Many reports saying TCU invited to Big 12

[trickblue]

Finally, people seem to forget for some reason that Oklahoma wasn't in the same conference as Texas for decades, and they still played each other. OU didn't have any problem recruiting Texas players, either.

If it weren't for Texas recruits, OU would have a crappy program...

 

[The30YardSlant]

Your point is? As you know that now teams generally only play conference teams every year. Yeah; exceptions can be made, but it isn't likely.

What are you talking about? Most teams play just as many OOC games now (3-4 depending on conference) as they did back when OU and Texas were in different conferences. Additionally, look at all of the big OOC rivalry matchups: SC and Clemson, Florida and FSU, Notre Dame and numerous teams, Georgia and Georgia Tech, Missouri and Illinois, etc.

The rivalry won't stop regardless of where either team ends up.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Nobody has forgotten. It's just that times change. If OU left for the SEC, the Texas / OU rivalry would have probably died off.

As Texas A&M's will probably now die off. I think Texas already said it won't schedule Texas A&M anymore. /rivalry_dead

If it does, it's because UT refuses to. Several state rivalry games still happen every year even with teams in different conferences, just like Georgia-Georgia Tech, Florida-Florida State, Utah-BYU, etc.

 

[trickblue]

I don't think that 10 years is a good measuring stick. For example, TCU and Boise have not had top shelf football programs for 10 years so that measurement hurts the comparison. .

Oh but Boise State has... they have ALWAYS been good. 369–144–2 (.718) all time record and 10+ wins in the last 10 of 12 years in D1 (1999) including 10 out of 11 conference championships and 7-4 Bowl record...

They are the model program for how to move up from DII to DI...

 

[Kolemmitt]

I don't think that 10 years is a good measuring stick. For example, TCU and Boise have not had top shelf football programs for 10 years so that measurement hurts the comparison. However, they have had pretty good programs for a good 5 years. As example, BYU has been in the NCAA tournament 8 out of the last 10 years. In the last 10 years, they have gone to 7 Bowl games. However, I also think that when you are talking about Bowls, you really should be making a distinction between BCS Bowls and just Bowl eligible. The payoff for the BCS is much more lucrative. As far as baseball tournament, are you talking about the CWS?

I think if you compare TAMU to BYU, they match up pretty favorably.

I agree with your sentiment, but I am pretty sure that Boise St. had the top winning percentage of the whole 2000's. 2000: 10-2 only losses were 7 points losses to Arkansas and Washington State, 2001: 8-4, 2002:12-1, 2003: 13-1, only loss a two-pointer to Oregon State, 2004: 11-1, 2005: 9-4, 2006: 13-0, 2007:10-3, 2008:12-1, 2009: 14-0, 2010: 12-1.

There is a general feeling that Boise will fade after Kellen Moore graduates, but they seem to have been very good for well over a decade. I also read that Peterson was offered the head coaching jobs in Florida and Stanford last year, but wasn't interested - I am not sure if that is fact or rumor.

Boise may blow in basketball, but they may just be the safest bet in football for the Big XII.

 

[Kolemmitt]

Oh but Boise State has... they have ALWAYS been good. 369–144–2 (.718) all time record and 10+ wins in the last 10 of 12 years in D1 (1999) including 10 out of 11 conference championships and 7-4 Bowl record...

They are the model program for how to move up from DII to DI...

You beat me to it!

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

If it does, it's because UT refuses to. Several state rivalry games still happen every year even with teams in different conferences, just like Georgia-Georgia Tech, Florida-Florida State, Utah-BYU, etc.

I think this is true. However, I don't think it's a given that Texas does continue to schedule TAMU. Lets face it, TAMU is not doing Texas or the Big 12 any favors by bailing on them. It would not be a reach to see the Big 12 conference elect not to schedule TAMU. Heck, I'm pretty sure that Kansas has already said that they will not be scheduling Missouri in Basketball if Missouri leaves the Big 12. They have been playing one another since 1907 and Self basically said that he would not be inclined to continue that rivalry. His opinion is that Missouri is hurting the members of the Big 12 by leaving and their is no reason to help them with their Basketball program when they are turning their backs on the rest of the Big 12.

