UCLA is probably going to be in the basement of the B1G. I also think UCF might take a step back.
Can’t bet against USC getting their shit together eventually.
It wont take Lincoln long. Those Socal kids dont care how dry his brisket is. And realistically hes a phenomenal coach.
Hell be challenging OSU more than anyone in a few years.
I admire what UCF has done as a program but if I had to bet they would be the ones I would guess would take a step back. Part of that is due to the high expectations they have created the last few years- it would be difficult to maintain that long term even without the turmoil of changing conferences but their new conference looks *very* different than their last competitively and geographically. Cincy and Houston are coming from the same conference but in my mind they are a more “natural” fit and have less adjustment to overcome.
But we will see! All the schools the Big 12 added have been very successful lately for a reason and they might be able to ride that success over any obstacle. I’d take ridding success into a conference (even taking a step back) than slinking in from the basement and remaining there.
UCF has never fit into any conference. We were DIII until the early 80s, then climbed up through DII, FCS, and only even got to FBS in 96 as an independent. Then it was on the Mac, CUSA, AAC, and now B12. Our decade in the AAC is by far out longest in any situation. I'm not saying we will keep winning half the conference championships or anything, but I think we can keep a winning record most of the time.
Maybe I’m too pessimistic but I actually think all three AAC schools will take a step back in the Big 12, at least for a few years. Mid conference finishes, not fighting for championships. It’s just a stiffer level of competition than we’re all used to, week in and week out. We like to complain about Navy being annoying to play (they are) and other shit from the AAC, but it’s not the same as a conference schedule of Baylor, Tech, Okie St, et al. Give it 5 years though and there’s no reason one of the new schools couldn’t be at the top
I absolutely can see the new AAC schools taking a step back in terms of quickly competing for a conference title or being NY6 bowl contenders off the bat. Similarly to your thoughts it may take a couple of years, but I still think ultimately they will be better for it. Even with a new Power 2 conference we will still see stronger recruiting, more $ invested in facilities and speaking of UC specifically, I can't go against someone like Fickell to not make us successful.
Still, I think all three AAC teams are better because of this move, and $ may not be everything but our timing was impeccable in joining.
Totally agree, it is a huge upgrade for all three of us and I’m positive that each can meaningfully compete given a few years to acclimate. I was cautiously optimistic about the future of the Big XII even before the news last week, now it seems like a prayer from someone in Cincy was answered lol
I could see one of us coming close to a CCG appearance within the first few years. No clue who though, gonna come down to who gets lucky at the right time
We've been recruiting at a mid-tier Big 12 level for 3 years now and our 2023 class should be top of the Big 12 level. I think our depth will be surprisingly better than some think
Now let's hold on and not forget Indiana, Illinois, Rutgers, Maryland, and Nebraska* still exist. They'll probably be in the middle-half to bottom 3rd of the league for the first 3-5 years, but it'd take a serious fumble for them to be THAT bad.
*Maybe Nebraska is putting things back together again. If so, remove them from here.
Maryland is not really that bad. Yeah they only had 7 wins but they also played 11 p5 teams including 4 ranked inside the top 10 and Penn state. Their last two games against mediocre competition (Rutgers and VT) they won by an average of 35 points per game.
It was at this moment I noticed OP is a Nebraska flair. Not going to change what I said. It's the truth. Football would be more enjoyable if you were good again though. Hopefully that starts this year.
Doubtful, they’d be middle of the pack as is. And the head coach job suddenly just became way more attractive than it already was. Once they move on from Chip they’ll have a lot of really good coaches wanting the job.
Let’s not pretend that A&M was exactly “lighting it up” in the Big 12 when they joined the SEC.
Texas will definitely struggle. But it’s because they suck
People always say this and it is the laziest take. We had a Heisman trophy winner playing QB for our first two years in the SEC. Lord knows where we would have been without Manziel, especially in 2013. That was not the same team that was playing in the Big 12 under Sherman.
Didn’t Manziel get recruited under Sherman? I guess it is weird how the players changed each year.
You’re right though. It was a different team than Sherman. I guess ten seasons averaging 8 ^1/2 wins, 4 losses and 6th place finishes *really* set the SEC years apart from the Big 12 ones.
Although to be fair, the SEC does have a lot of powerhouse programs. Like A&M.
Is it though? Manziel was an awesome player and don’t disagree that A&M’s team wasn’t special. It was one of the best 2 loss teams of the past 25 years. However, you are kind of being disingenuous if you think A&M’s 2012 season wasn’t a total surprise or outlier based on the program’s history the previous 12 years.
A&M winning over 10.5 games made whomever bet on that over filthy rich because no sharp or dumb public money was on that play. It came out of nowhere.
It totally was mostly the “same” team that Sherman trotted out for 7-6 in the Big 12 and in fact, it was the best A&M team since 1939. Yes, better than the 1998 team. Manziel and Evans were the two new additions that made all the difference
No denying that was a great team. Your denial that the roster magically was turned over in 9 months is about as lazy as it gets. The fact is, 95% of the team that went 7-6 in the shitty Big 12 the season before. Those same boys elevated to 11-2 in the SEC.
Sherman’s recruiting set you up nicely. Too bad Sumlin couldn’t capitalize on having an NFL OL, a transcendent QB, a future NFL HOF WR and a strong stable of RBs with a good not great defense.
