IF there is Big 12 Expansion | Page 12 | The Boneyard

IF there is Big 12 Expansion

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know I've been beating the drum on this recently but, in light of our seemingly improving chances of getting a Big 12 invitation, if we do get an invitation will it require significant changes to our recruiting strategy and basic design philosophy and execution on Offense? If so, coach Patterson's departure could provide a way to begin that change sooner than later especially if, in the process, we can find someone to continue the great momentum he created with recruiting in North Texas.

In 2015, the (10) B12 member O's scored an avg of 35 pts/game (and gave up an avg of 32 pts/game on D). If you throw out the high and low scores on both sides of the ball, though, the averages are 36 pts/game scored on O, and 25/pts/game given up on D. This compares to UConn's 17.2pts/game on O and 19.5 pts/game on D.
 
Last edited:
We should be able to improve recruiting and the talent/depth on the roster, especially at the skill positions.


cttxus said:
I know I've been beating the drum on this recently but, in light of our seemingly improving chances of getting a Big 12 invitation, if we do get an invitation will it require significant changes to our recruiting strategy and basic design philosophy and execution on Offense? If so, coach Patterson's departure could provide a way to begin that change sooner than later especially if, in the process, we can find someone to continue the great momentum he created with recruiting in North Texas.

In 2015, the (10) B12 member O's scored an avg of 35 pts/game (and gave up an avg of 32 pts/game on D). If you throw out the high and low scores on both sides of the ball, though, the averages are 36 pts/game scored on O, and 25/pts/game given up on D. This compares to UConn's 19.5pts/game on O and 17.2 pts/game on D.
Expand ...
 
.-.
JSM1970 said:
We should be able to improve recruiting and the talent/depth on the roster, especially at the skill positions.
Expand ...
Agree, but I have to think the basic design philosophy of the O would need to be seriously reviewed and possibly changed first, specifically to target and compete with some of the (currently) middle-of-the-pack B12 teams like WVU, TX, Tech, and K State.
 
cttxus said:
I know I've been beating the drum on this recently but, in light of our seemingly improving chances of getting a Big 12 invitation, if we do get an invitation will it require significant changes to our recruiting strategy and basic design philosophy and execution on Offense? If so, coach Patterson's departure could provide a way to begin that change sooner than later especially if, in the process, we can find someone to continue the great momentum he created with recruiting in North Texas.

In 2015, the (10) B12 member O's scored an avg of 35 pts/game (and gave up an avg of 32 pts/game on D). If you throw out the high and low scores on both sides of the ball, though, the averages are 36 pts/game scored on O, and 25/pts/game given up on D. This compares to UConn's 17.2pts/game on O and 19.5 pts/game on D.
Expand ...

Completely agree. While the KState fan on the other thread didn't exactly endear himself to us, he's not exactly wrong either. There is absolutely zero chance we will be able to compete by playing bend but don't break defense, punting on 4th and 1, running slow offense sets and calling TO at the end of the play clock because of continued confusion, etc. We will need to go uptempo. Scoring in the teens will lose 1000% of our games, even the ones against Kansas.
 
pj said:
In other words, we're currently in the Great Depression.
Expand ...
I'm curious as to what exactly would be our Pearl Harbor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj
Dooley said:
Completely agree. While the KState fan on the other thread didn't exactly endear himself to us, he's not exactly wrong either. There is absolutely zero chance we will be able to compete by playing bend but don't break defense, punting on 4th and 1, running slow offense sets and calling TO at the end of the play clock because of continued confusion, etc. We will need to go uptempo. Scoring in the teens will lose 1000% of our games, even the ones against Kansas.
Expand ...
We'd have to compete off the field for recruits as well, right in the Big 12's own back yard, as we'd likely play an avg of 4-5 games per year there. What would UConn's value proposition to recruits be against the likes of UT, OK, TCU, Baylor, and even A&M, if the status quo on O is maintained? I can think of one thing for sure; playing on a perennially, highly-ranked D. Great, but then what?
 
Last edited:
cttxus said:
We'd have to compete off the field for recruits as well, right in the Big 12's own back yard, as we'd likely play an avg of 4-5 games per year there. What would UConn's value proposition to recruits be against the likes of UT, OK, TCU, Baylor, and even A&M, if the status quo on O is maintained? I can can of one thing for sure; playing on a perennially, highly-ranked D. Yes, but but then what?
Expand ...

In the past few days, I have begun thinking about this too. I think a B12 entry would put us towards the top of the ladder for potential skill position recruits in the northeast (anywhere from MD on up). WR/QBs/TEs/RBs all want to play B12 style football. If we can select a few a year that fits in well with our university culture and continue to shape a top defensive style, we can compete. Make no mistake, it will take a long time to recruit and implement the style of offense we will need to play to compete but the good news will be that we will be the only school running it east of WVU/Cincinnati. It will also mean a shift of OL recruiting. No more ground and pound run style of OL. We will need big but agile guys that can get downfield to block on screens and short throws. Not to mention, get down field for uptempo drives.
 
