Started By
Message
If Georgia Tech is not elite with 4 MNC's in 4 eras under 4 coaches, is 4 MNC's not elite?
Posted on 2/12/19 at 10:00 am
Posted on 2/12/19 at 10:00 am
Was arguing with some Utx trolls on the main board because they keep putting up that graphic on Football, Basketball, and Baseball for the old SWC. My point was simple, Utx is not elite in either football or basketball (tho I did give them credit for their baseball success). In previous threads, if I can find them, I have made other comments based on fact about Utx and was thinking.....
A) Am I wrong on my facts?
B) Can you offer other facts (not vague troll points for fishing) here to confirm?
I seem to have struck a nerve pointing out that Oklahoma is the ELITE team of the area, followed by Nebraska, followed by Utx, followed by Arkansas. In my logic were some of these facts....
#1 $$$$ does not mean ELITE
While Utx talks a big game about how much money they have, they show an astonishing low level of success for it. Oklahoma and Nebraska seemed to have way more success per dollar spent.
#2 In state talent does not mean ELITE
Again, Oklahoma and Nebraska have done better with less kids in their state than Utx has done in TX.
#3 Is Utx even really a CFB school?
Georgia Tech has 4 MNC's in 4 different CFB eras and coaches in 2 different conferences
Utx has 4 MNC's with just 2 coaches in 2 different eras
If nobody considers Georgia Tech a CFB power, why do they accept Utx as one?
#4 Does monopoly power skew results to distort reality?
While Utx trolls love to talk about all time wins for Utx how good were many of those wins? Utx was in the SIAA but left when even playing Vanderbilt meant a Utx defeat at the State Fair. Sewanee travelled to austin and still shut them out. Early Utx was like early Michigan where you had to play on their field with no hope of a return game on yours. While Wolverine numbers are impressive most of that was before WWII and Michigan State getting in the B1G after WWII.
If you have a conference (the SWC) filled with in state teams you can beat are you really good or are you just good to the rest of the country because you have good w/l numbers? You leave what became the SEC because you could not have a monopoly then took TAMU because you did not want them to have the broader exposure. LSU and Ole Miss turned down the SWC invite and look where they are as opposed to being an underling in the SWC.
As an aside, when I think of ELITE I ask are you a dominant team in your area?
(S) Auburn is good but not even #1 in Alabama
(SW) Utx, UNL, and AR are all below Oklahoma
(MW) Michigan and Penn State are good, but Ohio State is #1 in that area
(W) Southern Cal clearly dominates the west
(NE) Notre Dame clearly dominates the east coast (NYC is more their base than IN)
A) Am I wrong on my facts?
B) Can you offer other facts (not vague troll points for fishing) here to confirm?
I seem to have struck a nerve pointing out that Oklahoma is the ELITE team of the area, followed by Nebraska, followed by Utx, followed by Arkansas. In my logic were some of these facts....
#1 $$$$ does not mean ELITE
While Utx talks a big game about how much money they have, they show an astonishing low level of success for it. Oklahoma and Nebraska seemed to have way more success per dollar spent.
#2 In state talent does not mean ELITE
Again, Oklahoma and Nebraska have done better with less kids in their state than Utx has done in TX.
#3 Is Utx even really a CFB school?
Georgia Tech has 4 MNC's in 4 different CFB eras and coaches in 2 different conferences
Utx has 4 MNC's with just 2 coaches in 2 different eras
If nobody considers Georgia Tech a CFB power, why do they accept Utx as one?
#4 Does monopoly power skew results to distort reality?
While Utx trolls love to talk about all time wins for Utx how good were many of those wins? Utx was in the SIAA but left when even playing Vanderbilt meant a Utx defeat at the State Fair. Sewanee travelled to austin and still shut them out. Early Utx was like early Michigan where you had to play on their field with no hope of a return game on yours. While Wolverine numbers are impressive most of that was before WWII and Michigan State getting in the B1G after WWII.
If you have a conference (the SWC) filled with in state teams you can beat are you really good or are you just good to the rest of the country because you have good w/l numbers? You leave what became the SEC because you could not have a monopoly then took TAMU because you did not want them to have the broader exposure. LSU and Ole Miss turned down the SWC invite and look where they are as opposed to being an underling in the SWC.
As an aside, when I think of ELITE I ask are you a dominant team in your area?
(S) Auburn is good but not even #1 in Alabama
(SW) Utx, UNL, and AR are all below Oklahoma
(MW) Michigan and Penn State are good, but Ohio State is #1 in that area
(W) Southern Cal clearly dominates the west
(NE) Notre Dame clearly dominates the east coast (NYC is more their base than IN)
This post was edited on 2/13/19 at 12:59 am
Posted on 2/12/19 at 10:14 am to Cheese Grits
You were wrong to post this novel about Texas on this board, yes
Posted on 2/12/19 at 10:14 am to Cheese Grits
You're arguing with idiots.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 10:18 am to Cheese Grits
quote:
#1 $$$$ does not mean ELITE
While Utx talks a big game about how much money they have, they show an astonishing low level of success for it. Oklahoma and Nebraska seemed to have way more success per dollar spent.
This is objectively true. Nebraska has a much lower potential than the sips, but they've overachieved while texas has underachieved. Historically.
quote:
#2 In state talent does not mean ELITE
Again, Oklahoma and Nebraska have done better with less kids in their state than Utx has done in TX.
More 'potential'. Texas has elite potential, but has never really lived up to it with the exception of a small period with Royal. This is even with the over the top scholarship abuse they took part in for most of their history.
quote:
#3 Is Utx even really a CFB school?
Georgia Tech has 4 MNC's in 4 different CFB eras and coaches in 2 different conferences
Utx has 4 MNC's with just 2 coaches in 2 different eras
If nobody considers Georgia Tech a CFB power, why do they accept Utx as one?
Yeah, they definitely are a CFB power, but a a higher middle class one with the potential for being an elite program.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 8:34 pm to tmc94
quote:
temporarily
I RA'd this mistake.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 9:38 pm to tmc94
How may mods are there on the ol' ark?
Posted on 2/13/19 at 6:38 am to ShaneTheLegLechler
To be fair, it is not about Utx, but how to diffuse Utx talking points
At least that was the intent.
At least that was the intent.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 9:40 am to Cheese Grits
Use this gif. It's a video feed from one of their practices.
Latest Texas A&M News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News