The Big XII After Ten Years: Winners and Losers
34 comments so far
May 18, 2006 by
It has been ten years since the Big XII began play in 1996. The impact of the addition of the former Southwest Conference Schools to the Big 8 has been made in all sports. Looking at it through just the football lens (I’m a Nebraskan, after all), enough time has passed to see who gained and who lost from this alliance. So here’s an alphabetical look at each school and how their football team has fared.
Baylor
This one’s easy. Baylor went to 8 bowl games in the sixteen seasons preceding Big XII play. In the last six seasons of Southwest conference play, Baylor tied for first once, tied for second four times, and tied for fourth (out of 8 teams) once. Since Big XII play has begun Baylor has finished in last place in the Big XII South every year until 2005 (where they were 5th out of the 6 South teams). Verdict: Loser
Colorado
In the seven seasons prior to the formation of the Big XII, the Buffaloes finished first or second in the Big 8 every year and was ranked in every final AP Poll over than span (they also played for two national championships, winning once).
In their second season of conference play, the Buffs finished 5-6 with a loss at home to A&M being the difference between being bowl eligible and staying home.
In 1998, the Buffs lost to every Big XII North schools but Iowa State but went 8-4 with wins over OU, Baylor, and Texas Tech and were spared seeing Oklahoma State (a team that beat the Buffs the year before).
In 2001, the Buffs split two meetings with Texas but won the Big XII after avoiding defending national champs OU.
In 2003, the Buffs finished 5-7 with losses to Texas Tech and and Baylor, one win from bowl eligibility.
In 2004, CU’s losses to Texas and Texas A&M kept the Buffs out of the final AP rankings.
Then again in 2005, CU’s two losses to Texas (including a 70-3 embarrasment in the Big XII championship game) were likely also the difference between being ranked and unranked. Verdict: Loser
Iowa State
It’s hard to imagine a scenario worse than ISU’s streak from bowl free streak from 1979-1995 (that actually continued through 1999). So it’s not hard to imagine how ISU has seen better days as a member of the Big XII than the Big 8.
In 1997, ISU’s homecoming win over Baylor was its only victory of the season.
In 2000, the Cyclones added a win over Baylor to seven other regular season wins which propelled them to a 9-3 season and a Top 25 ranking. That year, they were spared playing the national championship Sooners (though they did lose to Texas A&M).
In 2001, a win over Baylor kept them from needing their I-AA exemption to be bowl eligible as ISU lost an Independence Bowl game to Alabama.
In 2002, ISU climbed to a #9 midseason ranking after a win over Texas Tech, but after a 49-3 embarrasment at the hands of the Sooners their season quickly fell apart.
After a disastrous 2003 (no Baylor on the schedule), ISU turned things around in 2004 halting an early 3-game losing streak with a win over (you guessed it) Baylor. The Cyclones limped to bowl eligibility (using I-AA exemptions – thank you again Baylor) and eked out a win over Miami of Ohio in the Independence Bowl.
In 2005 and holding a head-to-head advantage over Colorado, the Cyclones needed only to beat Kansas to win the Big XII North. The Cyclones lost in overtime but were still in position to win a title (of any kind) for the first time in 46 years. Verdict: Winner
Kansas
The Jayhawks suffered through a decade of futility in the 1980’s but by 1991 things were turning around. From 1991-1995, head coach Glen Mason would lead the ‘Hawks to 4 winning seasons including 2 bowl wins and 2 final AP rankings in the Top 25 (and one in the Top 10). After one losing season in the Big XII, Mason departed and the Jayhawks went without a bowl seven straight seasons before finally getting to one in 2003.
Their 6 win 2003 squad managed a Tangerine Bowl berth.
Their 7-5 2005 campaign included a 30-17 loss to Texas Tech and a 66-14 humiliation at the hands of the Longhorns. It’s quite possible KU could have gone 9-3 without those two teams on the schedule and climbed back into the final rankings. Verdict: Loser
Kansas State
Prior to 1991, their 3rd season under coach Bill Snyder, the Wildcats had made it to exactly one bowl game in their history. Beginning in 1993, they went to eleven straight Bowl games. The 1995 squad finished #7 nationally and was only KSU’s second 10-win team and first in eighty-five years.
Between 1997 and 2003, the Wildcats put together 6 seasons of eleven wins or more yet only managed two BCS bowl appearances in that span. In KSU’s first two seasons in the Big XII, their only conference losses were to Nebraska and Colorado.
