COLUMN: Welcome to the conversation, hypocrites

[jdoggivjc]

Why would the SEC ever go to 9?

They get all the benefit of being the clear best fb conference yet often get to avoid having the toughest schedules. It's brilliant.

This reason:

Not really. The SEC considered a nine game conference schedule this year. They went to ESPN and asked how much additional revenue will you give us for going to 9? Mind you, the large SEC deal was already in place. ESPN said no more $. SEC said OK, we be good with 8.

In other words, if ESPN was willing to pay the SEC more $$$, they would have gladly jumped to 9 in-conference games.

 

[CentexCyclone]

There's no chatter about this right now because each new media deal has been much richer than the last. The B10 is going from ~$60M to about $80M when the new deal kicks in, and the CFP goes back out to market in a few years that might push them towards $100M. It's easy to be happy when your distributions are going up quickly. But I wouldn't be surprised if there are grumblins if their next media deal doesn't give them a 20% or even a 10% bump.

All true about the B1G. But that's also going to throw into sharp relief that there are several, garbage programs in the B1G that have no business making that kind of money just by being easy wins for OSU and UMich. That will either lead to unequal revenue sharing and kicking out bad programs in favor of more proven programs and brands.

 

[Cyrealist]

I think Texas is on the Nebraska glide path into the SEC: perennially over ranked program with delusional fans that is coasting on its past accomplishments into perpetual mediocrity.

Texas will always be a Big Dog in athletic budget and fan support. The current coaching staff has appearances of turning things around. It is a problem that the coaches always have about 100 bosses.

 

[Cyrealist]

That will either lead to unequal revenue sharing and kicking out bad programs in favor of more proven programs and brands.

A couple years ago I'd have said it wasn't in the B1G culture to kick out programs or go to unequal revenue sharing, but it's now crystal clear that today's B$G will do anything for a buck.

 

[cyclonestunners]

So now that we have the 4 corners schools. Which one do you dislike the most and why???

Colorado... because I never forget. Screw the buffs and the first reallignment...and the wins they had over Floyd and eustachy.

 

[jdoggivjc]

A couple years ago I'd have said it wasn't in the B1G culture to kick out programs or go to unequal revenue sharing, but it's now crystal clear that today's B$G will do anything for a buck.

Yeah - 10 years ago, maybe even 5 years ago, I'd buy the "education" part of the equation. But The Big 10 likes to continue to stand on the soap box when they themselves don't even believe what they're preaching anymore - and it starts with them saying AAU membership won't get in their way for adding members in the future..

 

[CentexCyclone]

Texas will always be a Big Dog in athletic budget and fan support. The current coaching staff has appearances of turning things around. It is a problem that the coaches always have about 100 bosses.

The same argument has been made about Texas for the last decade plus. Only once in the last 10 years has Texas finished the season ranked higher than their preseason ranking. My default position with Texas football is "I'll believe it when I see it."

You are right about the problems with the 100 bosses, but that is only the beginning of the entitlement and cultural rot around the UT football program and now they are going into the fire. Hated rival Texas A&M has about a decade head start in raising their level of competitiveness and Texas can only play so many SEC bottom feeders. Maybe the next decade of football mediocrity will finally harm UT's vaunted brand enough for them to actually clean out their cultural deadwood.

 

[t-noah]

Enjoy.

WILLIAMS: Welcome to the conversation, hypocrites

You guys probably think that I love this conference realignment stuff, don't you? I gotta be honest with you. I am not a fan of it. I am fascinated by it. There’s a difference. The mix of sports, politics and the media business is right in my wheelhouse - everything that I love rolled into on

cyclonefanatic.com

Chirs, I will read your column later, but I enjoyed your comments on some of the national media platforms (X, etc) last night. Way to give them a piece of your mind!! They deserved it. And your comments will fall on deaf ears for the most part anyway. But you said what most of us felt!

I'm looking forward to reading your column here.

Is it football yet?

Read it finally, have been gone all day. On a roll Chris! Good article!

 

[deadeyededric]

The same argument has been made about Texas for the last decade plus. Only once in the last 10 years has Texas finished the season ranked higher than their preseason ranking. My default position with Texas football is "I'll believe it when I see it."

You are right about the problems with the 100 bosses, but that is only the beginning of the entitlement and cultural rot around the UT football program and now they are going into the fire. Hated rival Texas A&M has about a decade head start in raising their level of competitiveness and Texas can only play so many SEC bottom feeders. Maybe the next decade of football mediocrity will finally harm UT's vaunted brand enough for them to actually clean out their cultural deadwood.

