Osborne's comments on the Big 10 expansion

[BeachBuffs]

I disagree - that makes no sense. why would the Ant-Hill West have BCS status? Because Colorado joined? Roflmao

 

 

 

 

No because their quality of football is as good as the Big East and maybe even the ACC which are both BCS conferences. TCU, BYU, and Utah have proven that their quality of football can compete with anyone and in basketball they have had tremendous recent success.

[BeachBuffs]

I disagree - that makes no sense. why would the Ant-Hill West have BCS status? Because Colorado joined?

Good point, and it also begs the question - should Colorado be a BCS school in the first place?

 

As opposed to who?

[knapplc]

Good point, and it also begs the question - should Colorado be a BCS school in the first place?

As opposed to who?

It's not an either/or question, it's a question of Colorado's merit. Is the school going to commit to football excellence or not?

 

If it makes it any clearer, I think the same question should be asked of about half the current BCS schools, and the question of whether they belong in Div 1A should be asked of about 3/4 of the current FBS teams. I'm not just singling CU out in my thought process, although they were the only school brought up in the instant conversation.

[74Hunter]

Anyway if other conferences start cherry picking teams from Big 12 whats that say about the Big 12.

I think that you answered your question in your next sentence......

 

I could see the Pac ten then deciding that they need to keep up and going after CU then whats going to happen? Another Texas school like Houston or SMU? Might as well start calling the leagues SWC 12

It ALREADY is the SWC 12, and just like with the original SWC, Texass is ruining this conference.

 

All the more reason to look to greener pastures.

[BeachBuffs]

Good point, and it also begs the question - should Colorado be a BCS school in the first place?

As opposed to who?

It's not an either/or question, it's a question of Colorado's merit. Is the school going to commit to football excellence or not?

 

If it makes it any clearer, I think the same question should be asked of about half the current BCS schools, and the question of whether they belong in Div 1A should be asked of about 3/4 of the current FBS teams. I'm not just singling CU out in my thought process, although they were the only school brought up in the instant conversation.

 

What is the definition of committment to football execellence though, is it paying your head coach 5 million a year or cancelling a week of your semester to attend bowl games or is it doing your best to quality kids and hoping to educate them?

[Judoka]

Good point, and it also begs the question - should Colorado be a BCS school in the first place?

As opposed to who?

It's not an either/or question, it's a question of Colorado's merit. Is the school going to commit to football excellence or not?

 

If it makes it any clearer, I think the same question should be asked of about half the current BCS schools, and the question of whether they belong in Div 1A should be asked of about 3/4 of the current FBS teams. I'm not just singling CU out in my thought process, although they were the only school brought up in the instant conversation.

I've been thinking this very thing for the better part of a decade now. Teams like Middle Tennessee State should not be in Div 1 football, they add nothing to it and are patsies for the "Bigger Schools" to schedule for an easy win.

[BeachBuffs]

Good point, and it also begs the question - should Colorado be a BCS school in the first place?

As opposed to who?

It's not an either/or question, it's a question of Colorado's merit. Is the school going to commit to football excellence or not?

 

If it makes it any clearer, I think the same question should be asked of about half the current BCS schools, and the question of whether they belong in Div 1A should be asked of about 3/4 of the current FBS teams. I'm not just singling CU out in my thought process, although they were the only school brought up in the instant conversation.

I've been thinking this very thing for the better part of a decade now. Teams like Middle Tennessee State should not be in Div 1 football, they add nothing to it and are patsies for the "Bigger Schools" to schedule for an easy win.

 

Then who would you all schedule for your non-conference games?

[knapplc]

Then who would you all schedule for your non-conference games?

 

"You all?" Is this to imply that Colorado doesn't schedule patsies?

[74Hunter]

They are more interested in MU than NU.

 

Agreed, the last thing the Big 10 wants is NU in their conference.

 

Nu doesn't want to be a part of that conference either.

 

If we are going to do a conference shuffle, then I do like the idea of:

 

North:

Nebraska

Kansas

Kansas State

Oklahoma

Oklahoma State

Iowa State

 

South:

Texas

Texas Tech

Texas A&M

Houston

Baylor

TCU

 

Colorado can go to some other conference, I don't really care.

 

 

I hate that. We have too much Texas influence in the Big 12 today. Adding more Texas to the league would be a real bad move.

 

you mean you are upset that Texas would have their own southern half of a conference?

 

Seriously, why would that be a negative in your view?

 

I'm curious

TU would never, EVER let OU get out of it's division. If it would, it would mandate that every team has a designated rival in the other division that it has to play every year.

 

I know that we talked about this at one point but it never came to light.

