Jump to content

gatormarc

Full Members
  • Posts

    612
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by gatormarc

  1. I wanted to edit above but ran out of time. I don't think we're really disagreeing here.

    I'm just pointing out that Ubben was right in that the Big12 outside of OUT has almost done the impossible of having the lesser programs grab a random 5 star or two over the years. 

  2. 13 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

    Bingo, SEC already gets 1/2 to 2/3's of the 5 stars....moving forward I'd wager the SEC/BIG gets about 3/4 of the 5 stars and a school like Clemson and the maybe 1-2 others land them as well. The overwhelming majority will funnel to BIG/SEC

    I think we're discussing different points here.

    I'm referring to bullet's comment that the article is stupid because only 8 programs or so get anyone. I was pointing out that the only conference where that is the case is the Big 12. Every other conference is less extreme with relation to 5 stars (not blue chips, not draft picks).

    You seem to be agreeing with me because you recognize more than just 8 or so programs, but also the rest of the B1G/SEC.

  3. 2 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

    You think Walker Little would still commit to Stanford in a PAC12-USC/UCLA. Similar to Q Johnson committing to TCU in a Big 12 without UT/OU. Can it still happen…sure, but will it be a regular occurrence? Nope.

    Does this mean we've all accepted the facts of the discussion since you've moved on to hypotheticals?

     

  4. 1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

    Now dig into those schools you singled out and see where the recruit is from, is the recruit a legacy? Etc.  You're trying to look at exceptions to fit your narrative. 

    There are no exceptions to fit the narrative.

    The fact is outside of OUT, only one 1 5 star has gone to a Big 12 school in that timeframe (1.5 if we want to give Houston partial credit)

    No other conference has that bad of a gap. Period.

    The next closest would be the ACC because only 4 (4.5 with Notre Dame) programs have pulled in 5 stars in the years I looked at.

    Now the clear argument against that is that Blue Chip ratio may be a more important stat to look at especially thanks to the transfer portal, but that's different than dismissing the 5 star gap.

     

  5. 3 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

    So…SEC, B1G, and elite academic institutions (all of which are realistic B1G candidates).

    I don’t think this proves the point you think it proves.

    And here I thought we were talking about Ubben's article about how no one besides OUT was pulling in 5 stars in the Big 12.

  6. 7 hours ago, bullet said:

    The pattern is pretty much the same.  The top programs get the 5 stars.  Purdue, Washington St., North Carolina St., Kentucky and Oklahoma St. don't.

    So its a stupid article.

    But that's not correct. If you look back more than one season, you see several non-top programs that have grabbed a 5 star or two.

    I looked back through 2015 (since that's all 247 is showing right now) and these arguably non-top programs all signed at least 1 5 star:

    Kentucky, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Miss St, Iowa, Maryland, Northwestern, Purdue, North Carolina, Stanford, Cal

    During that time, I only found 1 non-OUT Big12 school that signed a 5 star.

    Baylor - 2015

    2 if you count Houston in 2016.

    Yes, you are correct in that the power programs are mopping up most of the 5 stars, but it ignores his larger point that the ratio was among the worst of the major conferences in the Big 12.

    Compared to the SEC where Vanderbilt is the only SEC program that didn't sign a 5 star in the 9 classes I looked at.

  7. 7 minutes ago, bullet said:

    Yes.

    2022 looked pretty similar.

    There was one year, 2021, maybe, where UGA, Alabama and A&M had about half the 5 stars themselves.  (Hence Saban's complaint about A&M buying players also).

    But 1 year of data is significantly different than 11 years of data.

    Seems odd to dismiss his 11 years collection based on 1 class.

    That said, I think a better judge is blue chip ratio rather than just 5 stars.

  8. 7 hours ago, bullet said:

    Kind of a stupid story.  How many 5 stars were there?  According to 247 there were 32.

    UGA-4

    Alabama-4

    Texas-3

    USC-3

    OU-2

    A&M-2

    LSU-2

    Miami-2

    8 schools had 2/3 of them.  The schools with one were pretty predictable-Clemson, Ohio St., Penn St., FSU, Oregon, Deion, UCLA and 3 more SEC schools-TN, S. Carolina and Ole Miss.

