The North and The Balance of Power

A

Armistead

Five-Star Recruit
I for one am sick and tired of the Media talking about the weak North Division and the Idea that teams in the North will never ba able to compete with the Southern schools. Trev Alberts need to stop running his mouth and take his meds, the North will be Just fine and I will list the reasons why

1)Bill Callahan will get the Huskers back on the rails this year and 07 and 08 will be watershed years for the Big Red

2) Nobody does more with less than Gary Barnett.....I hate the Buffs , but you got to admit that Barnett has them playing well despite all the scandals...if he can get back to recuiting look out......Just ask Texas

3)No Team in the North is as bad as Baylor....not even ISU

4) I could be wrong but I think that if Missouri sticks with Gary Pinkle for the long haul they will win more than they lose....I get the impression that he has got to beat KU this year or it's over for him in Columbia.....The Tigers are dumping money into the football program by the truckload...the just need the right coach.

5)KSU......ISU......KU.......I see the decline of KSU coming sooner rather than later....Bill Snyder is getting older and most, if not all of his really good assistant coaches have moved on....It may not be this year or next but the End is near and when it comes there won't be seemless transfer of power(like at NU...hahaha)....Snyder is a jerk who has made no real attempt to groom a replacement and Manhattan is no dream job........The end of the KSU run will finally restore the food chain to it's proper order....The Huskers and the Tigers will be able to stash more quality players in the programs without having to fight huge recruiting wars in Kansas City.......lastly, the Buffs and the Huskers will be able to count on the ISU<KU<KSU section on the schedule as sure wins agin

6)The fact that the North went thru the coaching roll over and the South had already been thru it is the real culprit ...not the fact that the South has soooo many advantages over the North....I will grant you that the South as a whole is slightly deeper than the North , but no school in the North is a bad as Baylor...futhermore....does anyone believe that T. O. or Bill McCartney would be losing games to Texas Tech or Okie State?....Not hardley......New Coaches and scandals have rocked NU and CU...when the Buffs and the Huskers right the ship....The Balance of power will shift back to canter.....

 
I am confussed on something. You say the North isn't weak, but then you say that NU and CU can start counrting on KU, ISU and KSU as sure wins again? If those three are sure wins, wouldn't that make the north STILL WEAK?

Parity in college football:

You have to love parity. Since the elimination of unlimted scholarships to the set guidelines of an 85 scholarship max, parity has become obvious in college football. Teams can no longer stack the talent like they use to and prevent other teams from landing top ranked talent and stashing them away.

The North isn't weak you say?

One needs only to look at the last couple years of the North vs the South to see a big decline in overall talent and coaching. Some examples of this decline include:

2004

• NU 10-Texas Tech 70

• NU 3 - Oklahoma 30

• NU 59 -Baylor 27 (The last time NU allowed Baylor that many points was in 1956)

• ISU 7- Oklahoma St 36

• ISU 3- Texas A&M 34

• Missouri 20 -Texas 28

• Missouri 17 -Oklahoma St 20

• Kansas 10 -Oklahoma 41

• Kansas 23 - Texas 27

• CU 7 - Texas 31

• CU 14 - Oklahoma St 42

• CU 3 -Oklahoma 42 (Big12 Championship game)

2003

• NU 7 -Texas 31

• ISU 7-Oklahoma 53

• ISU 21- Texas Tech 52

• ISU 19- Texas 40

• CU 20 - Oklahnoma 34

• CU 21- Texas Tech 26

• CU 30 - Baylor 42

• Missouri 13- Oklahoma 34

• Kansas 33 -Texas A&M 45

• Kansas 21 -Oklahoma St 44

Outscored? During a review of the 2003 North Division teams vs the South Division teams during conference play, the South had outscored the North 569 to 523 (South scored 31.1 points per game vs 29 points for the North teams)

During a review of the 2004 North Division teams vs ther South Division teams during confernece play, the South had outscored the North 589 to 361 (Avg 33 points per game for the South division vs 20 points per game for the North Division)

As you can see, the South increased its scoring average by a slight margin, whereas the North Divisions scoring output decreased dramatically from 2003 to 2004.

