Texas A&M officially leaves the Big 12

[SoonerBounce13]

There have been times, in this decade, that Colorado/ISU/Baylor/KSU/KU could barely snap a football.

There have been times, in this decade, that Tennesse/Vanderbilt/USC/MSU/MSU could barely snap a football

 

[Sooner04]

Nebraska - Sucked for the duration of the Stoops era

Anybody know who won the first Big 12 championship of the Stoops era?

Anybody know which #1 team we defeated to finish off our remarkable Red October of 2000?

Was anyone aware that Nebraska and Colorado have appeared in as many Big 12 Championship Games as Texas during the Stoops era?

 

[NickZepp]

Nebraska really stunk from about 2002-2005 or so. They've been real good outside of those couple years. In 2008 the Big 12 had something like 5 top 10 teams in the conference. And about 2 or 3 other teams in the top 25. The SEC is a top tier conference and an upgrade over the Big 12. But not near as much as abd is insinuating. If OU went to the SEC it would compete for championships every year just like they do in the Big 12. Yes OU would still have bad years like they had in 09 and 05. But just about every other year they've competed to win championships in the conference. That wouldn't change in the SEC at all.

 

[stoops4pres]

The Big 12 has been a player on the national scene because of OU and Texas. End of story.

As for most Big 12 teams getting the suck label, well, damn, come on man. How many teams have won the Big 12 in football? OU, UT, and KSU? Isnt that it? The same two teams control the conference pretty much every year, and the rest fight it out to make a bowl.

So because Stoops and Mack Brown have run two of the most consistent programs in the country, that means the entire conference has been bad? That is some questionable logic.

That's along the same off-base reasoning as saying the SEC was bad during Spurrier's tenure at Florida, because he won 6 SEC titles his first 11 seasons. Just because one or two teams dominates the league does not mean it is an inferior league.

Oh, and by the way, A&M, Nebraska, and Colorado have also won the conference. And the latter of the two won when Stoops was at OU.

You know what I meant.

No disrespect, but I really don't know what you mean regarding your definition of "good" and "sucking". Some of those labels you placed were questionable and contradictory, to say the least.

But, you have to admit that the conference, as a whole, in most years, is not very good.

Do your homework, and you will realize that this claim is false.

 

[stoops4pres]

Yep, any ranking that shows the Big 12 as a good conference is only doing so b/c OU and UT have dominated. VERY, very top heavy.

Not true. As stated before, the Sagarin Ratings is arguably the best and most relevant ratings system out there (his ratings are factored into the BCS, has posted them every week in USA Today for over 20 years), and he takes every single team from every single conference into account.

Look at his system. You'd see that for over a decade OU's SOS, and the entire Big 12 as a whole, have garnered strong ratings more often than not. The conference has arguably been the 2nd best since the Stoops era, and a few of those years has arguably been better than the SEC.

 

[stoops4pres]

You say the Cotton Bowl was Mizzou's peak. I'd point to the #4 finish in the polls that season. It was pretty much universally accepted that Mizzou got screwed that year (and completely dismantled an SEC team you claim has been better).

My contention isn't that Mizzou has been great. My point is that we've been equal to or better than Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina and Arkansas over the past several seasons (and beat those last two in bowl games). Over the past 4-5 seasons there haven't been more than 10-15 teams that have been better than Mizzou.

Wins over the past four years (five in parenthesis):
MU: 40 (48)
Arkansas: 31 (41)
Georgia: 35 (44)
Tennessee: 28 (37)
South Carolina: 29 (37)

But yeah... all those teams are better than us.

And the exact same would apply to OSU, Nebraska, and Texas Tech recently (A&M is on a similar level to UT and USC, as well). If you look at ksu and Colorado in the first half of the Stoops years, they would also belong.

The SEC is a good conference, but it's not nearly as good as you paint it.

I wanted to include Mizzou's recent success to debunk some of these bogus claims, but you did it for me. Good post.

 

[stoops4pres]

OU hasn't scheduled many games against SEC teams. I wonder why that is? Instead, we nearly always schedule our good OOC games against the PAC-10. Maybe we feel like those are easier wins?

