Stoops vs. Saban getting good

Yeah, but he'll never be the biggest prick. That is all Nick's.

 

Not at all. Just a pot/kettle type thing.

 

You seen this? Bowlsby - "Cheating pays presently". http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11243234/bob-bowlsby-big-12-commissioner-says-cheating-pays-ncaa-enforcement-broken?src=mobile&rand=ref~{%22ref%22%3A%22http%3A%2F%2Fcsnbbs.com%2Fthread-695760.html%22}

 

I'm not getting into a prick measuring contest with you

 

There are coaches who are much bigger assholes than Saban. Spurrier is a quote machine, but he's more vindictive than Saban ever was, unless there is a list of LSU or Alabama beat writers who Saban tried to get fired.

Hal Mumme is a bigger asshole than Saban.

The list isn't long. But there is a list.

 

The thing is, Stoops was right. It was a horseshit thing on Saban's part to marginalize Oklahoma's Sugar Bowl victory by claiming he couldn't get his kids motivated for a "consolation game." Saban's such a wonderful coach, but he can't get his kids ready for a damn Sugar Bowl? I can understand just a little if it was Shreveport.

 

There's just as many lame "rivalries" that existed in the old conference setups.
How intense, really, was Nebraska-Iowa State? Or Maryland-Georgia Tech? Or West Virginia-Rutgers? Or Florida-Kentucky?
Conference rivalries stem not just from geography and history, but from competitive games and playing for stakes. Sometimes they can go from nothing to something in a very short time.
Colorado-Nebraska in the 1990s is a good example. LSU and Auburn played a lot over the years, but a string of memorable, meaningful games from the mid-90s on has made that one of the best SEC rivalries of the last 20 years.
Bottom line, if Colorado and Cal have some good matchups -- and play frequently enough, which is another key -- they'll get something going. They don't even necessarily have to both be good.

 

Agree completely, Batman. To pick an example dear to my heart, UVA and Miami, against all odds, have a pretty good, competitive series going. They play every year, and the game has gone down to the wire as often as not. The games are almost always entertaining and compelling. And that's with the teams ranging from "generally down a notch from their historical reputation" (Miami) to "dumpster fire" (UVA).

 

Sorry, but it's more than a number of games that separates Missouri vs. Georgia and Missouri vs. Kansas.

 

No kidding. But is there really a difference between Missouri vs. Georgia and Missouri vs. Texas Tech, or Missouri vs. Oklahoma State?

 

As a Kansas alum raised to hate Missouri, I don't miss playing them anywhere near as much as I thought I would. In fact, I really don't miss it at all.

 

Why does the Big 12 want a title game? They play all nine. If that's to cut the nine games to eight or even seven, then it's stupid. I guess you could go with two five-team divisions, play the division four times and then five...but you'd be doing the same thing you are now. No, the stupid way is to play everyone in a round-robin then go to what the polls say at the end of the year and take the top two. Let's say a late-bloomer is part of a one-loss three-way tie. They're screwed on this approach.