You're kidding about the hawks having more talent, right? Did you even watch BOTH teams this year? Talent out of high school often doesn't translate to success at the college level. Even if you want to give value to the ratings of recruit classes, what you're missing with KSU is the fact annual recruit class ratings don't account for the D-I transfers that KSU seems to regularly get. Instead of comparing how each team did against Iowa State, you should look at the scores of the KU - K-State games the past two years. That wasn't all coaching.
Posted 4 December 2011, 12:28 a.m.
First off, while in the end it was what it was, I felt better about the team this past weekend, particularly the first half. At least they evidenced some passion. Last year there were games where it seemed like the absolutely last place most of the players wanted to be was on the field or the sidelines. That said...
I've been reading some of the comments here that the Hawks are a much faster team than KSU, much more talented, and so on. That the only difference is the coaching. Well, Snyder's a legend and he's earned it. But I've watched most of the games for both teams this season, either in person or on TV, and IMO KU isn't measurably more talented than KSU, and may in fact have less talent in some key positions. And anyone who says KU is faster simply hasn't watched both teams play.
Both teams will very keyed up for this game. Should be fun. Maybe.
Posted 17 October 2011, 7:29 p.m.
Unfortunately, KU WAS winking at both during all this. Nobody cared. Or the hawks would've been in another conference by now.
And if we had, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been put motion at the 11th hour, like MU has just done.
Posted 4 October 2011, 8:16 p.m.
Missouri just can't help being...well, Missouri. They've always been the schizophrenic brother in the conference.
Once it became clear the Big 12 was going to survive this year, I told an MU friend of mine that, in consideration of last year's events, when MU looked so ridiculous and punked following its spurned flirtation with the B1G, it had redeemed itself this year due to its Chancellor taking such a leadership role in saving the conference.
Now this. Maybe it's all some leverage game to gain a longer media rights period from the others, and further concessions from UT. If not, enough already.
So just get out. Let us invite into the conference the handful of decent schools that WANT to be here. Let's end the friggin drama. Show me, MU. One way or the other.
Posted 4 October 2011, 8:09 p.m.
Sure, if you like laughing at the special needs kid in the lunch line.
Posted 3 October 2011, 9:03 p.m.
Plus infinity...and beyond.
Posted 3 October 2011, 8:55 p.m.
From your postings over the past couple of weeks, you spend more time worrying about where KSU may ultimately land than the K-staters do. Get over it already.
KU must improve its football program. It's one of the worst of all the BCS programs, and likely won't win even one conference game this year. Crummy football mitigates any advantage of AAU for a B1G invite.
Posted 27 September 2011, 9:25 p.m.
Well put. Nothing against the school itself, they have a heck of a FB program, but whoever approved that turf should be fired...if they haven't been already.
Posted 27 September 2011, 11:38 a.m.
Maybe I'm the only one, but that blue turf that Boise State plays on makes those games almost unwatchable.
Posted 27 September 2011, 11:18 a.m.
K-States fortunes are tied to KU, and vice-versa. Regardless of what Matt thinks or is hearing from KU administrators. The BOR and politicians in the state won't have it any other way (and for those who think otherwise, Lawrence is not particularly beloved outside of, well...Lawrence). Any democrats in positions of power in this state? No. And I say that as a democrat myself. Lawrence is viewed as the unwanted Berkeley of KS.
Memories on this MB seem to be short. Does anyone remember last year, when the first round of this Groundhog Day experience was taking place? The BOR issued the following statement to the Topeka CJ: "KU and K-State will always be in the same conference together. There's not going to be a split."
Nothing has changed. Maybe a little less hubris is called for, fellas, and a little more reality. From a cursory glance at MB's for the other schools, KU and TT seem to be the only ones spending a great deal of time and energy blasting other schools in the conference in an effort to build themselves up. (Okay, I haven't checked any Baylor sites).
Lew Perkins spelled it out when interviewed about the goings-on last year. There weren't any (decent) conferences lining up to invite either school. Of course, sure, sure, both schools have been talking to conferences this year, but if either had an invite somewhere decent they probably would have jumped at it, or at least leaked the info to the press (like everyone with an actual or pretend offer seems to be doing in this conference).
All of this said, here's to ALL the schools in the conference landing in a good place. My guess is we are surviving here, in these discussions, on but a fragment of what's actually taking place behind closed doors.
Posted 20 September 2011, 9:38 p.m.