Did Texas hire a DC and OC yet ???

[Across The Field]

Exact opposite. We sent Middling Mizz to sec, they won their division within two years, right?
se sent mediocre TAMU to sec, they were the SEC’s NUMBER ONE offense their first two years over there. it was the SEC D that was exposed as fraud. Try again.

Funny, because both are now irrelevant. Weird how that worked. Both had amazing offenses in the Big 12, and now... Hmm...

 

[ElTexan]

Funny, because both are now irrelevant. Weird how that worked. Both had amazing offenses in the Big 12, and now... Hmm...

No. They weren’t amazing in the B12. They were less than mediocre. Do you eat paint chips?

 

[Across The Field]

No. They weren’t amazing in the B12. They were less than mediocre. Do you eat paint chips?

You're trying to hard with the insults, man.

Also, you're wrong. Missouri averaged almost 10 wins a season in their last 5 years in the Big 12. Then they came to the SEC and had a couple of good years. Now, they've averaged 7 wins a year over their last 5 years, and the SEC East hasn't even been that good.

A&M joined the SEC and got super hyped with recruits because they wanted to play in the SEC - They had two top 25 classes in their last five years in the Big 12, while they haven't had a class ranked lower than 18th every year since joining the SEC. It worked for a few years. Now they're a perennial 5 loss team.

Neither of these teams illustrates your point at all.

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

2000s era Big 12 Missouri never won a single Big 12 conference title.

Missouri got their shit pushed almost every single time they played Texas or Oklahoma from the south.
They never had to play both in the same season thanks to a schedule quirk as well.

They stockpiled wins in the much weaker north with the imbalanced scheduling during that era.
That was when both Texas and Oklahoma were top 5 staples, and Oklahoma State/TexasA&M/Tech were also good teams.

The North had Kansas, bad Iowa State, post Snyder bad K-state, bad Colorado, and a down Nebraska.
Somebody had to get wins in the north.

They immediately fell to 8 wins once the divisions were combined.

 

[Pariah]

You're trying to hard with the insults, man.

Also, you're wrong. Missouri averaged almost 10 wins a season in their last 5 years in the Big 12. Then they came to the SEC and had a couple of good years. Now, they've averaged 7 wins a year over their last 5 years, and the SEC East hasn't even been that good.

A&M joined the SEC and got super hyped with recruits because they wanted to play in the SEC - They had two top 25 classes in their last five years in the Big 12, while they haven't had a class ranked lower than 18th every year since joining the SEC. It worked for a few years. Now they're a perennial 5 loss team.

Neither of these teams illustrates your point at all.

Always have been.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

You're trying to hard with the insults, man.

Also, you're wrong. Missouri averaged almost 10 wins a season in their last 5 years in the Big 12. Then they came to the SEC and had a couple of good years. Now, they've averaged 7 wins a year over their last 5 years, and the SEC East hasn't even been that good.

A&M joined the SEC and got super hyped with recruits because they wanted to play in the SEC - They had two top 25 classes in their last five years in the Big 12, while they haven't had a class ranked lower than 18th every year since joining the SEC. It worked for a few years. Now they're a perennial 5 loss team.

Neither of these teams illustrates your point at all.

I'm not sure you made the best argument here. We were on the same page earlier. But I'm not sure how Mizzou and A&M having early success in the SEC with players recruited to play in the Big 12 proves the SEC is superior now that they've been there awhile and are having less success.

Granted, I agree the SEC is a better conference overall. But I'm not sure the success or failure of A&M and Mizzou proves that out. It's better because it just is.

 

[ralphiewvu]

The amount of potential of ATF and el jex getting into a debate is epic!

 

[Neilcar]

I don't want to shut you up. Your shitshow posts are entertaining.

The fact you think OU has anything to prove to UT shows just how delusional y'all are.

oh that reminds me … I filled out my Bowl Mania sheet … with OU's post season record I went with LSU and chose the 41 points for that game … lol

 

[ElTexan]

I'm not sure you made the best argument here. We were on the same page earlier. But I'm not sure how Mizzou and A&M having early success in the SEC with players recruited to play in the Big 12 proves the SEC is superior now that they've been there awhile and are having less success.

Granted, I agree the SEC is a better conference overall. But I'm not sure the success or failure of A&M and Mizzou proves that out. It's better because it just is.