In 1998, an undefeated KSU squad lost a double-overtime thriller to Texas A&M that kept them from a national championship game appearance (and a BCS bowl).
In 1999, only a loss to Nebraska kept KSU out of the Big XII title game (and a BCS bowl). The Wildcats lost again to Texas A&M in 2000, along with a pair of losses to OU which sent KSU to the Cotton Bowl.
In 2001, losses to Texas Tech and A&M contributed to a disappointing 6-6 campaign.
The 2002 squad lost only to Texas and Colorado and played in the Holiday Bowl.
In 2003, KSU won the Big XII (despite 3 midseason losses, including one to Texas).
The 2004 squad finished 4-7, with losses to Texas Tech and A&M keeping them from bowl eligibility.
Then again in 2005, losses to the same two schools kept the Wildcats from going bowling. Verdict: Loser
Missouri
Coming into the Big XII, the Tigers hadn’t had a winning season in 12 years. The debuted in 1996 with a 5-6 record and a loss to Texas (but also a win over Baylor). In 1997 the Tigers went 7-5 and went to the Holiday Bowl thanks to wins over the Longhorns and Bears and garnered a #23 final AP ranking.
In 1998, the team managed to go 8-4 and a #21 final AP ranking, though they split games with Texas Tech and Texas A&M.
After four losing seasons, Missouri earned an Independence Bowl bid in part due to wins over Tech and A&M in 2003.
The 2005 season ended with an Independence Bowl win, thanks to a win over Baylor. While there have been bowl near misses, the Tigers have managed to beat at least one former Southwest Conference team each season. Verdict: Winner
Nebraska
Upsets by Texas in 1996 and 1999 cost Nebraska appearances in the national championship game. In 1997 the blowout of A&M in the Big XII title game may have helped the Huskers claim a share of the national championship and Nebraska likely would not have snuck into the 2001 Rose Bowl with out a Big XII title game pitting CU versus Texas.
The 1998 season might have been only a 1 or 2 loss affair without the losses to Texas and A&M.
The 2004 season would have been much less painful without the shocking 70-10 loss to Texas Tech (and might have kept the bowl streak alive).
The 2005 season also included a heartbreaking loss to Texas Tech. Verdict: Loser
Oklahoma
The Oklahoma program was reeling by the mid 1990’s. The founding of the Big XII gave the Sooners a welcome hiatus from playing the then-fearsome trio of Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas State every season and also gave OU some early victories over teams like Texas, Baylor, and Texas Tech as they were rebuilding.
The team took a major step forward in 1999 (a year that did not include KSU or NU) and won a national championship the following year.
Not until 2005, was a former Southwest conference team responsible for keeping OU from winning a conference title, and even then the Sooners would have had 3 losses (TCU, UCLA, and Texas, who the Sooners played every year even before the Big XII was founded). Verdict: Winner
Oklahoma State
The Cowboys were hardly rolling coming into Big XII play, but nevertheless the losses they took in 1996, 1998, and 1999 to former Southwest Conference teams likely kept the out of bowls. Then in bowl seasons of 2003 and 2004 their former-SWC losses likely kept them out of the final rankings. Verdict: Loser
Texas
The Longhorns had underachieved prior to joining the Big XII but scored a big upset over Nebraska in 1996 to win the initial conference crown. Three losses to former Big 8 schools kept the ‘Horns from bowling in 1997 and a loss to KSU in 1998 kept the ‘Horns from winning the Big XII South over Texas A&M.
After upsetting the #3 Huskers in 1999, the Longhorns lost a rematch in the conference title game. Likewise the Longhorns lost a chance to play for the national championship in 2001 after losing to CU in a rematch.
Since that game, the only former Big 8 team to beat Texas has been the Sooners (who played Texas every year anyway).
Assuming the former SWC would have been a BCS eligible conference (so seasons like 2000, and 2002-2005 are all a wash), you have to think despite the ‘Horns recent success that the 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2001 seasons go down in the “loss� column. Verdict: Loser
Texas A&M
The Aggies rattled off six straight nine-plus win seasons including three conference championships just prior to joining the Big XII and have had only two nine win seasons and a single conference title in the ten years since. With the exception of Kansas, every former Big 8 team has beaten the Aggies in conference play and many (OU, NU, MU, CU, KSU) have done it more than once. Verdict: Loser
Texas Tech
While the records don’t look all that different prior to the Big XII and since, the Red Raiders have taken their share of beatings at the hands of former Big 8 teams. Tech shared a pair of SWC titles in their history but have yet to even tie for the best record in the Big XII South.