These things can run deep. It's not out of the question to see the Texas - TAMU rivalry go away.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Oh but Boise State has... they have ALWAYS been good. 369–144–2 (.718) all time record and 10+ wins in the last 10 of 12 years in D1 (1999) including 10 out of 11 conference championships and 7-4 Bowl record...

They are the model program for how to move up from DII to DI...

In my opinion, you can never compare a mid-major program to a major conference program regardless of the circumstances. Mid-major programs don't go through the same week in and week out rigor of a major conference schedule. Boise State has built up a very good program, but they play one or two games every year they have any real chance of losing, they can play horribly and still beat most of the teams on their schedule every season because the San Jose State's and New Mexico's of the world just have no talent to speak of most years. Compare that to Big XII or SEC or Big 10 schools who can legimately lose the majority of the games on their schedule if they don't play well because of the increased level of talent across the board.

When Boise State or TCU play a legitimate conference schedule and perform at that level, then they get credit. Until then, they're just beating up on crap schools and allowed to gameplan and prepare all year for the one or two big games on their schedule. TCU for example, while Wisconsin was getting beat up by a Big 10 schedule TCU got to go through an easy schedule that included one team that finished ranked (and it was fellow mid-major program Utah). How the hell can anyone say that TCU even gets there with a toug schedule, let alone gets there and is healthy. Wisconsin was missing six starters because of the long, tough road they took to get there. TCU got to sit their starters for half the season.

 

[Aikbach]

I think this is true. However, I don't think it's a given that Texas does continue to schedule TAMU. Lets face it, TAMU is not doing Texas or the Big 12 any favors by bailing on them. It would not be a reach to see the Big 12 conference elect not to schedule TAMU. Heck, I'm pretty sure that Kansas has already said that they will not be scheduling Missouri in Basketball if Missouri leaves the Big 12. They have been playing one another since 1907 and Self basically said that he would not be inclined to continue that rivalry. His opinion is that Missouri is hurting the members of the Big 12 by leaving and their is no reason to help them with their Basketball program when they are turning their backs on the rest of the Big 12.

These things can run deep. It's not out of the question to see the Texas - TAMU rivalry go away.

Baylor has already decline Aggie requests for basketbal scheduling in the coming years, both men and women's. They are shutting themselves out of Texas sports with their move.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Oh but Boise State has... they have ALWAYS been good. 369–144–2 (.718) all time record and 10+ wins in the last 10 of 12 years in D1 (1999) including 10 out of 11 conference championships and 7-4 Bowl record...

They are the model program for how to move up from DII to DI...

I agree Trick but what we are really talking about here is money. While Boise State has been good for a long time, I don't think that the BCS has considered them as elite for that entire period of time. Many years where they were good and got zero consideration from the BCS. What I am talking about is their ability to make money for the Conference. They may have been regarded in higher standing for a longer period of time then just 5 years but I simply used the 5 year criteria to explain the point. It may not be an accurate period.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree with your sentiment, but I am pretty sure that Boise St. had the top winning percentage of the whole 2000's. 2000: 10-2 only losses were 7 points losses to Arkansas and Washington State, 2001: 8-4, 2002:12-1, 2003: 13-1, only loss a two-pointer to Oregon State, 2004: 11-1, 2005: 9-4, 2006: 13-0, 2007:10-3, 2008:12-1, 2009: 14-0, 2010: 12-1.

There is a general feeling that Boise will fade after Kellen Moore graduates, but they seem to have been very good for well over a decade. I also read that Peterson was offered the head coaching jobs in Florida and Stanford last year, but wasn't interested - I am not sure if that is fact or rumor.

Boise may blow in basketball, but they may just be the safest bet in football for the Big XII.

To be fair, I do not believe that Boise State has actually received an invitation to join the Big 12. Two things limit them IMO. 1) a very small stadium and 2) they are being investigated by the NCAA for possible violations.

 

[Aikbach]

I agree Trick but what we are really talking about here is money. While Boise State has been good for a long time, I don't think that the BCS has considered them as elite for that entire period of time. Many years where they were good and got zero consideration from the BCS. What I am talking about is their ability to make money for the Conference. They may have been regarded in higher standing for a longer period of time then just 5 years but I simply used the 5 year criteria to explain the point. It may not be an accurate period.