Texas is a decent head coach away from being on top again. Just because they haven't been successful since Mack left doesn't mean the infrastructure isn't in place to win national championships. They have made some bad coaching hires. Everything is in place there besides that. USC was the same way. It's amazing how fast things can turn around when you hire proven coaches instead of the "hot name" all the time. I don't really buy that A&M is ahead of UT in anything. They have underachieved themselves.

 

[jdoggivjc]

Texas is a decent head coach away from being on top again. Just because they haven't been successful since Mack left doesn't mean the infrastructure isn't in place to win national championships. They have made some bad coaching hires. Everything is in place there besides that. USC was the same way. It's amazing how fast things can turn around when you hire proven coaches instead of the "hot name" all the time. I don't really buy that A&M is ahead of UT in anything. They have underachieved themselves.

I disagree with a lot of what's here. It's not a "decent" coach; it's a "right" head coach. Charlie Strong was a decent head coach who didn't have a prayer of succeeding there from the moment he was hired BECAUSE of that infrastructure there that you tout so much. Because while that infrastructure will give the football team everything it needs to compete, it also meddles like nothing other. And not only do most of Texas' recruits have an entitled attitude from the moment they step foot on campus, that infrastructure only enables the entitled attitude further. In other words, while Texas has every advantage a college program could possibly have, they have a massive culture problem - and one that won't be solved by a "decent" head coach. You'd have to have an excellent football coach that can shut down meddling and manage ego - and outside of a Nick Saban-type coach (which, sorry - Sark ain't it), I'm not sure just any coach can do that at a program like Texas.

And this is all assuming they had stayed in the Big 12. The fact that starting next year they're playing in the SEC is going to make that problem a whole lot worse. If a school like A&M, one that has a lot of the same advantages and problems that Texas has, has only been slightly better than "also ran" at any given time, what makes you think Texas will succeed where they haven't? I mean, there's the reason why there's the joke "if Texas can't win in the Big 12, they might as well head to the SEC and get paid better for not winning" exists.

 

[deadeyededric]

I disagree with a lot of what's here. It's not a "decent" coach; it's a "right" head coach. Charlie Strong was a decent head coach who didn't have a prayer of succeeding there from the moment he was hired BECAUSE of that infrastructure there that you tout so much. Because while that infrastructure will give the football team everything it needs to compete, it also meddles like nothing other. And not only do most of Texas' recruits have an entitled attitude from the moment they step foot on campus, that infrastructure only enables the entitled attitude further. In other words, while Texas has every advantage a college program could possibly have, they have a massive culture problem - and one that won't be solved by a "decent" head coach. You'd have to have an excellent football coach that can shut down meddling and manage ego - and outside of a Nick Saban-type coach (which, sorry - Sark ain't it), I'm not sure just any coach can do that at a program like Texas.

And this is all assuming they had stayed in the Big 12. The fact that starting next year they're playing in the SEC is going to make that problem a whole lot worse. If a school like A&M, one that has a lot of the same advantages and problems that Texas has, has only been slightly better than "also ran" at any given time, what makes you think Texas will succeed where they haven't? I mean, there's the reason why there's the joke "if Texas can't win in the Big 12, they might as well head to the SEC and get paid better for not winning" exists.

A proven coach who can handle the stage. Charlie Strong had zero chance to work there. Every major program has gone through this and it's been solved by hiring a proven commodity. People thought Notre Dame was dead in the 80's too until they hired Lou Holtz. Texas should be looking for a Kyle Whittingham type of guy. Find a guy that is consistently winning at a power-5 school with much less to work with. In the 90's if you don't get Mack Brown you get Frank Beamer. In the 2010's you don't go after Charlie Strong you hire someone like Mark Dantonio from MSU.

 

[intrepid27]

Here's a bit more confirmation that the Utah does not want nor plan to be in Big XII long term. God, I ate them already.

https://www.si.com/college/utah/foo...u-will-be-permanent-hints-at-more-realignment

 

[utahrangerone]

As we’ve seen, the angst comes mostly from not being able to keep up with the Joneses so I think the restlessness would come if the Big10 opens up a financial lead over the SEC or vice versa. The Big10 is trying to recreate the civil war strategy where the North eventually overcomes a bunch of early dominance from the South on the field through higher population and more money.

Once the schools start paying players directly, schools like Auburn won’t be happy if schools like Indiana have a higher salary cap. That’s when they will get the idea that they could keep more money for themselves if they weren’t sharing so much with Vanderbilt.

It will probably start with unequal revenue sharing, pushed through with threats to break away if they don’t get it.

And once these conferences get to be 20 or 24 members, what’s to stop the top half of the league from breaking off to form a new conference? I see lots of people say they won’t because they need the easy wins. But it will probably eventually end up like basketball where you can get into the playoffs even with a losing record in your conference, whereas in lesser conferences you need to either win it or go undefeated to get an auto bid. I mean, theoretically UNI has an easier path to the NCAA tourney because they have an easier conference but neither Iowa nor ISU would want to switch places with them. On the contrary, ISU fans take great pride in playing in the toughest conference and are generally happy even if they have a losing conference record as long as they get a tourney bid.