    So the ACC had zero other than Clemson, FSU and Miami (4 from those 3).  The nPac 10 had 2.  The  nBig 10 had 2 other than USC/UCLA (4 from them), with Ohio St and Penn St. each getting 1.  The nSEC had 20.

    That doesn't look right. There are usually 30-40 5 stars per year, not total over an 11 year period.

    Are you looking at just the 2023 recruiting class?

  9. 19 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

    "I walked in there as a committee member solely SEC," prominent booster Andy Haggard said. "I was astounded that there would be any other talk. I would say that we were two-thirds SEC because we always wanted to be in the SEC and were always blocked by Florida."

    Florida sponsored FSU for SEC member ship in 1959, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1968, 1969, and 1970.

    They also sponsored Miami several of those years as well.

    It hit a brick wall because most of the SEC members had no desire to expand. Even after Georgia Tech and Tulane left, the SEC was at 10 teams, which was larger than all the other conferences and the SEC played a much smaller conference schedule. Tennessee was pushing Memphis State at the 12th and it wasn't an attractive combination.

    FSU continued to make their case in the 70s and 80s but the SEC actually voted to change its constitution in 1971 to limit membership to 10 members "permanently" shutting the doors to expansion.

    There was no blocking FSU those decades because the SEC wouldn't even consider expansion until Kramer basically figured out that they could apply some Division III rules to Division 1 and expand to 12 to get a conference championship game.

    I understand that Florida sponsored FSU and Miami for the 1992 expansion to 12 teams.

    https://www.nolefan.org/summary/fsu_sec.html

    • Hook 'Em 2
  10. 4 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

    The SEC wanted Texas and Arkansas back in the 90’s. State politics of the SWC prevented Texas from joining so they added Arkansas.

    South Carolina was the throw in team that got them to 12 for a CCG, nothing more.

    aggy was an easy way to get into the state for the SECN.

    Mizzou was just another throw in, nothing more.

    I think South Carolina got the nod after FSU said no.

    I don't know if they were looking 1 East/1 West or if they were just working down the list (and we could have had Arky/Texas).

  11. 4 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

    Maryland or Rutgers, I don’t think Penn State gives a shit. 

    Solid source.

    When I think of two schools that have their fingers on the pulse of midwest athletics and how it will be impacted by west coast athletics, I think Maryland and Rutgers.

    • Fuck You 1
  12. 27 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:
    Quote

    The best way to join the haves in the 2030s is CFP participation in the 2020s.

    He's not talking about competing.  He's talking about gaining entry.

    OK... I was reading it as the "haves" being Ohio State, Penn State, etc. since he's talking about brand power right in that same statement.

    Northwesern is not a "have" if you are talking brand power as he's talking about improving by staying in the PacX

    Northwestern is a "have" in that they are in P2 as he's also talking about getting an invitation to the BigY

    So both of us appear to be right since he's defined it both ways.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 6 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

    Wilner thinks the best way for UW/UO to get into the P2 is to pass on any P2 invitation they receive now, in order to have playoff success to build up their resume to enable them to....................join the P2 in the 2030's.

    I think he's suggesting that they could be better able to compete once they join the B10 if they wait.

    Yes, there are a ton of flaws with that thought process but there is a distinction.

  14. 33 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

    It does have value, but do your point, it needs to be scheduled correctly.   If you look at the Big12/SEC challenge in basketball, they didn't really mix it up.   Nearly every year it was Kentucky/Kansas.   I think one year it was Texas/Kentucky, but mostly Texas/Tennessee.

    I think they try to re-balance it every year. I know UF has played against most of the conference.

    I think Texas/Tennessee may be a recency bias thing since they have played the last 2 seasons.

    Kansas/Kentucky has happened a lot though, for sure.

    34 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

    Now if you did a scheduling agreement, you could increase the overall value.   So if ALL of the ACC's OOC games were against the SEC on ESPN and lets say all the Big 12s were against the Big Ten on Fox, you could increase the base value of all those games.

    Do you mean all 3/4 OOC games for each team are locked into a partner conference?

    35 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

    Even though its not always Florida/Florida State, Florida/Duke is better than Florida/McNeese State.   

