I partially agree with this.
I get that, but to an entire generation they were nothing but an average football program until 2015. Nothing they did in 70s is relatable to the 2010s.
But UT and OU coming to the SEC will, over time, take away the very aspect that makes it a fun matchup.
It is, because their heritage is the source of their leverage when it becomes possible for the SEC to move on them. All of their heritage. It works that way with all the schools that have ever won big and are still striving to. Notre Dame is the king of this, no national championship since 1988.
I would disagree there, I think. Texas and Oklahoma are two of the marquee brands of college football. A game against them will always be a big deal, in the way a game against Alabama, Auburn, or LSU is a big deal.
Their being attractive to the SEC was not the point of my post. The point of my post was that nothing they did in the 70s, nor the 81 title, has any relevance to the success they built in the 2010s. They are a smaller school, smaller alumni base, 1.5 hours away in the same state. They were not a program that established themselves as a national blue blood. And if they can do it, I’m not going to say we can never do it.
Non-football sports all take charter buses to and from games so it'll be interesting to see what happens. Schools suddenly having to increase their travel budgets at least tenfold to include these cross country flights instead of regional bus trips would cost millions, taking a good chunk out of their extra money from joining new leagues. I think we'll end up seeing the football teams branch off and Olympic sports staying in regional conferences like what Chip Kelly said above.
What’s going to give is football. Someone-private equity, Apple, Amazon- with real cash will try and create a super league. Football will break from NCAA and then the schools can clean up the mess they made with the other sports.
I am. Their culture is better than our culture and their administration (the philosophy is what I'm speaking of more than the individuals) is better than our administration. As for UPC, they were stouter during the 80s than the were during all but the very end of the 70s. I put too much emphasis on the 70s.
They got very, very luck with the Dabo hire. Hopefully we did the same with Beamer. But if their culture and admin was so great they wouldn't have wallered in mediocrity for 30 years. That program was in a bad place at then of TBs tenure. And TDP, on his way out the door, threw a hail mary on a budget hire due to TBs buyout. Presto...their admin all of a sudden looks like geniuses and the culture has flipped around.
While true, promoting your WR coach (who had only been in coaching for a few years) to HC is a YUGE risk. It happened to work out, and they all look like geniuses. But if you recall, the outcry from the clemsux faithful after his 2nd year when they went 6-7 was tremendous. At that point, it seemed like a disaster and everyone around the program looked like idiots. Nobody was happy. Winning makes everything look like Candyland.
Their culture drove their resurgence and their administration responded to it. Otherwise, they never would have come back to prominence. I would remind you that Bama changed coaches multiple times between Bryant and Stallings, and again between Stallings and Nick Saban. And look at Notre Dame between Leahy and Parseghian. Those schools had a sense of "place". While maybe not as warranted, UPC has that same quality. I suspect they will always have it.