FYI, OU has games with Tennessee and LSU within the next couple of seasons. And OU scheduled both opponents when they were/still are great (Tenn early 2000's, LSU a few seasons later). So within the next couple of seasons, OU has more match-ups with an SEC opponent than any other conference.

Also, I feel like this should be pointed out because some seem to have a deep and misplaced inferiority complex with the SEC... Keep in mind that Stoops defeated Bama in 2002 when they won the SEC West. Additionally, Stoops held Arkansas to its lowest total yardage amount in school history in the 2001 Cotton Bowl. It was also a career low in Houston Nutt's career, who has been coaching in the SEC for over a decade.

Like I've said before, OU wouldn't win the conference at the same rate as they've won the Big 12. But that in no way indicates that the Big 12 has been weak, nor that OU wouldn't be one of--if not the--alpha dog of the SEC.

 

[jmizzy4ou]

FYI, OU has games with Tennessee and LSU within the next couple of seasons. And OU scheduled both opponents when they were/still are great (Tenn early 2000's, LSU a few seasons later). So within the next couple of seasons, OU has more match-ups with an SEC opponent than any other conference.

Also, I feel like this should be pointed out because some seem to have a deep and misplaced inferiority complex with the SEC... Keep in mind that Stoops defeated Bama in 2002 when they won the SEC West. Additionally, Stoops held Arkansas to its lowest total yardage amount in school history in the 2001 Cotton Bowl. It was also a career low in Houston Nutt's career, who has been coaching in the SEC for over a decade.

Like I've said before, OU wouldn't win the conference at the same rate as they've won the Big 12. But that in no way indicates that the Big 12 has been weak, nor that OU wouldn't be one of--if not the--alpha dog of the SEC.[/QUOTE]


Its been a long debate with alot of good points on both sides, and in the end, stoops4pres brings it back to where the argument was made. This is what I was saying, and I believe that about everyone who said that OU need not fear a move to the SEC was saying.


Oh yeah, might add that the SEC schools are not running to schedule the OU's, Texas', and Nebraska's every yr either. That works both ways. Powerhouses want to control their own scheduling. SEC schools do not want to travel to Norman or Austin for an OOCG, anymore than we want to travel to Baton Rouge, or Mobile.... Its not like they have been throwing gaunlets down, and Big 12 schools have been cowering away.... SEC schools know that they must face each other, so most of them avoid scheduling tough out of conference, expect Les Miles who will play Any Sucker... LOL.

 

[stoops4pres]

FYI, OU has games with Tennessee and LSU within the next couple of seasons. And OU scheduled both opponents when they were/still are great (Tenn early 2000's, LSU a few seasons later). So within the next couple of seasons, OU has more match-ups with an SEC opponent than any other conference.

Also, I feel like this should be pointed out because some seem to have a deep and misplaced inferiority complex with the SEC... Keep in mind that Stoops defeated Bama in 2002 when they won the SEC West. Additionally, Stoops held Arkansas to its lowest total yardage amount in school history in the 2001 Cotton Bowl. It was also a career low in Houston Nutt's career, who has been coaching in the SEC for over a decade.

Like I've said before, OU wouldn't win the conference at the same rate as they've won the Big 12. But that in no way indicates that the Big 12 has been weak, nor that OU wouldn't be one of--if not the--alpha dog of the SEC.[/QUOTE]


Its been a long debate with alot of good points on both sides, and in the end, stoops4pres brings it back to where the argument was made. This is what I was saying, and I believe that about everyone who said that OU need not fear a move to the SEC was saying.


Oh yeah, might add that the SEC schools are not running to schedule the OU's, Texas', and Nebraska's every yr either. That works both ways. Powerhouses want to control their own scheduling. SEC schools do not want to travel to Norman or Austin for an OOCG, anymore than we want to travel to Baton Rouge, or Mobile.... Its not like they have been throwing gaunlets down, and Big 12 schools have been cowering away.... SEC schools know that they must face each other, so most of them avoid scheduling tough out of conference, expect Les Miles who will play Any Sucker... LOL.