A recurring trend?

The North Vs the South victories the last 2 years:

2004: Iowa St over Baylor

2004: Nebraska over Baylor

2004: Missouri over Baylor

2003: Nebraska over Oklaoma St

2003: Nebraska over Texas A&M

2003: Missouri over Texas Tech

2003: Missouri over Texas A&M

2003: Kansas over Baylor

2003: Kansas St over Baylor

2003: Kansas St over Oklahoma in Big12 title game

Out of 36 Big12 North Vs South conference games played, the North has only won 10 of those 36 matches. 5 of those 10 matches were against the same team (Baylor), while tow other victories were against a team with a new coaching change that year and new schemes (Texas A&M). The ONLY significant game worth mentioning was Kansas St beating Oklahoma in the Big12 title game. Otherwise the South has pretty much dominated the North the last 2 years.

Conclusion? The North is slowely rebuilding, but in the meantime the south is getting stronger and stronger. It will be one more year of the South Dominating the North untill Nebraska can get back into the rhythem of things and players like Hicks and Todd at ISU become experienced juniors and CU shakes off its ever lasting recruiting scandel. As for KU? They will be dangerous every year (look what they did to Texas last year) and KSU is slowely declining unless Bill Snyder can right the ship and get back to teaching his team that other teams no longer fear them.

Hope that answers your question/ post :smokin

 
Last edited by a moderator:
These divisions are going to continue to run in cycles. For the first couple years of the Big 12 ruled the league, except in '96 when the Huskers droppped the Championship game to Texas, now the South has there hands around ythe titles, except in 03 when KSU beat OU in the Championship game.

 
These divisions are going to continue to run in cycles.  For the first couple years of the Big 12 ruled the league, except in '96 when the Huskers droppped the Championship game to Texas, now the South has there hands around ythe titles, except in 03 when KSU beat OU in the Championship game.
Click to expand...
That game shouldn't even be included because the winner of the Big12 title on even numbered years is a south team and odd numbered years is a north team. Unless someone breaks the cycle, it will continue, that's why i am optimistic someone from the north will win it this year. The gods were smiling down on KSU in 2003, otherwise how else do you explain KSU losing 2 of 3 games to the south that year (the 1 win was against baylor) and then all of a sudden they knock off a unbeaten OU team that badly

Since everyone expect OU to lose to Texas and everyone expect CU to win the north because of all the starters it returns, we might see a repeat of the 2002 Big12 title game

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If history tells us anything a North team will win the Championship this year. It has been every other year North-South.

97-NU

99-NU

01-CU

03-KSU

05-?

96-UT

98-A&M

00-OU

02-OU

04-OU

 
Why is it nobody believes that the North won't do the same as the South?

These coaches have only been around for 5 years or less.

South's new coaches now doing great

Stoops

Franchonie

Leach

Miles (at the time)

They came in and turned the South around. Why doesn't anyone think the North can do the same thing.

Callahan

The successor to Snyder

Mangino

Give them some time and the North will be powerfull again!!!!!!

:thumbs

 
Why is it nobody believes that the North won't do the same as the South?These coaches have only been around for 5 years or less.

South's new coaches now doing great

Stoops

Franchonie

Leach

Miles (at the time)

They came in and turned the South around. Why doesn't anyone think the North can do the same thing.

Callahan

The successor to Snyder

Mangino

Give them some time and the North will be powerfull again!!!!!!

:thumbs
Click to expand...
my point exactly.........The South has caught the teams in the North during a transitional period.....the Only team to keeps it's head coach for over 5 years is KSU and they won the Bid 12 Tiltle......ISU DON"T COUNT....Barnet has had to deal with the whole rape and recuiting scandal....and they won a Big 12 Title.....

