2010 NCAA football thread....

[valo403]

Originally Posted by JayP

Good for Colorado.

The rumors that Baylor was going to be the 6th Big-12 team team to switch over to the Pac-10 super-conference (instead of Colorado) always had me baffled. Baylor doesn't bring anything to the table in football or basketball. Colorado isn't anything special either, but they're clearly a step up and they've wanted admission into the Pac-10 for a long time now.

The Texas legislature was making noise about Baylor being included if the other Texas schools were going to leave for the Pac-10

[valo403]

[QUOTE=transplant99;2540060]Quite aware of all that...thanks.[QUOTE]

Then where's the confusion? If you're aware of all that this is pretty straightforward.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by valo403

The Texas legislature was making noise about Baylor being included if the other Texas schools were going to leave for the Pac-10

Yeah, I knew that, but I just don't understand why it was taken seriously. It's not as if Texas and A&M were going to turn down chances to make some huge money in the Pac-10 because no one wanted Baylor.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by JayP

Yeah, I knew that, but I just don't understand why it was taken seriously. It's not as if Texas and A&M were going to turn down chances to make some huge money in the Pac-10 because no one wanted Baylor.

If the legislature said they were they sure as heck were. Public schools.

[transplant99]

[QUOTE=valo403;2540096][QUOTE=transplant99;2540060]Quite aware of all that...thanks.

Then where's the confusion? If you're aware of all that this is pretty straightforward.

Well as an example....

If USC was in a BCS game, then you would be correct. However, much like last year, when they were in the Emerald bowl, the school received $825,000 for their participation. I think 5 million is more than that, but I will doublecheck that.

All I am saying is this...

The kids are the ones paying the price with these punishments, along with the institution, and it makes no sense since they had nothing to do with anything untoward.

As for your observation that USC fans are "frontrunners"...I got a good guffaw out of that one.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

If the legislature said they were they sure as heck were. Public schools.

I have read this elsewhere...and i am baffled as to how the Texas legislature has any say in what the PAC 10 does with their conference.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I have read this elsewhere...and i am baffled as to how the Texas legislature has any say in what the PAC 10 does with their conference.

The Texas legislature has the ability to dictate what Texas public schools do. Baylor isn't a public school, which confuses me as to why the legislature apparently cared, but they have the ability to control what the public schools do.

[valo403]

[QUOTE=transplant99;2540143][QUOTE=valo403;2540096]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Quite aware of all that...thanks.


Well as an example....

If USC was in a BCS game, then you would be correct. However, much like last year, when they were in the Emerald bowl, the school received $825,000 for their participation. I think 5 million is more than that, but I will doublecheck that.

All I am saying is this...

The kids are the ones paying the price with these punishments, along with the institution, and it makes no sense since they had nothing to do with anything untoward.

As for your observation that USC fans are "frontrunners"...I got a good guffaw out of that one.

USC is generally expected to be in a BCS game, but go ahead and rely on what did happen. The bowl ban also impacts recruiting much more heavily than any fine, but ignore that part too.

As for the frontrunner comments. The attendance figures spell it out, over 20,000 more per game since they've become an elite program again.

[transplant99]

but go ahead and rely on what did happen

thanks...I will.

The bowl ban also impacts recruiting much more heavily than any fine, but ignore that part too

How am I ignoring that exactly? Way to put words in my mouth though.

As for the frontrunner comments. The attendance figures spell it out, over 20,000 more per game since they've become an elite program again.

LOL. So they draw 90,000 instead of 70. Yeah those damn bandwagoners!!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

thanks...I will.



How am I ignoring that exactly? Way to put words in my mouth though.



LOL. So they draw 90,000 instead of 70. Yeah those damn bandwagoners!!

80 instead of 60 actually, a 25% increase. For such a storied team and instiution the fact they ever dipped below 60, which they did for a long time when not a perennial winner, is sad.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

80 instead of 60 actually, a 25% increase. For such a storied team and instiution the fact they ever dipped below 60, which they did for a long time when not a perennial winner, is sad.

Well I would suggest its actually amazing.

A couple things that makes USC a whole lot different than the majority of schools.

Location. There are literally a thousand things to do in LA that most schools locations simply dont offer. Places like Colombus and Baton Rouge...thats the only real game in town. Nevermind the competition from other pro and college teams in the LA area, the myriad of options to spend disposable income on are mezmerizing. Beaches, theater, restaurants, etc etc...there is a lot of things to do in LA.

Stadium. I will be the forst to admit that the Coliseum is one of the worst places I have ever sat through to watch football. You are so far from the action its hard to describe. So unless its a big name ticket coming in to play like UCLA/Notre Dame or a high ranked team. people choose to watch the game on TV often because its really hard to watch live.

And anyone that believes that 60 thousand is a "sad" level of attendance needs to re-think things a bit.

I dont need to defend USC and their storied history, nor their fans loyalty to anyone. It speaks for itself IMO, but they are unlike almost every school in the country...Miami, FLA, and a few others are similar as far as that goes, but they are few and far between.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well I would suggest its actually amazing.