It may take 20 years but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Big10 and SEC each goes to 24 members and then back to four conferences of 12 each if the upper class in each conference eventually ditches the middle class teams.

Your comment about the top half of the mega conference splitting off to form a new one is ***EXACTLY*** what happened to the very first mega conference - the WAC16 in the late 90s. Utah, TCU, BYU, Colorado State, Air Force, etc all bailed to create the Mountain West. Who could have imagined the MWC outlasting the PAC??

 

[KnappShack]

Your comment about the top half of the mega conference splitting off to form a new one is ***EXACTLY*** what happened to the very first mega conference - the WAC16 in the late 90s. Utah, TCU, BYU, Colorado State, Air Force, etc all bailed to create the Mountain West. Who could have imagined the MWC outlasting the PAC??

The big WAC seems like a cautionary tale in a few ways, but I'm sure history never repeats itself.

 

[utahrangerone]

Here's a bit more confirmation that the Utah does not want nor plan to be in Big XII long term. God, I ate them already.

https://www.si.com/college/utah/foo...u-will-be-permanent-hints-at-more-realignment

are you truly so simpleminded as to take one interview with KW musing over possibilities as any sort of concrete speculation for the future? Frankly it's more likely BYU will bail or get booted once the conference gets to deal with their special brand of garbage - think Baylor, but with the insufferableness that only the "True Believers" in BYU core homeland of greater Provo bring to town. As blowhardy as Southern Baptists and Evangelicals can be, they don't hold a candle to the indescribable "stepford Wives" groupthink of that BYU core fandom.

Go ahead, I dare oyu to spend any amount of time browsing Cougarboard once the season is actively engaged.

 

[utahrangerone]

FWIW: I think OU is going to be the Wisconsin of the SEC: perennially solid program that occasionally makes a run at the conference championship, but never truly challenges to top dogs for on- or off-field supremacy of the conference.

I think Texas is on the Nebraska glide path into the SEC: perennially over ranked program with delusional fans that is coasting on its past accomplishments into perpetual mediocrity.

you just described BYU post WAC/MWC... 40 years later still bragging about winning the voting popularity contest, without actually proving much on the field.. Especially the team they beat to end the season.

 

[BCClone]

are you truly so simpleminded as to take one interview with KW musing over possibilities as any sort of concrete speculation for the future? Frankly it's more likely BYU will bail or get booted once the conference gets to deal with their special brand of garbage - think Baylor, but with the insufferableness that only the "True Believers" in BYU core homeland of greater Provo bring to town. As blowhardy as Southern Baptists and Evangelicals can be, they don't hold a candle to the indescribable "stepford Wives" groupthink of that BYU core fandom.

Go ahead, I dare oyu to spend any amount of time browsing Cougarboard once the season is actively engaged.

Way to come across as a jackwagon right away. Fits what we have seen from the skin flUtes already.

 

[utahrangerone]

Utah, but they’re still second to BYU. Package those two along with Baylor to their own subdivision.

Utah is in NO WAY 2nd to BYU, except on the occasional year when their overall athletics results might be collectively better. They got a ridiculously false and inflated propaganda boost from the weakness of NCAA football around the pandemic era, when they played how many truly weakened teams? I would be embarrassed to try and talk big about a good record in those circumstances. They then showed after the insanity of a top 10 ranking that they would proceed to crap the bad shortly thereafter. The various pollsters should have been hiding in shame at that collective stupidity.

As regards their overall athletic performance, their volleyball programs are hella strong for sure, but then Utah is the dominant forec in NCAA skiing for example. Even when BYU went to that religious league for Basketball, they couldnt effectively dominate it, even with the huge enrollment advantage and the LDS church backing them.

 

[utahrangerone]

Way to come across as a jackwagon right away. Fits what we have seen from the skin flUtes already.

Believe me, calling someone out for the insanity of taking one media post as some sort of gospel truth is hardly "being a jackwagon", especially when that ridiculous hot take is used to bash someone, when there hasnt even been any actual athletic activity yet.. Call me names if you must, won't change the validity of what I said.

 

[Cloneon]

Believe me, calling someone out for the insanity of taking one media post as some sort of gospel truth is hardly "being a jackwagon", especially when that ridiculous hot take is used to bash someone, when there hasnt even been any actual athletic activity yet.. Call me names if you must, won't change the validity of what I said.

Your tone sounds like you're hanging onto some emotional baggage. That type of stuff always comes across poorly. Just sayin.