2020 is all that matters in this argument. There was nothing at all that occurred last year that would make it outlier in any way, shape, or form.
ISU is, and will for the foreseeable future be a much better team than UO, UW and USC.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Official realignment thread - SEC formally invites OU and Texas to join the conference in 2025
ISU is, and will for the foreseeable future be a much better team than UO, UW and USC.
I think he’s talking facts about how the P12 has performed vs current and “proposed” Big XII members.
241Volcanos
Well-Known Member
Seneca Wallace ain’t walking through that door.
2022 will be a step back for ISU. This is their year to make big noise.
OK. Let’s try this fact.
Since 2010 the Pac-12 is 5-14 in bowl games vs the remaining Big 12 members. (1-1 vs Texas). That is a 10 season look back.
Even if the proposed additional teams of Cincy, UCF, Houston, and Memphis (or BYU) don’t move the needle, the Pac-12 is far behind the Big 12 when you compare the quality of football being played.
I would argue that those 4 teams will strengthen the Big 12, meaning that the large gap will grow larger.
Last edited:
If someone thinks the Big 12, minus Oklahoma and Texas, is better than the PAC 12 today, then they must also think it was an absolutely massive mistake to leave the Big 12 a decade ago when it included Oklahoma and Texas.
Personally I don’t see it. You can debate the current W-L records all day long with teams like Cincinnati and Iowa State. Both have good head coaches and are enjoying present success. The PAC 12 has made some bad hires (Helton), had some retirements (Petersen), and had some coaches poached (Tucker), but I don’t see how the underlying fundamentals change much over a longer sampling size. I’d much rather be tied into a group of places like L.A., San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Phoenix, Salt Lake, and Denver than a bunch of rust belt cities and Midwest dust bowl towns.
Personally I don’t see it. You can debate the current W-L records all day long with teams like Cincinnati and Iowa State. Both have good head coaches and are enjoying present success. The PAC 12 has made some bad hires (Helton), had some retirements (Petersen), and had some coaches poached (Tucker), but I don’t see how the underlying fundamentals change much over a longer sampling size. I’d much rather be tied into a group of places like L.A., San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Phoenix, Salt Lake, and Denver than a bunch of rust belt cities and Midwest dust bowl towns.
Im not so sure about that.
If Alliance teams dont play them There are a lot of G5 schools that will take body bag games against SEC schools for the money.
The SEC mostly puts athletics ahead academics which means they will likely continue to get the best recruits. Having Florida in their footprint allows them to lock most of them up.
I’m not trying to argue whether or not we should have left the BIG 12.
Going back to the original post on this topic, I am simply pointing out that Pac-12 fans should not be looking down their noses at the BIG 12 in terms of the quality of football.
And that a Big 12 that adds 4 very good G5 teams becomes an even better football conference
Yeah that. Like 7 pages of bull ****
Did the 2016 CU season make the Pac 12 a better conference overall? Because that's the equivalent of Iowa State having a good season in 2020 followed by a potentially good season in 2021.
This argument is ridiculous. One team having a good season or two every 20 years doesn't all of the sudden make for a better overall conference outlook going forward, especially when this is almost assuredly Matt Campbell's last year in Aimes.
There's also a reason nobody wants the Big 12 leftovers. Some of you are suffering from some serious recency bias.
This argument is ridiculous. One team having a good season or two every 20 years doesn't all of the sudden make for a better overall conference outlook going forward, especially when this is almost assuredly Matt Campbell's last year in Aimes.
There's also a reason nobody wants the Big 12 leftovers. Some of you are suffering from some serious recency bias.
True
FIFY - but it's still dumb.
Here is the list of assumptions that must *all* be true:
1. ISU will not revert to their mean of a substandard program once they lose their once-in-a-lifetime coach.
2. TCU will not revert to their mean of an average to slightly below program once they lose their once-in-a-lifetime coach.
3. USC will not revert to their mean of a true blue-blood program
4. Oregon will forget how to spend uncle phil's money to buy a good program*
5. UW will likewise continue their current malaise forever and always, amen.
6. Every single team that is added to the B12 will continue their current level of success, despite playing against better teams in every single game of their seasons.
But sure, if all those assumptions are true, then you're 100% right!
Meanwhile, in the real world, some of them will be true, but most of them won't.
*I do understand that "revert to historic mean" is a possibility for UO, but they have managed their current level of success across how many head coaches now? They've certainly managed to break past the "once-in-a-lifetime great coach" barrier that so many programs fail to cross. But, just because a rule has an exception or two doesn't invalidate the rule.
Also, did someone really suggest Iowa State will be an attractive job after Campbell leaves? What's attractive about it? They are winning in spite of poor recruiting, which speaks to Campbell's coaching ability (and poor competition in the conference) more than anything. Those kind of coaches are very few and far between and they'll be lucky to poach a solid G5 HC or P5 coordinator with this conference and status limbo they are facing.
You know what, we’ve been trying to win with good coaching and poor recruiting for years - maybe we should hire Matt Campbell????
If you're a frequent 247 poster, you think we already have!
I never said that. I said that the Big 12 without Texas and Oklahoma is still a better football conference than the Pac-12. I also said that adding those four G5 teams makes the remaining Big 12 teams better than the remaining Big 12 teams without the G5 Teams
Last edited:
The only thing that gives me some pause there is that he supposedly turned down an 8yr/$68.5M contract from Detroit to stay at ISU and sign a deal that pays him $4M/yr for the next 7 seasons.
I mean- I understand that he's comfortable there but that's double the average annual salary.
But you have to live in Detroit...
A few things.
1. Detroit is where coaches go to die
2. I think Campbell knew he was going to have a chance at a Big 12 championship this season and maybe a CFP run
3. He will likely have his choice of NFL or P5 jobs
4. Maybe a couple years down the road, but I think the thought process of all the coaches in the Big 12 have changed dramatically over the last couple months. I have to think all of them, but mostly Gundy, Campbell, Patterson and maybe Aranda are now likely thinking long and hard about jumping to P12, B1G, ACC, SEC or NFL if given the opportunity.
I think he genuinely likes Iowa state too and wants them to be compensated when he leaves so he went ahead and signed that extension. Seems like an awesome person.
What do you mean compensated?
From the contract buyout.
If you’re arguing that the potentially expanded Big 12 has been slightly better at football the last few years than the PAC 12, I think that’s a fair debate and certainly pretty close. Nobody is arguing that the PAC 12 has underachieved, and is probably fielding teams pretty close to its floor recently. Over, the long term, I agree with @skibum that things are likely to revert to norm.
One other telling thing for me is that the PAC 12 has primacy in pretty much every state out west. The Big 12 membership, including potential targets, would be second fiddle in every state it has a member except one, that being Kansas, which is a horribly managed state in an economic and population death spiral.
And finally, once the remaining Big 12 schools are no longer cashing Texas and Oklahoma subsidized checks, the recent success of some may retreat a bit, as they struggle to fund the arms race. I am envious of the recruiting footprint of some of those schools, however.
For the past ten seasons..yes
241Volcanos
Well-Known Member
2010-2020 Pac went 30-33 vs Big10! and 13-10 in bowl games. Maybe that’s the real better conference debate question.
This is what a 4 team playoff has done to CFB. It's created this fake perception of conference strength when in reality, one team has propped up the Big 12 and one team has propped up the ACC. In OU's case, they have been good enough to make it to the CFP, but then mostly get boat raced in the Semis each time.