I thought Boise State's academics could be a hang up.

 

[DFWJC]

I thought Boise State's academics could be a hang up.

Absolutely.

They are not even in the top 200.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

In my opinion, you can never compare a mid-major program to a major conference program regardless of the circumstances. Mid-major programs don't go through the same week in and week out rigor of a major conference schedule. Boise State has built up a very good program, but they play one or two games every year they have any real chance of losing, they can play horribly and still beat most of the teams on their schedule every season because the San Jose State's and New Mexico's of the world just have no talent to speak of most years. Compare that to Big XII or SEC or Big 10 schools who can legimately lose the majority of the games on their schedule if they don't play well because of the increased level of talent across the board.

When Boise State or TCU play a legitimate conference schedule and perform at that level, then they get credit. Until then, they're just beating up on crap schools and allowed to gameplan and prepare all year for the one or two big games on their schedule. TCU for example, while Wisconsin was getting beat up by a Big 10 schedule TCU got to go through an easy schedule that included one team that finished ranked (and it was fellow mid-major program Utah). How the hell can anyone say that TCU even gets there with a toug schedule, let alone gets there and is healthy. Wisconsin was missing six starters because of the long, tough road they took to get there. TCU got to sit their starters for half the season.

Perhaps but this has no real merit if what you are talking about is money. If Boise State can get to a BCS Bowl game regularly, then they are going to make more money for the Conference then will a program that does not.

I understand the point you are trying to make but it is what it is and what it is is money.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Perhaps but this has no real merit if what you are talking about is money. If Boise State can get to a BCS Bowl game regularly, then they are going to make more money for the Conference then will a program that does not.

I understand the point you are trying to make but it is what it is and what it is is money.

The point is that Boise State may not get to BCS games regularly if they werent in mid-major conferences. In fact, if they are in the same conference as Texas and OU, I can gurantee you that they won't. Sure, they'll compete and finish ahead of the crap schools like Iowa State, Kansas, Baylor and Kansas State most years, but they won't live up to their mid-major accomplishments.

 

[YosemiteSam]

To be fair, I do not believe that Boise State has actually received an invitation to join the Big 12. Two things limit them IMO. 1) a very small stadium and 2) they are being investigated by the NCAA for possible violations.

I think a big reason TCU was even considered was because of the recent renovations to their facilities. (primarily expanding the stadium to seat 50k fans)

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I thought Boise State's academics could be a hang up.

Very possible. If I recall, Dan Beebe and Dodds, were hot on the whole academic thing. They wanted to compete with the Big 10 for a lot of those Federal Grants and the funding that goes with them. The Big 10 makes a lot more money on those kinds of things then they do Athletics. This is why there was such a premium set on academics in the past. Now that Beebe is gone, I don't know if that continues. It may but it may also be that the Big 12 focuses on putting together a strong core in order to provide some stability for the next few years. Right now, the Big 12 has to be concerned with getting their TV contract renewed. They will need a good 3 or 4 years of stability to get that done IMO.

 

[The30YardSlant]

I think a big reason TCU was even considered was because of the recent renovations to their facilities. (primarily expanding the stadium to seat 50k fans)

That decision was perplexing, why expand a stadium to 50k when you couldnt sell it out before? They were averging something like 33k fans per game over the last 5 years.

 

[DFWJC]

Perhaps but this has no real merit if what you are talking about is money. If Boise State can get to a BCS Bowl game regularly, then they are going to make more money for the Conference then will a program that does not.

I understand the point you are trying to make but it is what it is and what it is is money.

In all fairness, I'm not so sure conferences are banking on the current BCS system remaining in place beyond 5 years or so. I really don't think they are making choices with that as a big priority. For that matter, putting BSU in the Big 12 reduces their chance of getting in to BCS game going forward anyway.....imo only.

As I've already said a few times; unless this is a football-only arrangement (which it is not) then many, many other things are under consideration.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

That decision was perplexing, why expand a stadium to 50k when you couldnt sell it out before? They were averging something like 33k fans per game over the last 5 years.

In order to get into some football conferences...teams/schools have to meet certain criteria which sometimes includes upgrading stadiums (more seating) and other things.