I'm not just talking about this season. When this conference was formed, it was supposed to be THE football conference. It had 6 perinial top 20 programs (Nebraska, KState, Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma). At the time, you had to think that the Big 12 would have a say in the NC every year. 10 years later, 4 of these programs (Nebraska, KState, Colorado, Texas A&M) have fallen on hard times and don't show any signs of regaining their past glory. Oklahoma looks like they're in for another Holiday Bowl type year. The Big 12 was supposed to help all these schools with recruiting etc. but it seems like the only school it has helped is Texas. Is the Big 12 in a down cycle? Can these programs that are 'down' eventually get back to where they once were? Or has being in this conference actually hurt them?
From ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/gamedayFinal?page=gamedayFinal3 Biggest loser: Big 12 Thanks mostly to an 0-4 record against the Pac-10 on Saturday, the Big 12 was 0-5 against the major conferences, and that didn't include Texas Tech's loss to TCU. And it almost got worse. Texas A&M had to stop Army from the 2-yard-line on the final three plays of the game to hold on for a 28-24 win over the Black Knights ... and the game wasn't played at West Point. It was in San Antonio! The weekend was so bad that Kansas taking Toledo to double overtime as a road underdog could actually be viewed as a highlight. At least the Big 12really took it to Conference USA. Texas' win over Rice and Kansas State's win over Marshall were by a combined score of 75-14. …more about Texas: RECE DAVIS In the same way that West Virginia needed Louisville's win almost as much as the Cardinals did, you could say that Texas was hurt by Oklahoma's loss almost as much as the Sooners were. It seems unlikely that the Longhorns will get another opportunity to beat a top-10 opponent -- and that could really hurt if they need to distinguish themselves in a pack of one-loss teams at the end of the year. Although OU losing is always amusing, it hurts us pretty bad. Also with the Tards and Huskers losing, we lose even more schedule credibility. A 12-1 season won’t get Texas into the title game this year if we’re tied with another team, unfortunately.
http://cfn.scout.com/2/569479.html The Big 12 The once proud league has taken it on the chin over recent weeks. Texas was beaten badly at home by Ohio State two weeks ago to kill the league's main national title threat. Last week, Nebraska lost to USC after putting its West Coast offense on the shelf, Kansas lost at Toledo, Iowa State lost at Iowa, Oklahoma lost at Oregon, Baylor lost at Washington State, and Texas Tech lost at TCU, Colorado lost at Arizona State. Texas A&M needs a late goal line stand to get past an awful Army team. Also, Kansas State was not a perrennial top 20 program joining the big 12. They were a joke of a school that had probably the saddest overall record in the conference, they used a decade of cupcake schedules to climb to mediocrity.
I can only speak for Colorado here. We have been getting by on smoke and mirrors for the last two to three years talent wise. With Barnett, we would have stayed untalented and looked at finishing 7-5 every year. Now that we've changed, the lack of talent is showing (especially at QB where we're discovering that it helps if your QB can actually throw the ball) and it's going to be a rough year. That said, we already have a better recruiting class than any of the last three years and are building a new philosophy here. Call it homeristic, but in three years CU will be back to being a perennial top 20 team every year and will be making noise in the conference. Hawkins is too good for that to not happen.
College Football is pretty cyclical. The historically good teams tend to come back. I think most of these programs pour too much money, have to much support, and recruit too well almost by default to stay bad forever.
True, but that Nebraska team shouldn't have and that program has clearly gone way downhill since that game. OU has played for 3 and UT 1. I guess my point is more about the 4 teams that have gone downhill since the conference's inception. You would think it would have helped them, not hurt them. The Big 12 has been a 2 team conference for the last 5 or 6 years now.
I'm sure the University of Texas is liking things, they love to be in conferences where they play the role of bully.
The biggest change in college sports in recent years was the limiting the number of football scholarships to 85 (theoretically) This makes top quality players that in the past would have stocked the big university's practice squad available to the Cal's, Louisvilles and TCU's of the world. Plus it adds some risk into big time college recruiting. Before a big school would just recruit three or four top players at the skill positions for every class and at least one of them would probably turn out to be a player, now you might only get one and if he misses you have to wait a year to try to upgrade at the position. Even an idiot like Barry Switzer could win with 120 scholarships. Plus in the old days the players at the big schools could expect a little payola, er summer job money. With enforcement the incentive to go where the money is has been reduced.