While big wins over schools like Nebraska have been nice, this team remains seemingly perpetually stuck in the middle of the pack. Verdict: Loser
Clearly, from a pure football standpoint, playing in a tougher neighborhood doesn’t help teams improve their chances of winning conference or national championships.
So why do it?
It has to be about the money. Even then, KSU and Texas may have lost out on huge windfalls from missing out on national championship games. But for rank and file schools (e.g. ISU, Mizzou), the guaranteed paychecks from sitting in a conference with lots of bowl agreements and a yearly championship game makes all the sense in the world (not to mention adding Baylor to your schedule).
So while the merger of the two former conferences probably makes it tougher for any team to build a dynasty, it did create a more competitive league. And shouldn’t that have been the goal all along?
Related: A K-State blogger analyzes the first decade of the Big 12 from a win/loss perspective
Update: Others are debating this topic here and here.
Update #2: The KC Star provides some additional numbers
Did you enjoy this article?
Get Husker news by email
Follow us on Twitter
Related Stories: Big XII
Post a comment
Thomas May 18 06
Great article. As a K-Stater, I think there have been a lot of great things that have come out of the formation of the Big 12. There have also been some negative impact. The most glaring as a KSU fan would be our 2OT loss to A&M in 1998 that kept us out of the National Championship game. The league championship has cost the Big 12 teams 3 slots in National Championship games and I think it is a disadvantage that we have one when most conferences do not.
That being said, we had a 15 point lead going into the 4th quarter of that game and blew it.
It would be interesting if you had a crystal ball if you could look back and see how many Big 8 Championships KSU would have won if there had never been a Big 12... hhhmmmmm
Brett May 18 06
In 10 years of Big 12 play Texas has 2 outright conference titles in football and has played for two more.
In the 10 years before the change Texas had 2 outright conference titles in football and tied for another.
You should try some consistency.
Hsker Chris May 18 06
Wow,
only 3 winners out of the BIG12. I'm still not sure what Criteria you used to decide a winner or a loser, but it is pretty much a fact that both the big 8 and to a larger extend the SWC were going to be extinct if something had not been done....
Man, I'd like to see you do this same analysis with the SEC. I don't think you would find a single winner (using your analysis above) by being in the SEC. Hell, it is the best conference, as a sum of many good parts, in the nation, but each team Georgia, Auburn, etc... probably will never win their conference as much as they would if they were in a lesser conference such as the old big 8 or swc. Meanwhile the big12 which has not been a success in your books (9 losers, 3 winners) has been very successful in bowls and plays in the National championship more than any conference in the nation.
Hell, Without the conference championship game as mentioned above, we would have at least 3 more national championship game appearances that the big 12 could have played for...
Hsker
Sangre N May 18 06
It's hard to imagine how anybody could suggest Texas has been a loser since the formation of the Big XII. Joining this conference forced Deloss Dodds and UT to step up or become an afterthought. I'd say we stepped up in a big way. In 1996 we were viewed as a faltering traditional power (much like Nebraska today, only we'd had the monkey on our backs for a significantly longer time) that couldn't hold on to the label of best team in Texas, let alone a national power. Since we jettisoned Mackovic and hired Brown, we have two conference titles, a Heisman winner, a Heisman runner-up, two BCS bowl victories, with one of those being the National Championship, and have returned to the limelight as one of the premiere programs in the land.
If that is your recipe for losing, well then you can label me a loser and I'll happily take it.
Steve May 18 06
Thanks for the comments guys. I thought about making it a zero-sum thing (i.e. equal winners and losers) but then I felt that steers you toward things the record doesn't bear out.
With each program I attempted to answer the question how might the last ten years have gone if they had played in their old conference and were free to schedule any extra games as they pleased. I also didn't try to handicap whether the old conferences would last (the assumption is that they would have). I don't think we'd get too many arguments about most of the schools but I was definitely torn by Texas (a school that's had a good ten years and a great 2005, but I believe it could have had a better ten years if they'd been spared some of the losses they took in the first six years, I could even make a stronger argument if one would speculate that they opt out of some games vs. OU). I could go real far afield and speculate about whether they would have brought in Mack Brown etc. but this exercise was really about the schedules pre-Big XII vs. post-Big XII.