 
I am confussed on something. You say the North isn't weak, but then you say that NU and CU can start counrting on KU, ISU and KSU as sure wins again? If those three are sure wins, wouldn't that make the north STILL WEAK?
Parity in college football:

You have to love parity. Since the elimination of unlimted scholarships to the set guidelines of an 85 scholarship max, parity has become obvious in college football. Teams can no longer stack the talent like they use to and prevent other teams from landing top ranked talent and stashing them away.

The North isn't weak you say?

One needs only to look at the last couple years of the North vs the South to see a big decline in overall talent and coaching. Some examples of this decline include:

2004

• NU 10-Texas Tech 70

• NU 3 - Oklahoma 30

• NU 59 -Baylor 27 (The last time NU allowed Baylor that many points was in 1956)

• ISU 7- Oklahoma St 36

• ISU 3- Texas A&M 34

• Missouri 20 -Texas 28

• Missouri 17 -Oklahoma St 20

• Kansas 10 -Oklahoma 41

• Kansas 23 - Texas 27

• CU 7 - Texas 31

• CU 14 - Oklahoma St 42

• CU 3 -Oklahoma 42 (Big12 Championship game)

2003

• NU 7 -Texas 31

• ISU 7-Oklahoma 53

• ISU 21- Texas Tech 52

• ISU 19- Texas 40

• CU 20 - Oklahnoma 34

• CU 21- Texas Tech 26

• CU 30 - Baylor 42

• Missouri 13- Oklahoma 34

• Kansas 33 -Texas A&M 45

• Kansas 21 -Oklahoma St 44

Outscored? During a review of the 2003 North Division teams vs the South Division teams during conference play, the South had outscored the North 569 to 523 (South scored 31.1 points per game vs 29 points for the North teams)

During a review of the 2004 North Division teams vs ther South Division teams during confernece play, the South had outscored the North 589 to 361 (Avg 33 points per game for the South division vs 20 points per game for the North Division)

As you can see, the South increased its scoring average by a slight margin, whereas the North Divisions scoring output decreased dramatically from 2003 to 2004.

A recurring trend?

The North Vs the South victories the last 2 years:

2004: Iowa St over Baylor

2004: Nebraska over Baylor

2004: Missouri over Baylor

2003: Nebraska over Oklaoma St

2003: Nebraska over Texas A&M

2003: Missouri over Texas Tech

2003: Missouri over Texas A&M

2003: Kansas over Baylor

2003: Kansas St over Baylor

2003: Kansas St over Oklahoma in Big12 title game

Out of 36 Big12 North Vs South conference games played, the North has only won 10 of those 36 matches. 5 of those 10 matches were against the same team (Baylor), while tow other victories were against a team with a new coaching change that year and new schemes (Texas A&M). The ONLY significant game worth mentioning was Kansas St beating Oklahoma in the Big12 title game. Otherwise the South has pretty much dominated the North the last 2 years.

Conclusion? The North is slowely rebuilding, but in the meantime the south is getting stronger and stronger. It will be one more year of the South Dominating the North untill Nebraska can get back into the rhythem of things and players like Hicks and Todd at ISU become experienced juniors and CU shakes off its ever lasting recruiting scandel. As for KU? They will be dangerous every year (look what they did to Texas last year) and KSU is slowely declining unless Bill Snyder can right the ship and get back to teaching his team that other teams no longer fear them.

Hope that answers your question/ post :smokin
Click to expand...
You don't read well or you choose to ignore the premise of my original post......I agree the North has been bad...but I told you how that will change and why....you glossed over that....futhermore.....KSU >>>>ISU>>>>KU>>>>Should be whipping boys and they will be as soon as the Huskers and CU get their heads outta their asses....Mizzou will be a decent third team up north.....

You don't really expect Texas Tech or Okie State to remain strong do you?...Tech will never be able to keep their coach if he keeps winning, some bigger school will snap him up and there goes the program....Okie State is already rebuilding....and don't get me started on Baylor...

