Combatting the "We Aren't Relevant" Argument

EZ-E said:
Junior said:
EZ-E said:
They may have won the conference but they didnt win a conference championship GAME. Under the Big 12's old rules, they would have been playing an OU team that would have beaten them the first time they played last year had Blake Bell not gone full delta bravo and fumbled the snap on the goalline. Big difference not having to play a team twice in a year than having to prove it once more. The Big 12 would do right if they added back their CCG. I think that has been discussed as a possibility IIRC.
Click to expand...
Reaching a little bit, aren't we?

Did Nebraska win their conference championship? No.

Did Kansas State? Yes.

The end.
Click to expand...
Completely different circumstances.

KSU last year did not have to play in a Conference Championship game to win theirs. True.

We did. True.

We had to prove it on the field against an opponent we had already played once before and beaten. True.

KSU didn't. True.

This by no means excuses our performance in the CCG. True.

This by no means takes away from anything KSU did during the year. They did what was required of them to win their conference crown. True.

What was required of KSU was different and easier than having to play a team twice in one year. True.

I dont see how anything above is a reach. To claim that we would honestly be in elite company with KSU or ASU is absolutely ridiculous. KSU played an elite team (as we did twice) for the first time all season in their bowl game and got smashed and out-athleted in all three phases of the game.

The end.
Click to expand...
Now EZ, I hate Kstate and disgustingly envy Bill Snyder as much if not more than the next guy, but I have to go with Junior on this one. Yes, Belldumber did fumble, but, Kansas St won that game on the road. And even though they did not play in a CCG, the Big 12 did employ a round robin schedule. They beat everyone in their conference with the exception of 1 team. That was enough.

As far as a CCG goes for the Big 12, I believe NCAA rules do not permit such until they get back to 12+ teams.

 
Mr. Accountability said:
EZ-E said:
Junior said:
EZ-E said:
They may have won the conference but they didnt win a conference championship GAME. Under the Big 12's old rules, they would have been playing an OU team that would have beaten them the first time they played last year had Blake Bell not gone full delta bravo and fumbled the snap on the goalline. Big difference not having to play a team twice in a year than having to prove it once more. The Big 12 would do right if they added back their CCG. I think that has been discussed as a possibility IIRC.
Click to expand...
Reaching a little bit, aren't we?

Did Nebraska win their conference championship? No.

Did Kansas State? Yes.

The end.
Click to expand...
Completely different circumstances.

KSU last year did not have to play in a Conference Championship game to win theirs. True.

We did. True.

We had to prove it on the field against an opponent we had already played once before and beaten. True.

KSU didn't. True.

This by no means excuses our performance in the CCG. True.

This by no means takes away from anything KSU did during the year. They did what was required of them to win their conference crown. True.

What was required of KSU was different and easier than having to play a team twice in one year. True.

I dont see how anything above is a reach. To claim that we would honestly be in elite company with KSU or ASU is absolutely ridiculous. KSU played an elite team (as we did twice) for the first time all season in their bowl game and got smashed and out-athleted in all three phases of the game.

The end.
Click to expand...
Now EZ, I hate Kstate and disgustingly envy Bill Snyder as much if not more than the next guy, but I have to go with Junior on this one. Yes, Belldumber did fumble, but, Kansas St won that game on the road. And even though they did not play in a CCG, the Big 12 did employ a round robin schedule. They beat everyone in their conference with the exception of 1 team. That was enough.

As far as a CCG goes for the Big 12, I believe NCAA rules do not permit such until they get back to 12+ teams.
Click to expand...
They played every team sure. But it is not like our schedule was any slouch and we had to play one more game than they did to be deamed conference champions. The only thing I am trying to prove is that it is different. Not black and white by any means.

I share LandLord's frustraition on topics as these and it kind of aligns with what I have been thinking as well. With the big media markets anymore and how ESPN is run, I could care less about "National Relevance." ESPN is the biggest joke of a sports broadcasting company there is. Out of the Georgia game we played they showed I believe one play and it was the screen pass that went to the house. They didnt show to the world we had that team that they wanted to annoint as an "elite team" on the ropes like we did. They wanted to be sure that their love affair with the SEC was never brought into question. Same thing with the Michigan-South Carolina game. Michigan was up on that team with 25 seconds to go and they got beat like we did against Va Tech.

My point being is National Perception and Relevance as I realized throughout this bowl season isnt worth anything. The Big Ten isn't as far off from the SEC as ESPN likes to make the average person who doesn't watch the games as we do here think. Would anyone have been surprised after watching those games if the Big Ten went 3-0 against the SEC??? Not a chance. Is the SEC still the best conference in CFB? Yes but the gap between the conferences isnt as wide as the National Perception is.

The only "Perception" and "Relevance" that I care about anymore is how the teams that we play's coaching staff "Perceives" us and how "relevant" we are to prepare for. There isn't a team on our schedule that wont have to play their best to beat us.

 
national relevancy is a media construct, obviously. notre dame gets as much attention for being bad as they do for being good, similarly as the yankees.

 
Bottom line is, I was discussing more along the lines of solely the legitimacy of Kansas St's conference championship last, with zero relation to the relevance discussion. I just dont think KSU should be given any less credit for that championship just becuase they didnt play in a CCG, becuase they did play everyone in their conference. I think they deserve just as much credit, but whether or not it was as or more difficult, well, that could be up for a very strong debate.