As I alluded to, a lot of the national championship hardware has gone to teams with easier schedules. OU, CU, and Nebraska benefited from the lack of competition top to bottom in the Big 8 over the years, just as Penn State, Notre Dame, and Miami benefited from years as independents and FSU from joining a weak (initially) ACC and Miami a weak Big East.
A squad like 1995 Nebraska would cruise against any schedule and a team like last year's Texas squad took care of business pretty easily in a tougher conference than the old SWC (though notice it was a year where no other Big XII team was in the final Top 10).
No Texas fan should be unhappy with where there team sits today, but if next year is a lackluster year, it's a good bet it will be because of some tough conference games. Since losses usually hurt a team in college more than wins help (in terms of rankings and post-season opportunities) the extra losses conference teams have taken make things net out negative for most teams.
achooloco May 18 06
you had me until you said that the criteria for the schools (W v. L) was if they had been in the B12 or not. Fact is, Texas is where it is because it is appealing to recruits like V.Young and others who want to star in big time games/programs and can now do so without leaving the state/going far from home. Thus the decline of FSU, ND, Mich and even Big Red since the majority of top shelf talent now goes to either OU or TX. No one can raid the state anymore and the "left overs" head to other B12 schools such as OSU, A&M, etc. Texas is a winner because they would not have reached this level in the Pac10 and maybe possible in the SEC but then, the schedule would probably be just as hard as the B12 thus negating your entire thesis.
Gil Z May 18 06
The fallacy of your argument with regard to Texas is you fail to appreciate what being in the Big 12 has done for Texas athletics. The SWC was an albatross around Texas's neck. Kids were leaving for out-of-state schools in droves. Now, in both football and basketball, the top talent routinely stays in-state. There is no question that the Big 12 was like winning the lottery for Texas athletics. There is no way they would be where they are today were they still in the old SWC.
Hayduke May 18 06
All-time standings from 1996-2006 (Jan.)
Conference*:
(1) Texas 62-18
(2) Neb 56-24
(3) OU 55-25
(4) KSU 53-27
*Does not include conference championship games. OU 3-2, Nebraska 2-1, Texas 2-2, KSU 1-2.
All games:
(1) Texas 95-30 .760
(2) Neb 97-31 .757
(3) KSU 91-35 .722
(4) OU 87-38 .696
National titles: Nebraska 1, OU 1, Texas 1.
Yep, those Longhorns are losers by any measure.
Hayduke May 18 06
Not to mention that Texas is the ONLY team in the conference to have beaten every other team both at home and on the road (with the obvious exception of OU, whom they've only beaten at a neutral site).
Hayduke May 18 06
And not to mention the fact that Texas was 67-48-2 in the ten years immediately before they entered the Big 12.
Andrew May 18 06
Steve,
Let me just say that with articles like this, you're on your way to bigger and better things in regards to your career. Great piece of work.
TK May 19 06
Well, you certainly got people to look at the article, which helps with ad revenue.
Steve May 19 06
Achooloco and GilZ,
Simple difference of opinion. I partied in Austin in the SWC days. If you can't recruit to Austin, you can't recruit anywhere. Failures to recruit can't be blamed on the SWC. It falls on the coaches. No one will ever really know if Mack Brown could have been lured to Texas. I think he could have been since football in Texas is supported in a way it isn't in North Carolina (even in the SWC days) . Sure Mackovic might have survived in the easier SWC and then you'd lose out on Mack Brown, then again a 66-3 loss to UCLA can't sit well with alumni even if 1997 had been a better season.
Hayduke,
Good numbers and bonus points for showing your work. Remember though, this is all about how things are relative to the SWC. I don't think you can blame the conference for Texas' worse record back then. Take a quick glance at the fortunes of Houston, Rice, SMU, and TCU in the last 5 to 10 years of SWC play. Texas could have racked up easy win after easy win over those guys. Instead the Longhorns had to stomach these losses (ignoring some losses to OU):
1996 @ Colorado
1997 @ Oklahoma State
1997 @ Missouri
1997 Colorado
1998 @ K-State (costing Texas a conference title shot)
1999 K-State
1999 Nebraska in Big XII Championship (another conference title down the drain)
2001 Colorado in Big XII Championship (yet another conference title lost and a national championship game or major bowl out the window)
2002 Conference loss to OU costs Big XII title shot
2003 Conference loss to OU costs Big XII title shot and major bowl appearance
2004 Conference loss to OU costs Big XII title shot
Maybe those 11 specific examples are easy to overlook in the afterglow of the Rose Bowl, but I think Texas would have been better off winning as many as six more conference titles and playing in more big bowls.
