I didn’t think the Kolb years sucked. I didn’t think the Case years sucked. I loved the Greg Ward years. So yeah our sucky program is plenty good to me
1 Like
One last thing before I stop. We’re speaking past each other. There are always moments, albeit unsustainable, for a TEAM to shine. I am talking about a PROGRAM. Who didn’t like Herman’s one year? But that’s not a program. We were in the wilderness for another 7 years afterwards. I believe we’re building a program now. Like basketball - that’s a program, but it took years.
This may be sacrilege, but I don’t think Jenkins had a program. That was pretty fly by night. Pardee may have been the closest in the last 30 years. Am I missing something?
If its NFL Lite they are going to want Eyes, There is no reason to add WVU or even L-Ville if Pitt and Cinci are on the table. Every SEC/ B1G addition recently has been adding big markets. WVU adds nothing of note. L-Ville is a little bigger but not worth it.
I’d support and enjoy the Coogs even if they were playing in the Lone Star Conference or the RRAC, but from the collapse of the SWC basically until Khator got hired, we were a bad program with flashes of competence. 2006 was fun, but that team’s best win was over a 7-6 OkSt team. Playing in an old High School stadium in front of 20k mostly-passive fans is something that sucky teams do. Our divisional opponents were Tulsa, Rice, UTEP, Pre-Fritz Tulane, and Pre-Jones SMU, because those were our athletic peers and equals. They called it Conference DOA for a reason.
3 Likes
I’m hoping it works out that way and we are the selection of those other city schools and even over a West Virginia.
Our sucky program survived CDOA, something doesn’t add up
1 Like
Welp that does it. We’re without fault as a program. Same as Bama. Anyone who denies that’s been true for the last generation is a heretic and unbeliever. And not a true fan. So take your hissy fits somewhere else. Cause we’re amazing.
Forget that the entire school had to do an about face on athletics and investments. No need to let facts get in the way. And it’s been a 10+ year journey, which is not close to complete. That’s beside the point. Our program has rocked since the SWC and everything else is just icing on the cake. 
One last thing… sure
Did we suck for the last 30 years? Would you say that to any players from the last 30 years. Its your statement, you seem to think its true. Maybe some of those players would too. That’s fine, i just disagree. I don’t see much in the way of facts, just pessimism from you. The way you look at it, a team is only good if they have success every year. So who qualfies with 30 years of continued succes to be a program. Or is it just conference affiliation that makes a team a program. All hail Vanderbilt
Didn’t say a thing about any PLAYER. The program was worthy of contempt. That’s changing. No sense in engaging in false discourse about needing to nail a natty every year to be a better program. If you can’t get a handle on a good program vs a bad one, I’m not spending all nite explaining. Got nothing to say if you can’t tell the difference between a CDH program and a CWF program. On top of university support.
What’s that have to do with saying we sucked for the last 30 years? Would you say that to Case Keenum?
I would say Case was an unbelievable player that succeeded despite the shortcomings of the school support and program at the time.
And to Greg Ward?
Same thing. Look you keep talking about players. Everyone else is talking system and support. Just have a good eve.
One last thing,
So a program.is only as good as its conference. And we are only good if we are in a conference with Texas. But tell me this isn’t an Inferiority complex
Who said that? Loving the rationale. Cherry-picked players and now Texas. Glad you’re not a part of the administration.
They haven’t exactly needed a team in TX in order to thrive in the past.
Not sure how they would have to add a micro brand like UH on that basis.
Any presence in TX not involving UT or aTm won’t really do much for the B1G.
They’ve produced national champions and become the biggest money conference without any such presence.
Never needed a presence in TX in order to recruit national title level talent.
48 is closer to 50 than 40.
It’s more fifty-ish than forty-ish.
What I proposed in closer to 40. THAT’S forty-ish.
Sorry if that was a tough concept.
Sorry, but no ACC teams are going to the P2 other than maybe Florida State, Clemson, UNC, and UVA.
No Indy is going other than maybe ND.
NO Big 12 team is ascending to the P2.
Those are the only brands big enough to attract a P2 invite.
No more than 39 teams total. NOT 50.
Vetting isn’t inviting.
Oh yeah. As I said, the B1G has many parasitic brands.
My whole point is….they do NOT want to add more.
Adding any brands other than ND and maybe 3-4 ACC teams which I’ve already mentioned would not add value.
It would dilute value.
That’s why 1927’s 48-50 team P2 won’t happen. It would require the P2 to add dilutive brands.
1 Like
Sorry, but if UNC goes P2, they’ll have to take NCSt…similar to how UCLA HAD to come with a USC P2 invite.
People said the same thing about UCLA (with Cal), and OU (with Okie State) in the past.
Doesn’t work that way.
1 Like