And as far as ESPN goes, I just hope the hell this Fox Sports 1 works out and begins to give ESPN a run. Hopefully they will turn out to finally be that fresh voice of reason, or at the very least, force ESPN into a more subjective and un-biased programming, becuase it is really getting disgusting. Until they were at Ohio St the other day, I thought College Football Live was just turning into an hour long daily SEC infomercial.

 
Mr. Accountability said:
Bottom line is, I was discussing more along the lines of solely the legitimacy of Kansas St's conference championship last, with zero relation to the relevance discussion. I just dont think KSU should be given any less credit for that championship just becuase they didnt play in a CCG, becuase they did play everyone in their conference. I think they deserve just as much credit, but whether or not it was as or more difficult, well, that could be up for a very strong debate.

And as far as ESPN goes, I just hope the hell this Fox Sports 1 works out and begins to give ESPN a run. Hopefully they will turn out to finally be that fresh voice of reason, or at the very least, force ESPN into a more subjective and un-biased programming, becuase it is really getting disgusting. Until they were at Ohio St the other day, I thought College Football Live was just turning into an hour long daily SEC infomercial.
Click to expand...
Fair enough about KSU and for the record I was moreso just venting and not saying you were making an arugment either way.

I hear you on the ESPN deal. You wonder why nobody talks about our recruiting classes? Its because ESPN has their own set of rankings that it seems the prerequisite for you to be ranked by ESPN is that you have to have committed to a school in the SEC, tOSU, Michigan, Texas, or USC. It is unfortunate that all we can say is "wait and see" on the defensive side of the ball, but to claim that we haven't recruited offensively very well is just not the case. As you and I have discussed, both in threads and via PM, I have a ton of confidence in the defense and with every day the more I hear the more confident I get.

 
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
Junior said:
To be perfectly honest, the fact there is an article mentioning Nebraska as a "darkhorse" for the National Championship tells us all we need to know about Nebraska's relevance.
Click to expand...

Yep. Tells us we are relevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...
It tells us we are an afterthought. An "Oh by the way, since Nebraska's schedule is so ridiculously easy, they MIGHT get into the discussion. But probably not."

 
Junior said:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
Junior said:
To be perfectly honest, the fact there is an article mentioning Nebraska as a "darkhorse" for the National Championship tells us all we need to know about Nebraska's relevance.
Click to expand...

Yep. Tells us we are relevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...
It tells us we are an afterthought. An "Oh by the way, since Nebraska's schedule is so ridiculously easy, they MIGHT get into the discussion. But probably not."
Click to expand...
Every team outside of the pre-season top 5 or 10 is an afterthought.

 
EZ-E said:
Mr. Accountability said:
Bottom line is, I was discussing more along the lines of solely the legitimacy of Kansas St's conference championship last, with zero relation to the relevance discussion. I just dont think KSU should be given any less credit for that championship just becuase they didnt play in a CCG, becuase they did play everyone in their conference. I think they deserve just as much credit, but whether or not it was as or more difficult, well, that could be up for a very strong debate.

And as far as ESPN goes, I just hope the hell this Fox Sports 1 works out and begins to give ESPN a run. Hopefully they will turn out to finally be that fresh voice of reason, or at the very least, force ESPN into a more subjective and un-biased programming, becuase it is really getting disgusting. Until they were at Ohio St the other day, I thought College Football Live was just turning into an hour long daily SEC infomercial.
Click to expand...
Fair enough about KSU and for the record I was moreso just venting and not saying you were making an arugment either way.

I hear you on the ESPN deal. You wonder why nobody talks about our recruiting classes? Its because ESPN has their own set of rankings that it seems the prerequisite for you to be ranked by ESPN is that you have to have committed to a school in the SEC, tOSU, Michigan, Texas, or USC. It is unfortunate that all we can say is "wait and see" on the defensive side of the ball, but to claim that we haven't recruited offensively very well is just not the case. As you and I have discussed, both in threads and via PM, I have a ton of confidence in the defense and with every day the more I hear the more confident I get.
Click to expand...
My confidence is based simply on Bo's demeanor in addressing the press this year. He just seems to be much more relaxed. Maybe it's becuase he's growing more and more into the HC role. Maybe it's becuase he's just maturing overall. I think it's because he's seeing a huge increase in speed and athleticism to work with on D and the offense is 100% taking care of itself-should be a non-issue really. This is without question the first time since he's been here that he's been in such situation. He just seems to be a lot more stress-free than previous fall camps.

 
The argument that we have been irrelevant on the recruiting trail is soft-witted. We are going to field one of the best offenses in the country this year, and that doesn't happen through the path of irrelevancy when it comes to recruiting. These past few recruiting classes, Nebraska has held their own very well. As EZ said, I wouldn't trade these past two classes with anyone in the conference. I don't know why, as a fan, you would base our recruiting relevance on whether a "scout" pundit thinks our class is good or not. A kid's offer sheet is largely what they base their "stars" on anyways, and if Bo and his staff have proven anything with recruiting, it's that they are prone to being first to a kid, and when we offer, other big time offers seem to follow. This staff finds recruiting gems that other programs, and the recruiting sites were never high on (Martinez, Abdullah, Bell) and from this past class still to be proven (Gerry, Collins, Maurice, Joseph, Carter, Mixon).....

We are anything but irrelevant on the recruiting front, especially these past couple years....

 
RedRedJarvisRedwhine said:
Trying to figure out if this thread is relevant to my decision to take a sh#t.
Click to expand...
^^^This. You can tell when it's time to start the season by these types of nitpicking discussions. Are relevant. Aren't relevant. Should be relevant. Going to be relevant. After thought. After Birth. Let's strap this b!^@h up and light some people up.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top