Why dilute a good conference with
- Thread starter Gunner
- Start date
Not a good football team in the bunch. So, why stop.
I will continue this push. Only an idiot would take them in. Just remember, we fought a hard battle not joining SMU, Rice, Tulsa one time. This is just more of the same.
Why the heck would anybody think they could bring anything to the table? Maybe a little basketball.
I will continue this push. Only an idiot would take them in. Just remember, we fought a hard battle not joining SMU, Rice, Tulsa one time. This is just more of the same.
Why the heck would anybody think they could bring anything to the table? Maybe a little basketball.
GP's Step-Son
Active Member
What on earth are you talking about?? Those three do laps around SDSU, NM, UNLV, Wyoming...
QUOTE(GP @ Jun 10 2010, 07:12 PM) [snapback]574011[/snapback]
What on earth are you talking about?? Those three do laps around SDSU, NM, UNLV, Wyoming...
Bull and New Mexico didn't beat Arizona and Wyoming didn't beat Tennessee. Give me a break! You idiots think the dregs of the Big 12 are good. That is stupid!
Go ahead and chase the cast off's. You will be total idiots. :biggrin:
What on earth are you talking about?? Those three do laps around SDSU, NM, UNLV, Wyoming...
Bull and New Mexico didn't beat Arizona and Wyoming didn't beat Tennessee. Give me a break! You idiots think the dregs of the Big 12 are good. That is stupid!
Go ahead and chase the cast off's. You will be total idiots. :biggrin:
SnoSki
Full Member
QUOTE(Gunner @ Jun 10 2010, 02:21 PM) [snapback]574028[/snapback]
Bull and New Mexico didn't beat Arizona and Wyoming didn't beat Tennessee. Give me a break! You idiots think the dregs of the Big 12 are good. That is stupid!
Go ahead and chase the cast off's. You will be total idiots. :biggrin:
At the very least, it would make our basketball conference much, much better. KU and KSU would anchor it.
Our bball recruiting would likely get better as a result.
Bull and New Mexico didn't beat Arizona and Wyoming didn't beat Tennessee. Give me a break! You idiots think the dregs of the Big 12 are good. That is stupid!
Go ahead and chase the cast off's. You will be total idiots. :biggrin:
At the very least, it would make our basketball conference much, much better. KU and KSU would anchor it.
Our bball recruiting would likely get better as a result.
Froggy Style
Active Member
Kansas brings guaranteed money for bball as well. Decent football at the moment as well. Missouri is the same.
QUOTE(Gunner @ Jun 10 2010, 02:10 PM) [snapback]574008[/snapback]
Not a good football team in the bunch. So, why stop.
I will continue this push. Only an idiot would take them in. Just remember, we fought a hard battle not joining SMU, Rice, Tulsa one time. This is just more of the same.
Why the heck would anybody think they could bring anything to the table? Maybe a little basketball.
I am kind of assuming you are kidding and trying to pull people offsides, b/c I cant imagine you are honestly posting something so stupid.
It isnt purely about performance. It is about backroom clout too, and tv markets.
If you think Kansas and K State are not going to be in a BCS conf...then you are nuts. Having them in the conf adds legitimacy, b/c they still have that "BCS" brand attached to em, and their administrators are going to have their own setsof contacts and favors to call in to get the back room deal done.
Kansas will be in a BCS conf. Period. And K State will stay with Kansas. Having them in our conf only helps and adds to our legitimacy. Actual on field performance be damned. You should know better Gunner.
Not a good football team in the bunch. So, why stop.
I will continue this push. Only an idiot would take them in. Just remember, we fought a hard battle not joining SMU, Rice, Tulsa one time. This is just more of the same.
Why the heck would anybody think they could bring anything to the table? Maybe a little basketball.
I am kind of assuming you are kidding and trying to pull people offsides, b/c I cant imagine you are honestly posting something so stupid.
It isnt purely about performance. It is about backroom clout too, and tv markets.
If you think Kansas and K State are not going to be in a BCS conf...then you are nuts. Having them in the conf adds legitimacy, b/c they still have that "BCS" brand attached to em, and their administrators are going to have their own setsof contacts and favors to call in to get the back room deal done.
Kansas will be in a BCS conf. Period. And K State will stay with Kansas. Having them in our conf only helps and adds to our legitimacy. Actual on field performance be damned. You should know better Gunner.
Houston Frog
New Member
QUOTE(roddog @ Jun 10 2010, 02:38 PM) [snapback]574061[/snapback]
not to divert, but did new mexico win 1 game last year?
Yeah, they won one late conference game....
Gunner, we all know you have been saying forever that the Big XII North is the worst division in D1 football, but they aren't as bad as you make them out to be...
SDSU, New Mexico, CSU, and UNLV suck at football. They've sucked bad at football for a while, and so has Wyoming, but they showed a little life last year.
Kansas, Kansas St, Boise and Missouri are better football programs than them. Kansas St, Kansas, and Boise have all gone to BCS bowls in the last decade, and a lot of people thought Missouri got screwed out of one.
Also, they are big state schools in pretty reasonable markets that have a higher ceiling than SDSU, New Mexico, and UNLV, and also draw way better TV ratings than them.
The problem with the MWC is the huge dichotomy between the top 3-4 schools and the bottom 5-6 schools. If we were able to add those 4 schools, it would give us 5-6 very solid programs year in and year out, which would immediately discredit the idea that the MWC is just a 3 team league.
not to divert, but did new mexico win 1 game last year?
Yeah, they won one late conference game....
Gunner, we all know you have been saying forever that the Big XII North is the worst division in D1 football, but they aren't as bad as you make them out to be...
SDSU, New Mexico, CSU, and UNLV suck at football. They've sucked bad at football for a while, and so has Wyoming, but they showed a little life last year.
Kansas, Kansas St, Boise and Missouri are better football programs than them. Kansas St, Kansas, and Boise have all gone to BCS bowls in the last decade, and a lot of people thought Missouri got screwed out of one.
Also, they are big state schools in pretty reasonable markets that have a higher ceiling than SDSU, New Mexico, and UNLV, and also draw way better TV ratings than them.
The problem with the MWC is the huge dichotomy between the top 3-4 schools and the bottom 5-6 schools. If we were able to add those 4 schools, it would give us 5-6 very solid programs year in and year out, which would immediately discredit the idea that the MWC is just a 3 team league.