The argument was always whether the B12 didn’t play defense or was it that the SEC didn’t play offense.
B12 sent two very middling teams over there:
MIZZ win their division in the 2nd year.
TAMU was the runaway #1 offense in each of the first two years.
QED

 

[Across The Field]

Always have been.

Right, that was my point. They were a 5 loss team in the Big 12 when they weren't recruiting that well. Now they're a 5-loss team in the SEC even though they're pulling in great classes year after year.

 

[Across The Field]

I'm not sure you made the best argument here. We were on the same page earlier. But I'm not sure how Mizzou and A&M having early success in the SEC with players recruited to play in the Big 12 proves the SEC is superior now that they've been there awhile and are having less success.

Granted, I agree the SEC is a better conference overall. But I'm not sure the success or failure of A&M and Mizzou proves that out. It's better because it just is.

I don't know if you can say all the players on those teams are specifically recruited to play just in 1 conference. That seems like a mistake. You have to recruit to fit your own system, not those of everyone else in your conference. At least if you want to be successful.

My point was as the years have gone on, these teams are worse off since leaving the Big 12 in terms of wins and losses. Missouri was constantly in the top 10-15 nationally for their last 5 years in the Big 12, but since joining the SEC, they've fallen off badly. They won 48 games in their last 5 years in the Big 12, and then only won 37 games in their first 5 years in the SEC and things aren't really going great there as they continue to regress.

A&M was usually mediocre in the Big 12, but since joining the SEC their recruiting has completely taken off. They had a nice couple of years at first, but even though recruiting has stayed hot, their record has returned to mediocrity.

This isn't really about knocking the Big 12. It's more about pointing out how the Big 12 offense way of life doesn't dominate in other conferences.

 

[tnapucco]

I don't know if you can say all the players on those teams are specifically recruited to play just in 1 conference. That seems like a mistake. You have to recruit to fit your own system, not those of everyone else in your conference. At least if you want to be successful.

My point was as the years have gone on, these teams are worse off since leaving the Big 12 in terms of wins and losses. Missouri was constantly in the top 10-15 nationally for their last 5 years in the Big 12, but since joining the SEC, they've fallen off badly. They won 48 games in their last 5 years in the Big 12, and then only won 37 games in their first 5 years in the SEC and things aren't really going great there as they continue to regress.

A&M was usually mediocre in the Big 12, but since joining the SEC their recruiting has completely taken off. They had a nice couple of years at first, but even though recruiting has stayed hot, their record has returned to mediocrity.

This isn't really about knocking the Big 12. It's more about pointing out how the Big 12 offense way of life doesn't dominate in other conferences.

Tell everyone that lost to LSU that.

 

[Across The Field]

Tell everyone that lost to LSU that.

If they win the national title, I might. If they do, they'd be the outlier.

 

[GoldRusher]

If they win the national title, I might. If they do, they'd be the outlier.

Clemson also runs a Big12 type of offense FTR.... as well as Alabama now

 

[Across The Field]

Clemson also runs a Big12 type of offense FTR.... as well as Alabama now

But Clemson has an elite defense. That was my point.

 

[Cowboyinexile]

Hehe. Good luck with that.

 

[Codaxx]

You're trying to hard with the insults, man.

Also, you're wrong. Missouri averaged almost 10 wins a season in their last 5 years in the Big 12. Then they came to the SEC and had a couple of good years. Now, they've averaged 7 wins a year over their last 5 years, and the SEC East hasn't even been that good.

A&M joined the SEC and got super hyped with recruits because they wanted to play in the SEC - They had two top 25 classes in their last five years in the Big 12, while they haven't had a class ranked lower than 18th every year since joining the SEC. It worked for a few years. Now they're a perennial 5 loss team.

Neither of these teams illustrates your point at all.

by the way, Mizzu always has great offenses under Pinkel. That includes his time in the SEC. They won the East a couple times. He left and Mizzu faded

A&M didn’t have an amazing offense in the BIg 12. They actually hit their offensive heights the 1st couple seasons in the SEC

 

[Codaxx]

But Clemson has an elite defense. That was my point.

last year Clemson had an elite defense. No idea how god they are this year. They haven’t played much of anyone

 

[Deep Creek]

Clemson also runs a Big12 type of offense FTR.... as well as Alabama now

Yeah, you can blame Dabo for going out and getting some dude named Morris that started that stuff. That's turned out pretty well.

 

[Deep Creek]

But Clemson has an elite defense. That was my point.

They do now. That wasn't the case when they started that offense.
Jan 4, 2012 West Virginia 70 Clemson 33