Not really, Texas is going to need their opponents to have some quality wins to get their RPI up if they want to play in the National Championship Bowl.
I blame the internet. Take Nebraska as a classic example. Back in the old days before the internet became the primary tool in college recuriting, Nebraska had a seemingly endless supply of big, corn fed white boys to use as offensive lineman for the wishbone. They just went out to the farm, offered up a scholarship, and it was an instant commitment. Plus, playing for the Cornhuskers was considered a dream for almost every young man playing high school football in Nebraska. All they had to do was find a reasonably athletic QB that could toss the ball five feet to the left or right, and they were instant national championship contenders every year. Enter the internet age in the mid 90's. Now, college coaches from all over the country could get as much info as they needed about any recruit all around the country from just a few mouse clicks. These big lineman now have multiple options available to them. "Hmm, let's see...freeze my ass off in Nebraska in December, or go to Miami and hit the beach....tough choice". Slowly, all those recruits started going to other schools, and Nebraska had to completely change its offensive scheme. Unfortunately, their recruiting hasn't caught up. It's similar with Texas. Back when I was in high school (I graduated in '95), it was all about Texas vs. A&M. They both had their pick of a limitless supply of some of the best high school talent in the country. Now, all those top recruits go elsewhere, so they have to either pick local second tier recruits, or go national. Texas has adjusted, while A&M hasn't.
I might sort of agree with your post except that A&M still has had some decent recruiting classes the last 2-3 years. It just hasn't translated to on the field yet. Is it the coaching, scheme, ect? Also, Texas was crummy for about 20 years until the last few. That would include the age before the internet. I think Oklahoma has really set up good recruiting pipleines into Texas that has leached talent away from UT & A&M. I think if they fight back against those pipelines, they could both improve.
Plus 5-3 Bowl Record last year and the NC. The early season nonconference games within a single year is no way to judge larger talent. The Big 12 South has been, and is still is IMO very good. The North does need some major rebounding in programs, but as much as I think Calahan (sp?) is a bad coach NU looks to have it going in the right direction. They do need another program in additition to NU in that division to be decent. Even the ACC, which when it added Miami and Vtech seemed would be awesume conference, has no top 10 teams right now, at least the Big 12 has 1. The Big 10 has had, what, 1 team in the BCS NC game the period the Big 12 has had 5 of 6. The Pac 10 has one elite program, maybe the best program, but at best the next two programs, Cal and Oregon, are upper end 2nd tier programs. The only conference that never seems to lag is the SEC. Pretty much every year they do well in Bowls and multiple top 10 teams. They have gotten screwed some before however (Auburn 2 years ago). BCS championship breakdown in the 8 years: -ACC: 6 (2 wins) (includes VT and Mia when they were in Big East) -Big12: 5 (2 wins) -SEC: 2 (2 wins) -Pac10 2 (1 win) -Big10: 1 (1 win) The Big 12 is the only conference to have a rep the last 3 years and along with the ACC and SEC are the only conferences to have multiple reps.
I should have put a smiley winking after my response, I was being sarcastic. Texas now finds itself in the same situation as what it fled from, just call the Big 12 the SWC Part II.
I could be wrong, but hasn't OU been doing that since the Switzer days? Seems like their roster has been half full of Texas boys since as long as I can remember. Part of the reason they've been so good for so many years. Because, as everyone knows, Texas has the best high school football in the country.
On a related note, the vastly superior intellects of Rice U ordered an extra couple hundred of their oh so original anti-UT shirts to be delivered before the game Saturday. The shirts arrived Friday night and read: TUCK FEXUS My new favorite shirt.
SEC is the best conference I think, but that makes it hard to win a championship since the schedule is so tough... makes it hard to go undefeated.
Shirts that say F+$# Texas are way cooler. Gotta make em yourself. USC came up with a "Beef its whats for dinner" shirt, kinda fun. Anyhoo every conference has its ups and downs (aside from the SEC). Just two years ago Tech was 4th in the Big 12 SOUTH and destroyed #4 or #5 Cal in a bowl game. Nobody bashes the Pac 10 (at least media wise).