Andrew,
I feel the love, brother.
TK,
Shhhh. Our secret (wink).
Darren May 19 06
UT fans,
Thanks for such a lively debate. I really hope this sort of discussion can be the norm this season. NU's game with the Horns is one everybody is pointing to around here.
The simple contention here is that we believe schools like UT and NU would have won a higher percentage of games in their old conferences, and maybe have kept certain coaches employed. There is no denying that in the last 5 years of the conference, UT has won lots of Big 12 games, and even a title. (as did NU in the first 5 years). Winning is winning.
But, I don't have to get much farther than mentioning OU after Stoops arrival to see that you could have won more conference championships absent the Sooners. Just like NU would have benefited from not getting locked in a box with the likes of UT, A&M and (recently) TTech.
There has been a high cost of membership in the Big 12, certainly.
KSU CAT May 19 06
Hayduke. Check your stats. Kstate has beaten every conference team home and away. Picked up wins against all teams home and away by the end of the 1999 season with the exception of Nebraska in Lincoln. That win came in 2003.
Hayduke May 19 06
KSU Cat, my apologies. But as you can see, beating everybody home and away isn't a very big deal -- nor is having impressive credentials.
Darren and Steve, by your criteria, it's logical ... but it's a hypothetical that makes no sense. Had the SWC stayed together and Texas begun to win again, as you said, they would have continued playing in the Cotton Bowl, an old-guard, "major" bowl ... a New Year's Day game. But the landscape changed -- all of it. Conferences realigned, the BCS was born, the money grew, and things were different. They were intricately related.
You can't pick and choose your hypotheticals with such wanton disregard for logical outcomes of those hypotheticals. Your definitions are tortured. Your expectations for a team that's outperformed all others both financially and in terms of overall wins are astounding. You expect more than most Texas fans ... and that, gentlemen, is the most astounding thing of all.
steve May 19 06
Hayduke,
Well said about the number of meaningful variables in the equation. If you go throwing money in the mix then you might have 12 winners, because as a business decision joining the Big XII was pretty much a no-brainer all around. As fans why do we care about balance sheets, though? If you throw other sports in the mix then we Nebraskans stop caring (sorry, it's just who we are) so that's not the lens I used. Right or wrong.
I agree that the Cotton Bowl was sinking into obscurity, but a strong run (as would have been possible for Texas in the SWC) over several years would elevate the status of that bowl. Remember that in 1990, Georgia Tech won a national championship in the Citrus Bowl of all places. It's a matter of getting it done in the regular season and a team that's 11-0 or 10-1 is going to get national championship votes if they win their bowl game even if it's not the Rose Bowl. The SWC was still considered by most to be better than all of the other conferences that got left out of the BCS (plus the ratings whores at the networks would want Texas television households in the mix). It's not a huge stretch to have Texas winning 7-8 conference crowns in the last 10 years when you look at their record and as a fan I'd enjoy that a lot more than only 2 even if it is in a more prestigious conference.
TurdofDoom May 19 06
Texas is a HUGE winner.
1. Without the merge our recruiting wouldnt be near what it is.
2. Texas has just about the best won loss record of any team in any conference over the last 10 years.
3. We just won the f`ing national championship.
You are a terrible analist.
Steve May 19 06
TOD,
First, nice handle. It suggests you might be the expert on what exactly an "analist" is. As to your points:
1. I disagree. Recruiting is about personality and salesmanship. Yes the product matters, but the vast majority of Longhorn recruits come from in-state and the SWC would have still been on TV for them all to see. Austin is a great town that sells itself. I believe Mack Brown could pull in top classes in the SWC without breaking a sweat.
2. Don't hurt yourself, but imagine what that record might be with 8 fewer losses and speed bumps like SMU and Rice on the schedule.
3. A national championship? Really? I must have missed it. No Texas fan seems willing to mention that. Do you remember 2001? Without Colorado on the schedule Texas could now have two national championships in the past ten years (assuming CU would have lost to OU that year). Doubtful perhaps, considering how good that Miami squad was but not impossible. Last I heard, two was greater than one.
Mike Leach May 19 06
Your comments on Texas Tech losing since joining the big 12 are not only uninformed, they are laughable. Tech has layed down many, many more beatdowns on the old Big 8 teams than it has taken, especially in the past few years. Tech will only continue this trend as pending beatdowns are in store for Mizzou this year and also Colorado in 2006.