Dooley said:
In the past few days, I have begun thinking about this too. I think a B12 entry would put us towards the top of the ladder for potential skill position recruits in the northeast (anywhere from MD on up). WR/QBs/TEs/RBs all want to play B12 style football. If we can select a few a year that fits in well with our university culture and continue to shape a top defensive style, we can compete. Make no mistake, it will take a long time to recruit and implement the style of offense we will need to play to compete but the good news will be that we will be the only school running it east of WVU/Cincinnati. It will also mean a shift of OL recruiting. No more ground and pound run style of OL. We will need big but agile guys that can get downfield to block on screens and short throws. Not to mention, get down field for uptempo drives.
Expand ...

I wouldn't want a TOTAL shift in the types of offensive personnel we recruit. Yes, we need to be able to open it up more and have a good uptempo package when needed. However, our offense still has to work in November at home, when the wind and cold rain/snow is a-blowin'. Ball control ground and pound coupled with a smack-mouth D works well in those conditions.
 
.-.
History Geek said:
I wouldn't want a TOTAL shift in the types of offensive personnel we recruit. Yes, we need to be able to open it up more and have a good uptempo package when needed. However, our offense still has to work in November at home, when the wind and cold rain/snow is a-blowin'. Ball control ground and pound coupled with a smack-mouth D works well in those conditions.
Expand ...

Agreed - contrarian styles can be competitive if the right personnel is in place and execution is near perfect. But we would need to recruit speed skill positions to score points. Holding offenses like TCU and Baylor in the 30s would be quite a defensive feat and our current offense is more suited for games played in the teens and 20s.
 
Maybe already covered, is it pretty high odds the 10 team CCG will not be approved, so B12 has to get to 12 for Champ game and then issue is do they feel they need to, and if so who? And only 2?
 
.-.
Dooley said:
Completely agree. While the KState fan on the other thread didn't exactly endear himself to us, he's not exactly wrong either. There is absolutely zero chance we will be able to compete by playing bend but don't break defense, punting on 4th and 1, running slow offense sets and calling TO at the end of the play clock because of continued confusion, etc. We will need to go uptempo. Scoring in the teens will lose 1000% of our games, even the ones against Kansas.
Expand ...

No. We have to get better, but we don't have to get faster If you reduce possessions in a game, you reduce points without doing anything else. Points per possession is a far more important metric than average points.
 
JSM1970 said:
Maybe already covered, is it pretty high odds the 10 team CCG will not be approved, so B12 has to get to 12 for Champ game and then issue is do they feel they need to, and if so who? And only 2?
Expand ...

SEC announced they are against it. Big 10 is against it, which means the Pac 12 is probably against it. At this point, if the ACC can't pick its top two teams the way it wants, it might be against it too.
 
"A proponent of Temple would point out the Owls' biggest strength - they reside in the No. 4 market in the country. College sports are all about TV and maximizing TV dollars. There are a lot of potential eyeballs in the Philadelphia area."

Whaddaya know?!
 
Could Big 12 invite Temple football?

10 paragraphs in...

The Owls are getting next to zero national play on this topic from pundits. AAC schools such as Connecticut and Cincinnati are being mentioned as possibilities (not together but one or the other). We've seen names such as Boise State, Brigham Young, and Memphis, to name a few, but Temple hasn't received a mention.

So the answer is no, but let me give you 600 words why.
 
The best line is something towards the bottom

"temple is happy in the AAC"

NYUConn said:
Could Big 12 invite Temple football?

10 paragraphs in...

The Owls are getting next to zero national play on this topic from pundits. AAC schools such as Connecticut and Cincinnati are being mentioned as possibilities (not together but one or the other). We've seen names such as Boise State, Brigham Young, and Memphis, to name a few, but Temple hasn't received a mention.

So the answer is no, but let me give you 600 words why.
Expand ...
 
.-.
NYUConn said:
Could Big 12 invite Temple football?

10 paragraphs in...

The Owls are getting next to zero national play on this topic from pundits. AAC schools such as Connecticut and Cincinnati are being mentioned as possibilities (not together but one or the other). We've seen names such as Boise State, Brigham Young, and Memphis, to name a few, but Temple hasn't received a mention.

So the answer is no, but let me give you 600 words why.
Expand ...
Gotta start the propaganda somewhere.
 
J187Money said:
I wasn't arguing, just providing further detailed information.
Expand ...

Nielsen is certainly keeping up with the times. Didn't know they also have "Social Content Ratings" which track television-related conversations on Twitter - Facebook and Instagram to be included soon.

Keep those #UConn hashtags going during all games!

http://fortune.com/2016/01/20/nielsen-facebook-social-tv/

"Nielsen wants ratings to reflect viewers’ engagement with TV and streaming by taking their thoughts and reactions to certain shows online for a social media conversation. Nielsen said it will track social media activity related to specific shows during their scheduled airtime as well as on a 24/7 basis."

"Nielsen said it recently found that almost 60% of people who own a smartphone and/or a tablet use those devices while watching TV at least several times per week to do anything from reading social media conversations about a particular program to looking up information on an actor or athlete on the tube."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,257
Messages
4,560,146
Members
10,448
Latest member
MillerLitEd


Top Bottom