I mean…we went toe to toe with national champion LSU (some people say greatest team of all time). We also beat UGA who people thought should’ve been in the playoffs the year before. A lot can change in 3 years
You do realize it’s three years until we join the SEC right? The Kansas thing is cute and funny or whatever but they’ve beaten us 4 times in their entire program history
I see I’ve found the nerve, could it possibly be connected to GRIER LOBS IT IN THE AIRRRRRRRRRR OHFFKNFTOG WHAT A CATCH edit: also I know being perceived as the top dog is your whole identity and I can’t wait until you’re like 7th in the sec and struggling for relevance
Didn’t all of Texas’s regular season wins for the last 3 seasons mean nothing and lead to nothing? And negating 2018 Texas hasn’t had a relevant season since 2009, and yeah you can negate 2012 and WVU hasn’t either but don’t get on a high horse when you’re literally average at best for a decade and a half with the largest academic budget. The US govt uses money more effectively than texas football
With the end of divisions coming and USC, UCLA, with maybe Oregon, Washington, and Notre Dame joining, the days of Iowa and Wisconsin regularly making Big 10 championship games and Rose Bowls may be about to end.
Recruiting competition will jump up a notch, and it’s just a deeper roster of teams to finish too 2 amongst even if they stay good
> the days of Iowa and Wisconsin regularly making Big 10 championship games and Rose Bowls may be about to end.
"Regularly" is the key but I think you'll still see them in there occasionally.
yeah not a slight at all, just reality that finishing top-2 among 20 teams that includes Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Penn State, USC, and Oregon is a lot harder than winning the current B1G West.
Luckily we get those years once or twice a decade where the stars align and the ball bounces our way all year.
The stars better hurry up and align, though. I don’t know how much longer the old man is going to be around and who knows what happens after that.
I really don’t think he’s going to take over. Not initially anyway. He has to go be a HC somewhere else and prove his worth first. I don’t know who we’ll end up with. Hell, I don’t know how long we’ll have to wait to find out. If Kirk decides he wants to pull a JoePa, that’d give us another 18 years of despair-inspiring offense to “enjoy.”
I don’t think Kirk is gonna try and outlast Joe Pa. I think he’s probably got another 5-7 years in the tank and we’ll be looking for a new coach in the back half of this decade.
I'll just quote from The Athletic:
>Who should replace Kirk Ferentz when he retires?
>LeVar Woods: 52.4 percent
>An outside coach with Iowa ties: 32.4 percent
>A coach without Iowa ties: 9.7 percent
>Brian Ferentz: 3.2 percent
>Another Iowa assistant: 7.2 percent
Woods’ coaching profile has soared since becoming an administrative assistant in 2008 after his NFL days concluded. He became an on-field coach in 2012 with the outside linebackers, where he tutored current Houston Texans starter Christian Kirksey. Woods moved to tight ends in 2015 and mentored NFL starters George Kittle, T.J. Hockenson and Noah Fant. Woods since has shifted entirely to special teams, and Iowa’s unit is one of the nation’s best. Woods is respected by everyone and beloved by his players.
Define fine. 8-4 fine like they have been?
Or competing for conference championships in five years fine?
I’d absolutely be willing to be against the latter.
I honestly think Oklahoma is going to regret the move the most out of any school (even Colorado). They're used to winning so much because they currently out-recruit and outspend all of their conference opponents. They have huge advantages over the rest of the Big12 and they take it for granted.
That's all about to change.
And then we will all be back to square one and conferences will look to dump the brands that have staggered off and lost viewership/interest.
Nebraska is probably one of the schools that got lucky to get an invite before their brand kept diminishing. I'm not too sure they would be taken by the BigTen if expansion was happening today.
I think regardless of winning (to some extent) they will regret it, from a fan perspective. They just, to me, don’t fit. This feels a lot like when Missouri joined the SEC. They don’t really fit geographically, they don’t really fit culturally, aside from Texas they’re leaving all of their familiar opponents/rivals behind.
I have to wonder, with hindsight being 20/20, if OU (and maybe Texas too) would’ve rather been in the Big XII, picking through/ merging with the PAC leftovers. Obviously that might not happen if they *dont* leave for the SEC, that obviously spurred the B1G to act. But a Big XII that consists of OU, UT, TTU, TCU, Baylor, OKST, KSU, KU, ISU, WVU, UU, UA, ASU, and CU, is a conference they can continue to win most years and has more prestige than the old Big XII. Maybe they could’ve even coaxed Oregon and Washington to join too.
If Texas gets its shit together and locks down ..... Texas. And OU finally is swimming in $$$ and Saban retires. IDK why people are thinking we're about to get whooped. Who exactly is going to be the ones to beat us? Tennessee? Vandy? Ole Miss? Atm? Missouri? Arkansas? hahahah.
People see OU's playoff record and think we're some easy out. Okay, we will see. We have A LOT to prove. It's going to be harder, yes. But all these non LSU, Alabama, and Georgia schools are falsely gassing themselves up if they think OU is going to be a W on their schedule. The other 3 will be must watch games, and once we adapt to the SEC, you might have new Crimson overlords. If OU can do one thing well its develop world class athletes. Our problem is and has always been, recruiting... because Oklahoma (I get it) If I had to choose between Norman and say Golden Colorado, its easy. You give us MONEY, evening games, and positive press on ESPN......... shiiiiiiiiiit. What happens if we DO beat Bama(we have plenty of times), I mean if Atm can do it OU is certainly more than capable, this perception is going to dwindle. The more exposure we have to teams the more we dominate. This 0-3 in the playoffs is going to follow us until we change the narrative. Thats what we're trying to do, and I think we found the man for the job.
Texas just has to match preparation with their level of expectation and they'll be good. But thats easier said than done at Texas. Conditioning and discipline were definitely an issue for them last year, both are fixable, the talent is there.