Their is only room for Texas...OU.....and to a lesser extent A&M.......look at your history......Learn it before you come out with your Anthon stat redux

PS....Keep away from the KU KOOL AID ...it's giving you a case of the stupids.....lol

 
Why argue about this? It's simply opinion. Review the first few years of the conference and the north numbers would be better. The north was better early, the south has been better more recently.

I for one think the south has a much better chance of staying on top, simply because of location and economics. Texas, ATM and OU are in recruiting hotbeds so they will be able to get the talent, and the north schools (besides NU) can't compete with the money the south schools have. I actually hope the south continues like they are, because that will be MUCH BETTER for NU. Let them beat the hell out of each other, let us whip the hell out of the north, and then win the championship game and head to a BCS bowl. I really wouldn't mind seeing KSU and CU win 1 or 2 games a season because I hate those schools and couldn't care less if they suck or not, as long as we beat them.

Really, would you rather be the best team in a weak North or #3 in a tough south?

 
Why argue about this? It's simply opinion. Review the first few years of the conference and the north numbers would be better. The north was better early, the south has been better more recently.
I for one think the south has a much better chance of staying on top, simply because of location and economics. Texas, ATM and OU are in recruiting hotbeds so they will be able to get the talent, and the north schools (besides NU) can't compete with the money the south schools have. I actually hope the south continues like they are, because that will be MUCH BETTER for NU. Let them beat the hell out of each other, let us whip the hell out of the north, and then win the championship game and head to a BCS bowl. I really wouldn't mind seeing KSU and CU win 1 or 2 games a season because I hate those schools and couldn't care less if they suck or not, as long as we beat them.

Really, would you rather be the best team in a weak North or #3 in a tough south?
Click to expand...
Ask one of the south schools that about 4 years ago.

 
Things will eventually change as they always do, but will they change for the better. Historically, teams like Nebraska and others have faired really well. However, this has changed over the last 5 years or so. The smaller town schools like Nebraska as well as the colder climate schools like Nebraska have really struggled. In the last 10 years, has there been a colder climate school other than Nebraska winning it all? I guess there was in 1997 when we shared it with Michigan.

I believe the best recruits are having more opportunities than maybe they did in the past. With those opportunities, they are choosing to go to schools where the city life is exciting and the weather is nice and sunny nearly all the time. USC has a rich tradition, but they were struggling big time for a while. Cal just struggled most of the time. These schools have made great leaps probably mostly do to coaching but I believe weather deserves to be at least mentioned.

In the Big 12, Texas by far has the best chance of all the schools in regards to recruiting. The people of Texas will pour money into Texas University long before they will A&M, Baylor, or TT. Right now, they are a hotbed for recruiting as a lot of outstanding athletes come from the state of Texas. OU is ok, but I believe most of their success comes from Stoops. Stoops is young and energetic. Players just want to play for him because well he is Bob Stoops. If Stoops would leave OU, I don't think they'd have the success in recruiting that they have now.

I realize NU came off of maybe the best recruiting class of 2005. However, we should all remember that most of these recruits will more than likely see some if not quite a bit of playing time this year. Once the cupboard is filled again, we may not have the success in recruiting that we did this year once incoming recruits have to actually redshirt and possibly wait an additional two years to see the field. Just like the rest of the U.S. population, I believe incoming recruits have been spoiled over the last decade. With the technology we have and the ability to see things from all over the World much quicker, there aren't near as many "sleepers" for recruits out there. The best talent has always had the most opportunities, but before the "information boom" there were a lot of sleeper recruits out there that schools like NU, Michigan, etc. got that the larger better climate schools didn't know much about.

Bill Snyder turned the worst team in D1 into a winner and almost a contender. He's never had a great recruiting class, but he does get a lot of JuCo players. I'm wondering if this isn't where some/a lot of our recruits in the future will come from? Success and winning can come from a lot of JuCo players, but there are also some challenges they present as well.

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