Great point. I remember Dave Sittler posting an article back in 2002 about how Bama tried backing out of the series with OU as well. Arkansas backed out of their series with Texas after Texas blew them out in 2008, Tennessee backed out of their match-up with UNC this year, etc... Like you said, it goes both ways.

By the way, nice Mad Hatter reference. Well done jmizzy.

 

[WTSooner]

They aren't looking to play OU, bc they generally have 2-3 OU's on their schedule, in conference play. I'd never play a tough OOC schedule if I played in the SEC. The conference slate gives them all the "big games" they need. Every year, every SEC team is probably going to play a top 15-20 team on the road. OU is lucky enough to play UT at a neutral field every year, which means we can easily go multiple seasons without being tested on the road.

 

[WTSooner]

Just look at the difference between OU and Bama's schedules this year. Crazy difference. And it'll stand out even more at the end of the year, b/c no way OSU and aTm are top 10 teams then.

 

[WaymanFan]

WTSooner, I'm not sure you're understanding the main point being made by Stoops4Prez, JMizzy and others who don't have an inferiority complex toward the SEC. No one has argued which conference is better. However, the numbers show the Big XII has been the second best in football since Stoops arrived. It's not a stretch to say that OU would go from dominating the second best conference in college football to simply being highly competitive in the best conference...not sure why that is so difficult for some to understand.

 

[stoops4pres]

Just look at the difference between OU and Bama's schedules this year. Crazy difference. And it'll stand out even more at the end of the year, b/c no way OSU and aTm are top 10 teams then.

Just like there was a "crazy difference" last year, right?

Alabama's Strength of Schedule: 14th in the country
OU's Strength of Schedule: 20th in the country

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt10.htm

 

[stoops4pres]

WTSooner, I'm not sure you're understanding the main point being made by Stoops4Prez, JMizzy and others who don't have an inferiority complex toward the SEC. No one has argued which conference is better. However, the numbers show the Big XII has been the second best in football since Stoops arrived. It's not a stretch to say that OU would go from dominating the second best conference in college football to simply being highly competitive in the best conference...not sure why that is so difficult for some to understand.

To be fair, it's not just WTSooner. There are some others that have posted on this thread that either refuse to accept reality, too lazy to actually look up what has transpired over the last decade in college football, or both.

 

[Sid]

:clap

 

[WTSooner]

Just like there was a "crazy difference" last year, right?

Alabama's Strength of Schedule: 14th in the country
OU's Strength of Schedule: 20th in the country

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt10.htm

Doesn't tell the whole story, and is misleading.

Example.....if you were trying to win a championship, which schedule would you rather play (and I'm going to abbreviate this):

Schedule A:
vs #1 team
vs #5 team
vs #18 team
vs #125 team
vs #175 team

Schedule B:
vs #15 team
vs #25 team
vs #40 team
vs #65 team
vs #90 team



I'd MUCH rather play schedule B, but it is probably the "tougher" schedule through any SOS calculation. That is why I hate the SOS argument. To a football team like OU, there is little to no difference between playing the 75th best team in the country, and playing the 200th. But it affects SOS quite a bit. When OU has a championship caliber team, they still might lose 1-2 games against Schedule A. They probably don't lose a game on Schedule B.

 

[StatGeek]

Just look at the difference between OU and Bama's schedules this year. Crazy difference. And it'll stand out even more at the end of the year, b/c no way OSU and aTm are top 10 teams then.

I dont get it, Bama plays 5 preseason top 25 teams and 1 top 10.

OU plays 5 top 25 & 3 top 10.

Bama goes on the road to play #20,#22, & #23.

OU goes on the road to play #5/6 and #9.

Where is this crazy difference?

 

[Sawyer]

So you don't like the total wins argument and don't like the strength of schedule argument...

 

[campbest]

So you don't like the total wins argument and don't like the strength of schedule argument...

He's running out of arguments...

 

[WTSooner]

So you don't like the total wins argument and don't like the strength of schedule argument...

No offense, but I'm certainly not going to worry about what a Mizzou fan thinks about football. A few decent years, and now Mizzou is on par with Tennessee/Georgia/Auburn.

Funny stuff.