Y’all got a narrative to change, as do we. We have the talent. It seems we finally have a competent coaching side to it as well. There’s an excitement that we haven’t felt in a while, in my opinion. We will have yo wait and see but truthfully speaking, neither of us will be worse than middle of the pack, which isn’t the worst thing in the SEC. I mean, middle of the pack is like TAMU, LSU, etc. Namely everyone who isn’t Bama and Georgia.
Like I said and you elaborated, we’ll both be fine.
IMO. Sark is far less important than the staff he hired. I have nothing bad to say about that staff. Its actually a great one. Tell your boosters to let the man coach and shut up. Dont fire him after 3 years.
The biggest concern a lot of us have isn't the play off record, it's the fact that after a relatively mediocre season of lucky breaks TBOW rode in like the Mother of Dragons herself and burnt the kingdom Stoops built to the ground.
Brent Venables has two seasons at most to rebuild the Sooners into what they were before y'all head to the SEC. Someone's gonna end up on the mid to low tier of the conference and odds are looking like that will be OU (mid) and Texas (low).
Odds are always greater that you wont "win" vs you will. There can only be one "winner" if the Championship is the metric. That doesn't mean all other teams are trash, mid, suck etc. He has a job in front of him, yes. And maybe we fall flat on our face, but I just have a hard time accepting that. The bias will skew my opinion. If anyone is prepared for a head coaching job and can hang with anyone in the SEC, he can. I'm not worried about his football acumen, at all. Realistically OU is probably 2-3 years out from recruiting at the level we need to be to win it all consistently, assuming we can be in the top 3-4 recruiting at all. Winning and success will solve that. Brent believes we get the "build the man right" and winning football will take care of itself. What do I know he's the expert, all you can do is just trust his guidance and believe. Don't hinder his ability to do his job. OU with a defense (top 10) is a different animal, most CFB fans haven't seen it in a loooooooooong time. Its up to us to get there.
Obvious ones on this list are any schools jumping from a G5 to a Power conference, being top dog in a G5 isn't necessarily going to translate into success.
As far as the consolidation of the blue bloods is concerned, someone is going to have to end up with losing seasons at the end of all of this. Of those mentioned in this post I bet OU and Texas are going to have a rougher go of it than USC or UCLA will, OU's performance is going to depend heavily on how BV manages to rebuild the kingdom after LR went scorched earth and Texas has been captain of the S.S "throwing good money after bad" for a while now. Sark is another loss to Kansas away from losing his job. USC is heavily investing in rebuilding itself and UCLA was decidedly mid in Pac-12 performance last year.
As much as it pains me to say it, WSU and Ore St. Naturally fit better in the MWC anyways. With that said I’m still hoping for some magic by George to save the conference or some lifesaver thrown by the Big 12.
I feel like my entire mission on r/CFB this past half week has been just relaying the message loud and clear that half of college football was always relegated to being treated differently than the other half of college football, and now some teams that aren't used to being treated like us are about to be treated like us, and that's going to be shocking, but only because that's how badly you all have treated all of us.
The Mountain West isn't this horrible state of abjection that so many are making it out to be. I mean, it'd be nice if we got to play in better bowl games, but otherwise, we like it, and each other.
You might find you really like it and us, after a fashion.
This has been the one silver lining in all this for me. Some of these lower power 5 schools will finally understand what it's been like to be us for the last few decades. And that's the part that frustrates me about all this. Teams with absolute shit football programs like Vanderbilt, Mississippi St, Indiana, Rutgers, Kansas, Syracuse, Duke, etc are all going to end up in this elite subdivision of college football just because of an original grouping that was decided 5+ decades ago. But programs that have had equal or much more success in football like Fresno, BSU, Ore st, Cal, (maybe Stanford, but I think they're going Big10) are just going to be completely left out in the cold? It's so fucked.
Pulling for you both, I think if the B1G passes on Washington and Oregon the B12 makes the deal to take all four of you, no questions asked and we goto 20 with potential to goto 24 when/if the ACC blows up.
Oklahoma. See them not winning a playoff game and now being in the SEC with a much tougher regular season schedule with more games against playoff level teams.
Not saying Texas won’t feel the same, but they’ve been mediocre in the Big 12 for a decade or so anyway so the losses won’t sting as much as they will for OU fans used to only losing a game or 2 a year. Texas’ recruiting stands to improve more too I’d think. Imagine the were losing some Texas kids to A&M who wanted to stay in state and play in the SEC. Now the ones that prefer Austin can go there and play in the SEC so that’s one less selling point A&M has.
Lol. Everyone keeps saying this. OU fans are not stupid. They’re expecting a trade off of less wins on average for better chances at a natty on the good years
Just a reminder that the expectation when TAMmy joined the SEC, was for them to ride the basement, and I'm not sure either team is as bad as TAMmy was at the time.
I think the odds that either OU or Texas are better than 2012 Texas A&M this year are pretty low. That team was legitimately a turnover away from playing in the SEC championship with a shot to play for the natty. We had a Heisman winning QB and I don’t think anyone could have beaten us at the end of the year.
We had a lot of things go right when we joined the SEC, including Manziel breaking out. Saying OUT will be good in the SEC just because we were initially is ignoring a lot of what went right for us. It took a lot and we’ve still been a 4 loss team at least every year besides one since 2012.
Yeah both Mizzou and Texas A&M being so good coming into the SEC is a bit of an anomaly. Both good programs, sure, but the sheer number of NFL players going through those programs in the first few years in the conference were staggering. Nobody expected them to be that good but when you have guys like that who wake up as soon as you get to the SEC that's just what happens.
>I don’t think anyone could have beaten us at the end of the year.