OU is the only ex-big 8 team that has consistently beaten Tech and they have done that to pretty much everyone.
Steve May 19 06
ML,
Tech was another tough call given how little they had to look back on prior to the Big XII. But they did win the SWC in 1994 and so far after ten seasons have yet to win or tie for their division. Tech was better off as a bigger fish in a smaller pond.
That said, I think you're a great coach Mike! ;)
Longyak May 19 06
All the best players in the SWC were being paid in the mid to late 80s. The resulting probations and death penalty killed that conference. Without the Big 12, and the exposure of playing those former Big 8 teams, all the top Texas talent would have continued to go out of state and Texas would not be where it is today. Remember all those Texas kids in the 90s at ND, the Florida schools, OU, and even Nebraska?
Sangre N May 19 06
Had we remained in the SWC, I do not think we would have been able to hire Mack Brown. The SWC, as noted earlier, was an albatross. Yes, winning the conference title against the likes of TCU, SMU, Baylor, Rice, and worst of all Aggy, would be a walk in the park IF we had a team loaded with talent like ours currently is.
The issue is, with that load of pansies on the schedule (almost every game in the state of Texas), a crappy TV deal, and a supreme lack of respect from the media, would we have been able to bring in a coach who had UNC on the cusp of national championships? I don't believe so. And it follows we would not have reeled in the talent we currently enjoy.
From that I conclude had Texas stayed in the old SWC, we might have more conference titles under our belts, but I highly doubt we would have the national title or anywhere near the number of top 10 finishes we have enjoyed during our time in the Big XII.
The Big XII served as the platform from which we have ascended into the upper echelon of college football. We could have done it in the SWC, but most probably wouldn't have due to no Mack Brown, and therefore no lights-out recruiting .
steve May 20 06
Longyak,
Good points, but everyone did and still does recruit in Texas - it's a huge state with tons of Div I caliber players! There's no shortage of All-Americans and All-SWC players that went to Texas under Mackovic or McWilliams before the Big XII had started (Ricky Williams and Priest Holmes are a couple of studs that come to mind).
SangreN,
Going all the way back to 1984, Texas managed to play on TV at least 8 games a year according to the mackbrown-texasfootball website. That's better than most any other team can claim over that span. Even if it was just regional broadcasts nearly all of the players recruited at Texas are from in-state even to this day and could have seen most games. I agree there was a lack of respect for the old SWC but that was in large part because every team seemed to lose at least 3 to 4 games a year. When Texas started winning more bowl games, the respect would have increased (like if they'd beaten Miami in the Cotton Bowl or V-Tech in the Sugar Bowl). I believe all of that was possible in the SWC. But since that's not how things played out, none of us will ever really know. Don't underestimate what a 3rd rate situation it is to be the head coach at North Carolina. Most of the dollars coming in go to basketball. You can never win big there. Texas always had that potential, in the SWC or even if they wanted to go off as an independent.
TurdofDoom May 20 06
Analist is a joke. I was trying to make fun of you and I guess I failed.
As to point number 1. You are dead wrong. The SWC was a joke and stud Texas athletes did not want to play in it. The TV deal was crappy (raycom i think) and everyone was on probation. Would recruiting have been better with Mack as opposed to Mackovic? Sure. Mack would have never come here if Texas had been in the SWC so it doesnt really matter.
Now you might want to point to Texas A&M and the run they had as evidence that the SWC was feasable on a national level but that run was all cheating and smoke and mirrors. When A&m played a bowl they got their butts kicked.
As far as the obvious "texas just won the national championship" I said it because I was floored you would call a team a loser over the last ten years when all they did during that time was build to an undisputed national title. It just makes no sense you would do that. All I can come up with is you are a bitter Husker fan. NU and the rest of those north schools seem to be the only losers in this merge. I guess if I were a Husker fan I would hate Texas too. What you had was pretty special, its not coming back, and Texas had alot to do with it.
Hayduke May 20 06
Okay, then. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that your criteria are good ones for determining winners and losers. Who, then, are the national winners and losers? Go ahead and take a look at today's ACC, PAC-10, Big 10, and SEC. Tell us who the winners and losers are, and just disregard all the circumstances that have changed since the inception of superconferences.
I suspect you're going to say Vandy, Washington State, Minnesota and Virginia Tech and USC. And that everybody else is a loser.
