-natured and friendly, and after the ass-whipping they said they hoped we'd come out to lincoln for the rematch in 2003. just a little different when you play them year in and year out and challenge their supremecy. they are an interesting bunch. agreed. growing up in NC Iowa, there were a fair number of Nebraska fans. Ugh.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the Emerald Bowl as if I mentioned it or it has any relevance here or would even submit that it's better than losing in a BCS game. The Weis era was not significantly better than his predecessors. That is a total fiction. Worse overall record than either Davie OR Willingham, 1 bowl win over Hawaii, coached probably the worst team in school history, ended the Navy win streak, and the biggest "win" under his tenure was a loss. At least Davie and Willingham had the temerity to beat a ranked opponent here and there. Anyway, I would argue that ND getting blown out in BCS games (hell, bowl games in general) is a part of why they're being pursued here. ND's fall from the absolute top was probably inevitable but nothing's been done to slow the decline. Hiring Kelly was a good first start. They've gone from bulletproof to looking seriously at joining a conference. If they'd been the ND of old, or something even approaching it, they'd be calling their own shots. Do you think if you just continue making things up, it will come true? I'm trying to find some nugget of truth in your blabbering on. Must be a trick you learned from Poodle. Next thing we know, you'll sneak out of town just before [expletive] hits the fan. What part of saying that Weis won one bowl game against Hawaii, had a worse record than Davie and Willingham, ended the win streak against Navy, and coached the worst team in Notre Dame history constitutes making things up? The Weis era was better for ND than either Davie or Willingham's. Weis beat ranked opponents, took ND to 2 straight BCS bowls and won their first bowl game in over a decade. But more importantly, he put the program in a much better position to succeed long term, undoing years of damage wrought by his predecessors. If you can't grasp that, you're just burying your head in the sand or you don't understand the most basic elements of CFB. Oh, and the calling their own shots things is funny. ND really caved under pressure. You have no idea how seriously they looked at joining a conference. You know absolutely nothing. Doesn't stop you from spouting off about it. Poodle would be proud.

Big 10 averages around $22M per team in TV revenues, so they're still much better off. no they don't. about 2/3 of that. http://sports.tmcnet.com/news/2010/06/14/4845656.htm FOIA response https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BxzxELbyRIMJNjQ0ZmYzY2EtOWFlMi00OWQ0LTkxYzgtOGVjZjkxODc5ZGE0&hl=en

wait, wait, wait...what? methinks you're confusing Neyer with someone or you didn't read him much before he went "insider." I'm guessing he was the primary source for most stat-friendly people on this site (and almost everywhere). I don't understand where people seem to think that I'm slamming Neyer's opinions on stats. I might not think he's the "Einstein" of them, but I just said I'm indifferent towards him as a writer. saying someone that spearheaded the popularity of a movement such as stats in baseball has a "decent attitude" towards that movement sounds a little...I don't know what the word is, but it's not good. The 50/50 line didn't really seem to be the focus of the article. Just that the Soriano contract was and is a pretty bad one, primarily due to the $18m he's going to get each of the next 5 years. I'm not sure who Neyer's brethren are, but you certainly seem to be slamming him. Hey, I can't stop you from taking it that way. I'm just not that impressed with him as a writer (example: "Soriano has a bad contract!" Everyone else: "And...?"). It's cool that he's smart enough to be able to point people towards better statistical analysis in baseball and that he recognizes its importance, but I've never read anything by him that has made me go, "wow, this guy has some serious insight into sabermetrics and something new to offer along those lines!" He just recognizes how useful they are, and that's grand. he's not at the forefront at this point, but he was 15 years ago. I'm just surprised by your characterization of him.

Big 10 averages around $22M per team in TV revenues, so they're still much better off. no they don't. about 2/3 of that.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the Emerald Bowl as if I mentioned it or it has any relevance here or would even submit that it's better than losing in a BCS game. The Weis era was not significantly better than his predecessors. That is a total fiction. Worse overall record than either Davie OR Willingham, 1 bowl win over Hawaii, coached probably the worst team in school history, ended the Navy win streak, and the biggest "win" under his tenure was a loss. At least Davie and Willingham had the temerity to beat a ranked opponent here and there. Anyway, I would argue that ND getting blown out in BCS games (hell, bowl games in general) is a part of why they're being pursued here. ND's fall from the absolute top was probably inevitable but nothing's been done to slow the decline. Hiring Kelly was a good first start. They've gone from bulletproof to looking seriously at joining a conference. If they'd been the ND of old, or something even approaching it, they'd be calling their own shots. Do you think if you just continue making things up, it will come true? I'm trying to find some nugget of truth in your blabbering on. Must be a trick you learned from Poodle. Next thing we know, you'll sneak out of town just before [expletive] hits the fan.

Better to lose in the Fiesta bowl than squeak out a win in the Emerald bowl. Even better if you didn't have to cheat to get there. I was actually being serious. Seeing ND obliterated in games people already resent them being in doesn't help anything. Being in a BCS game, even if you lose, is good for the program. Financially, for fans, for recruiting. Cheating to get to the Emerald Bowl, or a national title game, is bad for the program. At least in my opinion. You have more direct experience, so you may feel differently. Getting to a BCS game when you have the deck stacked in your favor and then getting blown out by superior teams is a good thing financially, in the short term. It has diminished the brand though. If ND was putting the wood down on teams in big games they wouldn't even consider joining the Big 10 would they? And from a competitive standpoint, getting to those BCS games hasn't helped at all. The trend has been decisively negative except for Willingham's first 8 games and Weis's first year. It's not the unvarnished good thing you make it out to be. How is the deck stacked in ND's favor? What on earth are you talking about? ND has to be voted on, in part, by coaches, none of whom have any incentive to see ND's stock rise (counter those coaches that frequently vote their own conference teams 10 or more slots higher than other coaches). The trend since when has been decisively negative? Since the early 90s when Lou left? Or since the 2000s? b/c the Weis era was significantly better than either the Davie or the Willingham era and I've yet to find an ND fan that hasn't been excited by the things Kelly's done (both before he got to ND and in the few months since). I have no idea how you can spin a BCS loss into a worse end to a season than winning the Emerald Bowl.