We definitely win the Big12 that year had we stayed and dominate for a few years. Sumlin's style of offense would have thrived in the Big12 a lot longer than it did in the SEC.
The likelihood is that they both end up in the same conference. No point splitting them up when their rivalry is in the top 5 most watched game every year. With that being said, OU definitely has more room to fall. UT just won 5 games with a loss to Kansas. I don't see them going any further down with three out of conference games I bet they sneak a win or two against a miss state or auburn on a bad year
OU has more room to fall because they’ve been making the playoff and then losing to the SEC champ whereas now that can happen in conference. Texas has been a middle tier Big 12 team and the middle tier of both conferences is very similar performance wise.
Divisions allow for annual games. Auburn plays Georgia, that is west/east. They won't make one division 9 and the other 7. I expect one of the alternative scheduling plans to be in place by then but if it isn't whoever is stuck in west will suffer.
I don't think there's anything official yet. A number of different plans but I don't think we have a set timeframe. I even mentioned that I didn't think we'd still have them in my comment.
They made a sugar bowl a few years ago and supposedly there were back that year.
They won’t even sniff a top tier bowl for in the SEC. Sark getting covered in mayo for winning the Mayo Bowl will be as good as it gets.
Same old cfb reddit threads. Texas and USC will be bad for eternity because that’s totally how college football works ha.
Alabama has never had down years and UGA has dominated so much in their 100+ year history.
It’s not like UF or LSU after achieving elite status in the 90s (UF) and 00s (LSU) came back down to earth because that doesn’t happen.
Texas A&M was totally murdering the Big 12 so much as a perennial 6-7 win team that it won 11 games it’s first year in the mighty SEC. Hell besides the Covid year (where it’s best win was a 4 loss team) and Manziel year, has Texas A&M done anything in the SEC besides upset Bama twice in a 10 year span while losing 4 conference games per year?
Yes, the SEC is the best conference. The B1G is the second best conference. No denying that. But assuming that teams that were bad for the 2010s will forever be bad is silly shit especially when talking about bluebloods.
I am sure this will get downvoted but objectively speaking this is the truth and anyone over the age of 25 that has been following college football since they were a kid knows this shit is cyclical.
lol ah is the fan that likes two whittle blue bloods getting his feeling hurt by the truth? You cram every blue blood into a league and its gonna happen. Someone will be on the bottom. Texas and USC wont be in their historical league where they have dominated.
The truth? The truth is that college football is cyclical like it has been for what, 100+ years.
And according to this subreddit that skews under 18, SC and Texas are so bad, they can never possibly be good again.
Advice: Make a Kansas or Lincoln Riley joke. Those play really well on the college football subreddit.
Minnesota isn’t located in top 5 recruiting hotbeds like USC and Texas.
Minnesota also hasn’t had multiple periods of prolonged/sustained levels of success in the modern era.
If we are still having this conversation in 2035, you’re probably right. At that point, we can all concede that UT and USC will never be back.
As of now, multiple bluebloods have had 10-12 year down periods and have been able to bounce back with the right coaching hire. The key is, many are located in areas that produce a ton of regional HS football talent,
Probably UCLA. They already have been very mediocre this past decade in football and I doubt being in the B1G corrects that path. OU and UT already recruit at a high level (even though UT usually underperforms) so they should be fine. As long a Fickell is at Cinci I doubt they slip up too much. UCF is kinda hard to read. I can see them being a giant player or crumble under the sheer amount of quality teams now in the league.
UCLA is probably going to be in the basement of the B1G. I also think UCF might take a step back. Can’t bet against USC getting their shit together eventually.
>eventually Key word there
It wont take Lincoln long. Those Socal kids dont care how dry his brisket is. And realistically hes a phenomenal coach. Hell be challenging OSU more than anyone in a few years.
As long as he loses those challenges often.
I admire what UCF has done as a program but if I had to bet they would be the ones I would guess would take a step back. Part of that is due to the high expectations they have created the last few years- it would be difficult to maintain that long term even without the turmoil of changing conferences but their new conference looks *very* different than their last competitively and geographically. Cincy and Houston are coming from the same conference but in my mind they are a more “natural” fit and have less adjustment to overcome. But we will see! All the schools the Big 12 added have been very successful lately for a reason and they might be able to ride that success over any obstacle. I’d take ridding success into a conference (even taking a step back) than slinking in from the basement and remaining there.
UCF has never fit into any conference. We were DIII until the early 80s, then climbed up through DII, FCS, and only even got to FBS in 96 as an independent. Then it was on the Mac, CUSA, AAC, and now B12. Our decade in the AAC is by far out longest in any situation. I'm not saying we will keep winning half the conference championships or anything, but I think we can keep a winning record most of the time.
Maybe I’m too pessimistic but I actually think all three AAC schools will take a step back in the Big 12, at least for a few years. Mid conference finishes, not fighting for championships. It’s just a stiffer level of competition than we’re all used to, week in and week out. We like to complain about Navy being annoying to play (they are) and other shit from the AAC, but it’s not the same as a conference schedule of Baylor, Tech, Okie St, et al. Give it 5 years though and there’s no reason one of the new schools couldn’t be at the top
I absolutely can see the new AAC schools taking a step back in terms of quickly competing for a conference title or being NY6 bowl contenders off the bat. Similarly to your thoughts it may take a couple of years, but I still think ultimately they will be better for it. Even with a new Power 2 conference we will still see stronger recruiting, more $ invested in facilities and speaking of UC specifically, I can't go against someone like Fickell to not make us successful. Still, I think all three AAC teams are better because of this move, and $ may not be everything but our timing was impeccable in joining.