    If yes to the above, then yes. If you mean a locked in P5 opponent, this is a great example as this only works if it's an additional game on top of the existing rivalries. Which is hard to force as it would be an uneven requirement.

    While I think UF-FSU, UGA-GT, and USC-Clem is safe, I could see Kentucky saying that "<random ACC team> fills the Louisville gap" which is a net loss most years.

    If it was a one or two season thing, maybe. If it became a yearly challenge, then I would think you would have to incorporate the existing rivalries in which would mean most of the value of the deal already exists and is it worth it?

    Plus, this is all blue skying here and would be tough to do short term -- which is when the ACC/ESPN would need it for stability.

    If we go to 9 conference games, UF is already going to have to cut an OOC game in 2024, 2025, 2026. Then again, UF is playing 2 ACC teams each those years, so I guess it could just be rolled in which is great but it doesn't help improve ACC stability more than it is today and it doesn't bring ESPN extra money.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  15. For a moment, I had a thought that it might be in ESPN's best interest to encourage new SEC-ACC matchups since they'd get paid on both ends of the deal, but they've already got Clemson and FSU locked in to an SEC OOC game and they are by far the biggest 2 draws. And Florida already has series with Miami and NCState coming up. 

     

  16. 1 minute ago, Hurtlocker said:

    Yeah that's one of the handful of always on OOC games.   WVU/Pitt, Iowa/Iowa State, Kentucky/Louisville, Georiga/Tech, Bedlam if they do it, Clemson/SC, i'm sure there are more but I'm not thinking of any standouts that go yearly.   The problem is that's 1 of 4 OOC games for the SEC/ACC.   So when they have value, the non-con still comes out to next to nothing.  

    And while those few do factor in, the biggest reason they don't matter is they're inconsistent.   With a conference schedule you will know how many times Texas will play Bama over the life of a contract and you have the home and homes.   So you have the game whether its Florida/LSU or LSU/Florida.   Florida/FSU, is only at Florida half the time.   The other half of the value goes to the ACC.  For the rest of the big OOC games, like if USC plays a home and home against Texas, that amounts to one game out of like less than 1% of the total games on the contract.

    True.

    I guess the challenge is that even with something like a P5 opponent requirement, someone will still try to game it, by scheduling Duke or getting a release to play Independent UConn instead.

  17. 1 hour ago, BurntOrange&amp;White said:

    Well logically the big 12 tournament champ is more celebrated than the regular season champ in basketball. They don’t cut down a net during the regular season, do they?

    Maybe it's just me but I personally have thought that being regular season champ was more important than tournament champ. Goes for Baseball too since those tournaments are such tossups with weather delays.

  18. 18 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

    The NCAA has a rule that all new head coaches can get rid of any player they want for the first 12 months they are on the job.  The deal is the coach can kick them off the team for any reason but the school must keep them on scholarship as long as they keep up their grades.  These players can also enter the portal if they want to keep playing elsewhere and then the old school is no longer on the hook.  I know it's something Riley did with a good amount of players, some of whom entered the portal and some of whom decided to just call it a career while they finished their degree at USC, though I'm not sure how much Sanders did it.  It's more likely the players Sanders would have cut using this method wouldn't be wanted anywhere else since he inherited a rock bottom roster and so they'd be more likely to remain at Colorado on their full ride.  That could be a significant sunk cost for an athletic department that is struggling financially, has an uncertain future and is paying buyouts for the staff they just fired.

    They have very little to no buffer.

    They didn't even have they money they promised Sanders. The AD admitted in December that they were still working on how to actually pay him.

    https://news.yahoo.com/deion-sanders-offered-29-5m-215627349.html

  19. 1 hour ago, John80 said:

    When Stoops was hired UK made overdue improvements to the facilities and increased coaching salaries. He has won 3 of the last 5 against Florida. When he arrived UK had lost 25 times in a row against Florida and most of those games were massacres. The only coach that has done better here is Bear Bryant. The boast is purely about recruiting. In the past other football coaches would recruit against Kentucky by saying we only cared about basketball and that unfortunately was true until Stoops arrived and got UK to invest in football. 

    It's all relative too.

    Attendance wise, Kentucky is in the "bottom half" of the SEC but it would probably be top 3 in the PAC/ACC/new Big 12.

×
×
  • Create New...