 

But if Texass would want it, they'd get it.

[Vince from ShamWOW]

Good point, and it also begs the question - should Colorado be a BCS school in the first place?

As opposed to who?

It's not an either/or question, it's a question of Colorado's merit. Is the school going to commit to football excellence or not?

 

If it makes it any clearer, I think the same question should be asked of about half the current BCS schools, and the question of whether they belong in Div 1A should be asked of about 3/4 of the current FBS teams. I'm not just singling CU out in my thought process, although they were the only school brought up in the instant conversation.

 

 

It's not just football, it's all other sports. Aside from skiing and cross country, they are nonexistent in all other sports.

[knapplc]

What is the definition of committment to football execellence though, is it paying your head coach 5 million a year or cancelling a week of your semester to attend bowl games or is it doing your best to quality kids and hoping to educate them?

 

I think it's pretty obvious that it means having a quality team more often than not, having a solid tradition of excellence and reasonable expectations to compete on a yearly basis with your contemporaries. I don't think the majority of college football's top division truly expects these things from their football teams. I think a fair portion of these schools have teams because it's traditional, or because they can make some money from the program to fund their other sports.

 

EDIT - and tack on what Vince is saying as well. Good point, V-Man.

[BeachBuffs]

Good point, and it also begs the question - should Colorado be a BCS school in the first place?

As opposed to who?

It's not an either/or question, it's a question of Colorado's merit. Is the school going to commit to football excellence or not?

 

If it makes it any clearer, I think the same question should be asked of about half the current BCS schools, and the question of whether they belong in Div 1A should be asked of about 3/4 of the current FBS teams. I'm not just singling CU out in my thought process, although they were the only school brought up in the instant conversation.

 

 

It's not just football, it's all other sports. Aside from skiing and cross country, they are nonexistent in all other sports.

 

By that logic college football would cease to exist, because if we went off that theory and eliminated schools that had a few bad years then there wouldn't be anyone left to play.

[BeachBuffs]

What is the definition of committment to football execellence though, is it paying your head coach 5 million a year or cancelling a week of your semester to attend bowl games or is it doing your best to quality kids and hoping to educate them?

 

I think it's pretty obvious that it means having a quality team more often than not, having a solid tradition of excellence and reasonable expectations to compete on a yearly basis with your contemporaries. I don't think the majority of college football's top division truly expects these things from their football teams. I think a fair portion of these schools have teams because it's traditional, or because they can make some money from the program to fund their other sports.

 

EDIT - and tack on what Vince is saying as well. Good point, V-Man.

 

So you advocate a system where maybe 18 schools would have football teams in the BCS and if any one of them had a few bad years they would be eliminated, correct?

[Vince from ShamWOW]

What is the definition of committment to football execellence though, is it paying your head coach 5 million a year or cancelling a week of your semester to attend bowl games or is it doing your best to quality kids and hoping to educate them?

 

I think it's pretty obvious that it means having a quality team more often than not, having a solid tradition of excellence and reasonable expectations to compete on a yearly basis with your contemporaries. I don't think the majority of college football's top division truly expects these things from their football teams. I think a fair portion of these schools have teams because it's traditional, or because they can make some money from the program to fund their other sports.

 

EDIT - and tack on what Vince is saying as well. Good point, V-Man.

 

So you advocate a system where maybe 18 schools would have football teams in the BCS and if any one of them had a few bad years they would be eliminated, correct?

 

 

A few bad years? CU has had more than just a few bad years of Football. But again, what else does CU bring to the Big 12 Atheltic table?

[knapplc]

So you advocate a system where maybe 18 schools would have football teams in the BCS and if any one of them had a few bad years they would be eliminated, correct?

 

Not exactly. I advocate a system where only about 40, max, schools have "Division I" ranking. There would be no other schools, and playing teams from other schools would not count toward your win/loss record in the Big Division.

 

I would make that division up of schools that have shown a sincere willingness over the long haul of making their team not only relevant, but competitive in college football. It would include teams like:

 

Florida State

Miami (FL)

Virginia Tech

Nebraska

Oklahoma State

Oklahoma

Texas

Texas A&M

Notre Dame

Michigan

Michigan State

Ohio State

Penn State

California

USC

UCLA

Washington

Oregon

Tennessee

Florida

LSU

Georgia

Arkansas

Auburn

Ole Miss

 

This is, of course, a partial list. I'm sure I'm forgetting some, and arguments could be made for and against others. But this is a good core, and would make compelling games on a weekly basis.

 

There's a ton more I could say here, but I've gotta go. I'll expound later on this pipe dream if you want.