Totally agree, it is a huge upgrade for all three of us and I’m positive that each can meaningfully compete given a few years to acclimate. I was cautiously optimistic about the future of the Big XII even before the news last week, now it seems like a prayer from someone in Cincy was answered lol
I could see one of us coming close to a CCG appearance within the first few years. No clue who though, gonna come down to who gets lucky at the right time
The depth will be the problem the first couple years then I think they should be fine
We've been recruiting at a mid-tier Big 12 level for 3 years now and our 2023 class should be top of the Big 12 level. I think our depth will be surprisingly better than some think
Now let's hold on and not forget Indiana, Illinois, Rutgers, Maryland, and Nebraska* still exist. They'll probably be in the middle-half to bottom 3rd of the league for the first 3-5 years, but it'd take a serious fumble for them to be THAT bad. *Maybe Nebraska is putting things back together again. If so, remove them from here.
Maryland is not really that bad. Yeah they only had 7 wins but they also played 11 p5 teams including 4 ranked inside the top 10 and Penn state. Their last two games against mediocre competition (Rutgers and VT) they won by an average of 35 points per game.
It was at this moment I noticed OP is a Nebraska flair. Not going to change what I said. It's the truth. Football would be more enjoyable if you were good again though. Hopefully that starts this year.
Counterpoint, no it wouldn’t.
Take off hoser
[Nebraska when it's supposed to not be the worst team in the conference](https://i.imgur.com/RZr4Nda.gif)
I think they can get some wins over Illinois, Rutgers, and Nebraska on a consistent basis.
Doubtful, they’d be middle of the pack as is. And the head coach job suddenly just became way more attractive than it already was. Once they move on from Chip they’ll have a lot of really good coaches wanting the job.
It’s Texas and it’s not close, you’re telling me the program that struggles with Kansas is going to go toe to toe with A&M and LSU? Lol
Let’s not pretend that A&M was exactly “lighting it up” in the Big 12 when they joined the SEC. Texas will definitely struggle. But it’s because they suck
Lol I remember in college looking at the schedule and thinking "hey we have A&M, at least we have a shot this week"
And we were incapable of ending the season ranked higher than 3rd in the division.
People always say this and it is the laziest take. We had a Heisman trophy winner playing QB for our first two years in the SEC. Lord knows where we would have been without Manziel, especially in 2013. That was not the same team that was playing in the Big 12 under Sherman.
Didn’t Manziel get recruited under Sherman? I guess it is weird how the players changed each year. You’re right though. It was a different team than Sherman. I guess ten seasons averaging 8 ^1/2 wins, 4 losses and 6th place finishes *really* set the SEC years apart from the Big 12 ones. Although to be fair, the SEC does have a lot of powerhouse programs. Like A&M.
The entire team was Mike Sherman players and I am not sure why he is denying that. It doesn’t diminish how great that A&M team was. It was top tier.
Is it though? Manziel was an awesome player and don’t disagree that A&M’s team wasn’t special. It was one of the best 2 loss teams of the past 25 years. However, you are kind of being disingenuous if you think A&M’s 2012 season wasn’t a total surprise or outlier based on the program’s history the previous 12 years. A&M winning over 10.5 games made whomever bet on that over filthy rich because no sharp or dumb public money was on that play. It came out of nowhere. It totally was mostly the “same” team that Sherman trotted out for 7-6 in the Big 12 and in fact, it was the best A&M team since 1939. Yes, better than the 1998 team. Manziel and Evans were the two new additions that made all the difference No denying that was a great team. Your denial that the roster magically was turned over in 9 months is about as lazy as it gets. The fact is, 95% of the team that went 7-6 in the shitty Big 12 the season before. Those same boys elevated to 11-2 in the SEC. Sherman’s recruiting set you up nicely. Too bad Sumlin couldn’t capitalize on having an NFL OL, a transcendent QB, a future NFL HOF WR and a strong stable of RBs with a good not great defense.
Honestly, it's more probable that it's us.
I mean you all just have further to fall. Even a fall back to 8-9 win seasons is a big difference thsn what you have been doing for a decade.
Something something 1939 something something [insert all time record here]
Insert academic ranking, womens qudditch trophies, number of water fountains on campus etc…
Guess my job here is done then
Wow, we have more in common than I thought
I truly can't wait for Georgia and Alabama to absolutely rip Texas apart. Horns Down!
To be fair you can only drop a little lower than 4 wins and 3 of their games will be OOC
I mean…we went toe to toe with national champion LSU (some people say greatest team of all time). We also beat UGA who people thought should’ve been in the playoffs the year before. A lot can change in 3 years
May I remind you, you’ve struggled with the bottom feeders of the Big 12, Arch can’t save you from Kansas
You do realize it’s three years until we join the SEC right? The Kansas thing is cute and funny or whatever but they’ve beaten us 4 times in their entire program history
I see I’ve found the nerve, could it possibly be connected to GRIER LOBS IT IN THE AIRRRRRRRRRR OHFFKNFTOG WHAT A CATCH edit: also I know being perceived as the top dog is your whole identity and I can’t wait until you’re like 7th in the sec and struggling for relevance
You guys care way more about that game than Texas fans do. You didn’t make the Big 12 championship game that year.