The trouble is that you'll still have Texas sitting at the top with the best record over the last five years and a bucketload of money. And all of this is still without looking at the overall impact of the Big XII on all sports at Texas. The Horns were ranked the best program in the country over Stanford -- perennial winner of that crazy all-sports trophy -- and that was BEFORE winning another baseball and football championship.
Sure, we see your point. The Big XII is NOT good for Texas, regardless of what the media, the athletic powers that be, the board of regents, and the fans think. The Horns should have won more, and they should have made more. But tell us ... who else were all these mergers good for? In your historical vacuum, your parallel universe where the SWC still exists, where do Georgia Tech and Cal rate?
C'mon ... we've got the whole off-season.
BIG 12 is not just Football May 20 06
wow, what an incredibly myopic view of a 12 team conference competing in countless sports.
The only loser I see is the one who thinks only football matters, but then being from sCorn I can imagine it's all you've got to hang your sorry hat on. Certainly you wouldn't want to bring in the other sports like baseball (Baylor, UT, NU), Basketball (KU, UT, OU), or even wrestling (a bone for the cowboys, yeah I know you play roundball too, but get back to me after a few years of the sean era)
Basing your "winners" and "losers" only on football also displays your utter lack of knowledge. UT may have won a few more conferences in the SWC, but present-day relevancy of the Cotton Bowl demonstrates that all SWC teams in the Big 12 came out winners, just ask TCU, Houston, SMU, and Rice.
Since you are corn, I'll forgive your lack of understanding as simply a byproduct of a Huckster education. In truth, the only real loser from the creation of the Big 12 is Nebraska who saw their faux superiority complex come crashing down as the expanded playing field and leveling of academic qualifiers made their beloved football machine a pitiful joke. Since the formation of the Big 12 and the BCS system, only OU and UT can claim themselves as winners in football. The rest are just playing for sloppy seconds.
Bob Devaney May 20 06
My poor, poor, misguided fool. Perhaps this is why the NU football program has fallen to such depths.
My dear man, I must protest that you have absolutely no understanding of the game, the programs, or the conference.
All football programs have benefited from the creation of the Big 12...all of them. The only real question is who has risen the most and the farthest.
UT as reigning nat'l champ (something they last did when I was coaching) and OU just a few years removed, are without a doubt, currently head and shoulders above the rest. The winner of the RRS will again have the inside lane to the BCS CG.
The only program that could possibly be viewed as being in worse shape than preB12 is NU, and "frank"ly the program got what it deserved. But even NU should be seen as a winner from the creation of the B12, primarily because had NU suffered their crash landing in the B8, it would have been at least a decade before being competitive with B8 CU, KSU(assuming Snyder still rules), and OU. Perhaps you young Huskers forget that prior to the mid-90's run, NU had been second and/or third fiddle in the B8 for a long time.
Please for Osborne's sake, stop blaming others for your own misfortune. The elimination of pre-qualifiers highlighted the academically insufficient base on which NU had created their dynasty. The treatment of Frank and his staff betrayed the myth of Husker fans being "the most respectful, knowledgeable fans in college football"
The whining and temper tantrums thrown by the Husker Nation towards UT, OU, B12 officials or anyone bored enough to listen has turned the outsider's view of the program from respect to laughingstock. Stop casting blame for your misfortune, when it is the attitudes and behaviors of NU fans that have brought about the current situation. Please find a little respect before it's too late and you become the TX A&M of the North.
Chris May 20 06
UT has the best record in college football over the last five years. Over the last NINE years Mack is ONE game behind Bobby Bowden for winningest coach in college football. MB has the best coaching start in UT history. MB is the only coach in UT history to win 11 games in back to back seasons (01 11-2, 02 11-2, 04 11-1, 05 13-0)MB is the only coach in UT history to win 10+ in five (and counting) straight seasons. Mack Brown has put 40 UT players in the NFL
During B12:
One Heisman/One Runner-Up
Two Conf Champ/Two CG losses
One Natl Champ
And that's just one sport. Losers.
Baseball: 2 National Titles, a 2nd and 4th place finish @ UT-Omaha in last five years. Two CWS MVP's
Basketball: One Final Four, Two Elite 8, 4 Sweet 16's, Wooden POY, multiple B12 POY.