A couple things that makes USC a whole lot different than the majority of schools.

Location. There are literally a thousand things to do in LA that most schools locations simply dont offer. Places like Colombus and Baton Rouge...thats the only real game in town. Nevermind the competition from other pro and college teams in the LA area, the myriad of options to spend disposable income on are mezmerizing. Beaches, theater, restaurants, etc etc...there is a lot of things to do in LA.

Stadium. I will be the forst to admit that the Coliseum is one of the worst places I have ever sat through to watch football. You are so far from the action its hard to describe. So unless its a big name ticket coming in to play like UCLA/Notre Dame or a high ranked team. people choose to watch the game on TV often because its really hard to watch live.

And anyone that believes that 60 thousand is a "sad" level of attendance needs to re-think things a bit.

I dont need to defend USC and their storied history, nor their fans loyalty to anyone. It speaks for itself IMO, but they are unlike almost every school in the country...Miami, FLA, and a few others are similar as far as that goes, but they are few and far between.

For all the other things to do in LA there are also that many more people, not to mention the fact that they are the ONLY football team in town. Your competition argument would be great, except it ignores the fact that the leader in attendance for many years, Michigan, faced similar competition from Detroit area sports teams for decades without seeing attendance dip.

I haven't been to the coliseum, but if you're such a die hard supporter of a program you would be going regardless of the venue. That's a cop-out. People don't seem to have a problem with it when the team is national title calibre.

And yes 60,000 is a sad level of attendance when you're talking about one of the most storied programs in history in one of the biggest markets in the world. That number is on par with Purdue, Pitt, Mississippi etc.

I give credit to those USC fans who have always shown up, but a massive jump that's coincidentally coupled with on field success has front runner written all over it. Or did they just start selling dippin' dots on the concourse or something?

[wpgflamesfan]

I know it's TMZ but....

The Oklahoma State Cowboys are blazing a trail to the Pacific-10 Conference ... according to a source -- and leaving the future of the Big 12 Conference in serious jeopardy.

http://www.tmz.com/2010/06/10/oklaho...otball-big-12/

[transplant99]

For all the other things to do in LA there are also that many more people, not to mention the fact that they are the ONLY football team in town.

UCLA ring a bell?

And yes 60,000 is a sad level of attendance

If you say so.

[wpgflamesfan]

So the official damage to USC is:

Two Year Bowl Ban
10 Less Scholarships for the next 3 years
4 Year Probation
Prohibition of any non university personnel from sideline, locker room, and road trips
13 Victories will be vacated
Possible loss of 2005 BCS national championship
Possible loss of Reggie Bush's Heisman
The University must disassociate it self from three boosters
One Assistant will not be able to recruit for one year

[JayP]

Originally Posted by wpgflamesfan

I know it's TMZ but....



http://www.tmz.com/2010/06/10/oklaho...otball-big-12/

Stewart Mandel (SI) quoted sources close to Oklahoma as saying "we better buy some sunscreen" on Twitter.

I'd be shocking if the rumored 6 (Texas, A&M, OU, OSU, Texas Tech, and Colorado) didn't all join the Pac-10 at this point.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Also...just to add to the USC thing...taking away 20 scholarships is a colossal mistake. Not because it punishes the USC program, because it does and they committed the infractions, but because it takes away from 20 kids attending a pretty good post seconday school and depriving those 20 kids of an education.

The argument is always, "well those 20 kids will just go elsewhere if they are good enough to play at USC"...which is true. However, no matter how it is sliced, those schools that pick up those kids use one of their own scholarships to add them, thereby losing one of those spots they would have used on someone else. Its 20 people that would have had an education they couldnt afford from whatever school it may be.

I'm sorry but a lot of these 5* 4* athletes are not going to USCw to get an education. They go there to make the big bucks like Reggie did when he was playing.....

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PIMking

I'm sorry but a lot of these 5* 4* athletes are not going to USCw to get an education. They go there to make the big bucks like Reggie did when he was playing.....

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Like ANY SEC team attracts anyone different? Awesome.

And are you also of the opinion that LA houses only ONE football team..cause i need to get all those guys in one group.

[cSpooge]

Originally Posted by wpgflamesfan

So the official damage to USC is:

Two Year Bowl Ban
10 Less Scholarships for the next 3 years
4 Year Probation
Prohibition of any non university personnel from sideline, locker room, and road trips
13 Victories will be vacated
Possible loss of 2005 BCS national championship
Possible loss of Reggie Bush's Heisman
The University must disassociate it self from three boosters
One Assistant will not be able to recruit for one year

this is actually good for the players because now some of them can transfer to other schools without having to sit the mandatory 1 year.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Concerned all this movement is going to hasten Montana's step up to the top division. I don't think that's a good move for the school or the football program.Alot of the pride with Montana football is that they win with such a large percentage of Montana kids. If they step up, that will go away.