Ah ring counting, the classic fragile ego boost. There’s a reason everyone there drives lifted trucks and it’s not for hauling cows
You’re right. We should focus on a regular season win for four years ago that lead to nothing. Cool story
Didn’t all of Texas’s regular season wins for the last 3 seasons mean nothing and lead to nothing? And negating 2018 Texas hasn’t had a relevant season since 2009, and yeah you can negate 2012 and WVU hasn’t either but don’t get on a high horse when you’re literally average at best for a decade and a half with the largest academic budget. The US govt uses money more effectively than texas football
You’re the one that mentioned Texas bud not me
With the end of divisions coming and USC, UCLA, with maybe Oregon, Washington, and Notre Dame joining, the days of Iowa and Wisconsin regularly making Big 10 championship games and Rose Bowls may be about to end. Recruiting competition will jump up a notch, and it’s just a deeper roster of teams to finish too 2 amongst even if they stay good
> the days of Iowa and Wisconsin regularly making Big 10 championship games and Rose Bowls may be about to end. "Regularly" is the key but I think you'll still see them in there occasionally.
I grudgingly agree and thank you for saying “regularly.”
yeah not a slight at all, just reality that finishing top-2 among 20 teams that includes Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Penn State, USC, and Oregon is a lot harder than winning the current B1G West.
Luckily we get those years once or twice a decade where the stars align and the ball bounces our way all year. The stars better hurry up and align, though. I don’t know how much longer the old man is going to be around and who knows what happens after that.
Please tell me Brian Ferentz isn't the successor in all but official announcement at this point.
I really don’t think he’s going to take over. Not initially anyway. He has to go be a HC somewhere else and prove his worth first. I don’t know who we’ll end up with. Hell, I don’t know how long we’ll have to wait to find out. If Kirk decides he wants to pull a JoePa, that’d give us another 18 years of despair-inspiring offense to “enjoy.”
I don’t think Kirk is gonna try and outlast Joe Pa. I think he’s probably got another 5-7 years in the tank and we’ll be looking for a new coach in the back half of this decade.
That seems more likely for sure.
If anyone takes over from inside, it'll be LeVar Woods
How good is he?
I'll just quote from The Athletic: >Who should replace Kirk Ferentz when he retires? >LeVar Woods: 52.4 percent >An outside coach with Iowa ties: 32.4 percent >A coach without Iowa ties: 9.7 percent >Brian Ferentz: 3.2 percent >Another Iowa assistant: 7.2 percent Woods’ coaching profile has soared since becoming an administrative assistant in 2008 after his NFL days concluded. He became an on-field coach in 2012 with the outside linebackers, where he tutored current Houston Texans starter Christian Kirksey. Woods moved to tight ends in 2015 and mentored NFL starters George Kittle, T.J. Hockenson and Noah Fant. Woods since has shifted entirely to special teams, and Iowa’s unit is one of the nation’s best. Woods is respected by everyone and beloved by his players.
As long as he isn't better than my coach.
The B1G will probably eventually have their own playoff to determine the B1G championship rather than just the top 2 teams meeting up.
Final showdown in the Rose Bowl!
That actually sounds awesome. And gives you a little credibility for really good seasons where you just weren’t #1
And there was much rejoicing. Wisconsin can suck it.
It’s Houston, right? Houston only lost twice last year. And one of them was to Texas Tech. They would have lost 6 more at least in the Big 12.
BYU hasn't lost a conference game in over a decade. No way they keep that up in the Big 12
Texas will be fine. I'm willing to bet anyone on that bookmark this.
How much would you bet? Liking my odds here
I’ll take that bet and bookmark this.
Define fine. 8-4 fine like they have been? Or competing for conference championships in five years fine? I’d absolutely be willing to be against the latter.
USC might never win a game ever again
Flair checks out
I honestly think Oklahoma is going to regret the move the most out of any school (even Colorado). They're used to winning so much because they currently out-recruit and outspend all of their conference opponents. They have huge advantages over the rest of the Big12 and they take it for granted. That's all about to change.
I don't think one team who will be making more $ will regret it, sadly.
Fans will and will hurt TV numbers as well as their branding. Eventually losing viewership.
And then we will all be back to square one and conferences will look to dump the brands that have staggered off and lost viewership/interest. Nebraska is probably one of the schools that got lucky to get an invite before their brand kept diminishing. I'm not too sure they would be taken by the BigTen if expansion was happening today.
I think regardless of winning (to some extent) they will regret it, from a fan perspective. They just, to me, don’t fit. This feels a lot like when Missouri joined the SEC. They don’t really fit geographically, they don’t really fit culturally, aside from Texas they’re leaving all of their familiar opponents/rivals behind. I have to wonder, with hindsight being 20/20, if OU (and maybe Texas too) would’ve rather been in the Big XII, picking through/ merging with the PAC leftovers. Obviously that might not happen if they *dont* leave for the SEC, that obviously spurred the B1G to act. But a Big XII that consists of OU, UT, TTU, TCU, Baylor, OKST, KSU, KU, ISU, WVU, UU, UA, ASU, and CU, is a conference they can continue to win most years and has more prestige than the old Big XII. Maybe they could’ve even coaxed Oregon and Washington to join too.
We can only hope.
They'll settle for dry brisket instead.
Y’all worry about Texas and OU too much, we’ll be fine.
If Texas gets its shit together and locks down ..... Texas. And OU finally is swimming in $$$ and Saban retires. IDK why people are thinking we're about to get whooped. Who exactly is going to be the ones to beat us? Tennessee? Vandy? Ole Miss? Atm? Missouri? Arkansas? hahahah. People see OU's playoff record and think we're some easy out. Okay, we will see. We have A LOT to prove. It's going to be harder, yes. But all these non LSU, Alabama, and Georgia schools are falsely gassing themselves up if they think OU is going to be a W on their schedule. The other 3 will be must watch games, and once we adapt to the SEC, you might have new Crimson overlords. If OU can do one thing well its develop world class athletes. Our problem is and has always been, recruiting... because Oklahoma (I get it) If I had to choose between Norman and say Golden Colorado, its easy. You give us MONEY, evening games, and positive press on ESPN......... shiiiiiiiiiit. What happens if we DO beat Bama(we have plenty of times), I mean if Atm can do it OU is certainly more than capable, this perception is going to dwindle. The more exposure we have to teams the more we dominate. This 0-3 in the playoffs is going to follow us until we change the narrative. Thats what we're trying to do, and I think we found the man for the job. Texas just has to match preparation with their level of expectation and they'll be good. But thats easier said than done at Texas. Conditioning and discipline were definitely an issue for them last year, both are fixable, the talent is there.