I won't speak for other schools, but I can only imagine that if you are anywhere as wrong about them as you are about UT, then this entire exercise is an extreme waste of bandwidth and only serves to solidify the belief that anyone with a keyboard and a severe case of the stupids can publish on the internet.
steve May 20 06
TOD,
Take a moment and peruse the All-Americans and Longhorns in the NFL sections of mackbrown-texasfootball.com and you'll see that there was no shortage of stud athletes in the program prior to the Big XII or Mack Brown. The fact that the 'Horns didn't win anything with those athletes while a bit of a mystery cannot be blamed on the conference.
If you think that Texas could not have won a national championship without the Big 8 merger, that's your prerogative. I disagree.
Hayduke, Big 12...Football, & blasphemer of the great bringer of championships,
This piece was about the Big XII and its impact on the football fortunes of the teams in that conference. It's not about money. It's not about other sports. As I've said before, if we make it about cash, everyone wins and why even bother. I follow football, I don't follow college hoops or anything else with near as much interest so I didn't try to fake my way through an article the way we've seen the media this week pretend to care about horse racing.
The fact that there are so many losers is an indictment of the current non-playoff system. College football rewards you for avoiding tough games. I didn't create that situation, but I don't choose to ignore it either.
Chris,
I've said Texas fans can be happy about the last 10 years. But, I'd be happier with 8 conference titles and 2 national championships than 2 conference titles and 1 national championship (which by the way, is what Nebraska has too, and you can check the verdict there if you doubt my intellectual honesty). If UT fans want to say you couldn't recruit or would somehow have been shut out of major bowls in the SWC, I say you're not looking closely at the pre-Big XII talent they were bringing in and you underestimate the TV money the networks would be throwing at a strong Texas team. There were a lot of TV's in Texas and a lot of Texas fans around the country even before Mack Brown. Mack Brown would understand that without there being a Big XII.
Hayduke May 20 06
"The fact that there are so many losers is an indictment of the current non-playoff system."
Thanks for enlightening us on the "facts." Now will you come around and revise all my dictionaries for me? Because they've got most of the words wrong; their definitions don't match yours.
Tell us this, as well: if BCS football is such a losing proposition, and everybody sucks so badly, why are you doing a web site about it?
You can't have this both ways. If you're going to redefine the term "loser" based on your understanding of what coulda, shoulda, woulda been, then go ahead and extend your examination to the rest of big-time football. It's not like you're limited by space or time constraints -- this is, after all, the Internet.
You say you won't do it because this is only about the Big XII. I say you won't do it because you're afraid of where your own argument might take you.
Steve May 21 06
HD,
Let me give you some examples. Florida State and Miami both built programs basically from scratch as independents. All it took was good geography for recruiting (Texas has that) and a strong personality to recruit (see Bowden, Schnellenberger, and Jimmy Johnson). Those teams didn't need big-time conference affiliations to win titles, they did it simply by winning. Because every AD loves money these schools both joined weak football conferences. FSU steamrolled their conference brethren for several years and the only costly losses they took were out of conference (e.g. to Miami and Florida). FSU was a winner in a football sense for those several years and the 8 teams they steamrolled were losers from a fan's perspective. They all made money and the power ACC basketball schools appreciated having FSU to kick around in hoops. That's where the facts take you with FSU. You want it to be zero-sum, get your own website. I don't like to pretend something is zero-sum that isn't. The fact is, the Big XII deal looks to this non-Texan to have cost your team trophies. You don't like trophies, that's your prerogative. You want to believe that Texas was "rescued" from an abyss resembling the "phantom zone" from Superman lore, be my guest. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. God Bless America.
TurdofDoom May 22 06
OK your right Texas talent level has always been the same. We just lost games to people like Rice in the 90's because we were unlucky. The BigXII did nothing to help us get more talented and probably more important deeper.
steve May 22 06
TOD,
I've been pretty consistent in praising the salesmanship skills of Mack Brown. Perfect example is right after the Rose Bowl win he's stroking the high school coaches when they hand him the microphone. He's like those obsessive real estate agents in American Beauty. He never stops. There's nothing about Texas in the SWC that Brown couldn't sell, the product was there, the salesmanship (prior to his arrival) wasn't. Just like Bowden and Schnellenberger were able to sell two independent schools with no history, Brown could sell a program with some history whether it was in the SWC, Big XII or it was an Independent. Even in the SWC, Texas would be a much better sell than North Carolina where you couldn't even get people to attend football games. Brown knew that, which is why I believe he would have come to Texas in the SWC.