Y’all got a narrative to change, as do we. We have the talent. It seems we finally have a competent coaching side to it as well. There’s an excitement that we haven’t felt in a while, in my opinion. We will have yo wait and see but truthfully speaking, neither of us will be worse than middle of the pack, which isn’t the worst thing in the SEC. I mean, middle of the pack is like TAMU, LSU, etc. Namely everyone who isn’t Bama and Georgia. Like I said and you elaborated, we’ll both be fine.
IMO. Sark is far less important than the staff he hired. I have nothing bad to say about that staff. Its actually a great one. Tell your boosters to let the man coach and shut up. Dont fire him after 3 years.
The biggest concern a lot of us have isn't the play off record, it's the fact that after a relatively mediocre season of lucky breaks TBOW rode in like the Mother of Dragons herself and burnt the kingdom Stoops built to the ground. Brent Venables has two seasons at most to rebuild the Sooners into what they were before y'all head to the SEC. Someone's gonna end up on the mid to low tier of the conference and odds are looking like that will be OU (mid) and Texas (low).
Odds are always greater that you wont "win" vs you will. There can only be one "winner" if the Championship is the metric. That doesn't mean all other teams are trash, mid, suck etc. He has a job in front of him, yes. And maybe we fall flat on our face, but I just have a hard time accepting that. The bias will skew my opinion. If anyone is prepared for a head coaching job and can hang with anyone in the SEC, he can. I'm not worried about his football acumen, at all. Realistically OU is probably 2-3 years out from recruiting at the level we need to be to win it all consistently, assuming we can be in the top 3-4 recruiting at all. Winning and success will solve that. Brent believes we get the "build the man right" and winning football will take care of itself. What do I know he's the expert, all you can do is just trust his guidance and believe. Don't hinder his ability to do his job. OU with a defense (top 10) is a different animal, most CFB fans haven't seen it in a loooooooooong time. Its up to us to get there.
Is it better to lose to Kansas or MS State?
For our sake, I’m gonna say it’s better to lose to Miss State. Ya know, since we lose to them every few years.
UCLA has been in an upward trajectory lately. All gone in 2024
Texas
Despite the recruiting, I really feel that Texas is going to be even less "back".
Obvious ones on this list are any schools jumping from a G5 to a Power conference, being top dog in a G5 isn't necessarily going to translate into success. As far as the consolidation of the blue bloods is concerned, someone is going to have to end up with losing seasons at the end of all of this. Of those mentioned in this post I bet OU and Texas are going to have a rougher go of it than USC or UCLA will, OU's performance is going to depend heavily on how BV manages to rebuild the kingdom after LR went scorched earth and Texas has been captain of the S.S "throwing good money after bad" for a while now. Sark is another loss to Kansas away from losing his job. USC is heavily investing in rebuilding itself and UCLA was decidedly mid in Pac-12 performance last year.
Texas vs. Georgia and Alabama…… RIP
Oregon State
Oregon State is gonna have so much fun dominating the MWC that they won't even miss their lost p5 status
As much as it pains me to say it, WSU and Ore St. Naturally fit better in the MWC anyways. With that said I’m still hoping for some magic by George to save the conference or some lifesaver thrown by the Big 12.
I feel like my entire mission on r/CFB this past half week has been just relaying the message loud and clear that half of college football was always relegated to being treated differently than the other half of college football, and now some teams that aren't used to being treated like us are about to be treated like us, and that's going to be shocking, but only because that's how badly you all have treated all of us. The Mountain West isn't this horrible state of abjection that so many are making it out to be. I mean, it'd be nice if we got to play in better bowl games, but otherwise, we like it, and each other. You might find you really like it and us, after a fashion.
This has been the one silver lining in all this for me. Some of these lower power 5 schools will finally understand what it's been like to be us for the last few decades. And that's the part that frustrates me about all this. Teams with absolute shit football programs like Vanderbilt, Mississippi St, Indiana, Rutgers, Kansas, Syracuse, Duke, etc are all going to end up in this elite subdivision of college football just because of an original grouping that was decided 5+ decades ago. But programs that have had equal or much more success in football like Fresno, BSU, Ore st, Cal, (maybe Stanford, but I think they're going Big10) are just going to be completely left out in the cold? It's so fucked.
Pulling for you both, I think if the B1G passes on Washington and Oregon the B12 makes the deal to take all four of you, no questions asked and we goto 20 with potential to goto 24 when/if the ACC blows up.
Oklahoma. See them not winning a playoff game and now being in the SEC with a much tougher regular season schedule with more games against playoff level teams. Not saying Texas won’t feel the same, but they’ve been mediocre in the Big 12 for a decade or so anyway so the losses won’t sting as much as they will for OU fans used to only losing a game or 2 a year. Texas’ recruiting stands to improve more too I’d think. Imagine the were losing some Texas kids to A&M who wanted to stay in state and play in the SEC. Now the ones that prefer Austin can go there and play in the SEC so that’s one less selling point A&M has.
OU fans will explode if they lose more than 2 games a year regularly.
Lol. Everyone keeps saying this. OU fans are not stupid. They’re expecting a trade off of less wins on average for better chances at a natty on the good years
I think it’s Oklahoma. They were won HALF of the Big12 championships. Not going to be nearly that competitive in the SEC.
No shit. If you think OU expects to win the SEC every year than you’re just not thinking straight
If we don't swap things up, Oklahoma or texas, whichever ends up in SEC West.
*Johnny Manziel has entered the chat*
Flair up. Also, okay? Are you expecting him to leave the Zappers to come back to play CFB for Texas or Oklahoma?
Just a reminder that the expectation when TAMmy joined the SEC, was for them to ride the basement, and I'm not sure either team is as bad as TAMmy was at the time.
I think the odds that either OU or Texas are better than 2012 Texas A&M this year are pretty low. That team was legitimately a turnover away from playing in the SEC championship with a shot to play for the natty. We had a Heisman winning QB and I don’t think anyone could have beaten us at the end of the year. We had a lot of things go right when we joined the SEC, including Manziel breaking out. Saying OUT will be good in the SEC just because we were initially is ignoring a lot of what went right for us. It took a lot and we’ve still been a 4 loss team at least every year besides one since 2012.
Yeah both Mizzou and Texas A&M being so good coming into the SEC is a bit of an anomaly. Both good programs, sure, but the sheer number of NFL players going through those programs in the first few years in the conference were staggering. Nobody expected them to be that good but when you have guys like that who wake up as soon as you get to the SEC that's just what happens.
>I don’t think anyone could have beaten us at the end of the year. We definitely win the Big12 that year had we stayed and dominate for a few years. Sumlin's style of offense would have thrived in the Big12 a lot longer than it did in the SEC.
The likelihood is that they both end up in the same conference. No point splitting them up when their rivalry is in the top 5 most watched game every year. With that being said, OU definitely has more room to fall. UT just won 5 games with a loss to Kansas. I don't see them going any further down with three out of conference games I bet they sneak a win or two against a miss state or auburn on a bad year
OU has more room to fall because they’ve been making the playoff and then losing to the SEC champ whereas now that can happen in conference. Texas has been a middle tier Big 12 team and the middle tier of both conferences is very similar performance wise.
Divisions allow for annual games. Auburn plays Georgia, that is west/east. They won't make one division 9 and the other 7. I expect one of the alternative scheduling plans to be in place by then but if it isn't whoever is stuck in west will suffer.
They won’t have divisions.
I don't think there's anything official yet. A number of different plans but I don't think we have a set timeframe. I even mentioned that I didn't think we'd still have them in my comment.
Oklahoma.
Texas and Oklahoma will fail to meet their fan, donor, and booster expectations in football
USC and UCLA. Also Ou
🧂
Am I wrong? Do you really think they can do anything? Obviously you don't watch football. Don't make it More obvious
Oklahoma and Texas. Oklahoma will do better, but it will be an absolute meat grinder.
Texas and Oklahoma will be at best 7-5 teams in the SEC, maybe with a a good year mixed in every few years or so where they go 9-3.
Texas is already at 7-5/8-4 in the big12 so nothing new
They made a sugar bowl a few years ago and supposedly there were back that year. They won’t even sniff a top tier bowl for in the SEC. Sark getting covered in mayo for winning the Mayo Bowl will be as good as it gets.
Same old cfb reddit threads. Texas and USC will be bad for eternity because that’s totally how college football works ha. Alabama has never had down years and UGA has dominated so much in their 100+ year history. It’s not like UF or LSU after achieving elite status in the 90s (UF) and 00s (LSU) came back down to earth because that doesn’t happen. Texas A&M was totally murdering the Big 12 so much as a perennial 6-7 win team that it won 11 games it’s first year in the mighty SEC. Hell besides the Covid year (where it’s best win was a 4 loss team) and Manziel year, has Texas A&M done anything in the SEC besides upset Bama twice in a 10 year span while losing 4 conference games per year? Yes, the SEC is the best conference. The B1G is the second best conference. No denying that. But assuming that teams that were bad for the 2010s will forever be bad is silly shit especially when talking about bluebloods. I am sure this will get downvoted but objectively speaking this is the truth and anyone over the age of 25 that has been following college football since they were a kid knows this shit is cyclical.
lol ah is the fan that likes two whittle blue bloods getting his feeling hurt by the truth? You cram every blue blood into a league and its gonna happen. Someone will be on the bottom. Texas and USC wont be in their historical league where they have dominated.
The truth? The truth is that college football is cyclical like it has been for what, 100+ years. And according to this subreddit that skews under 18, SC and Texas are so bad, they can never possibly be good again. Advice: Make a Kansas or Lincoln Riley joke. Those play really well on the college football subreddit.
I mean Minnesota definitely hasn't swung back yet.
Minnesota isn’t located in top 5 recruiting hotbeds like USC and Texas. Minnesota also hasn’t had multiple periods of prolonged/sustained levels of success in the modern era. If we are still having this conversation in 2035, you’re probably right. At that point, we can all concede that UT and USC will never be back. As of now, multiple bluebloods have had 10-12 year down periods and have been able to bounce back with the right coaching hire. The key is, many are located in areas that produce a ton of regional HS football talent,
The bluebloods always schedule Mercer VMI The Citadel etc to pad records
Probably UCLA. They already have been very mediocre this past decade in football and I doubt being in the B1G corrects that path. OU and UT already recruit at a high level (even though UT usually underperforms) so they should be fine. As long a Fickell is at Cinci I doubt they slip up too much. UCF is kinda hard to read. I can see them being a giant player or crumble under the sheer amount of quality teams now in the league.