goemaw.com

TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Football => Topic started by: chum1 on June 07, 2010, 09:39:28 AM

Title: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: chum1 on June 07, 2010, 09:39:28 AM
1.  KSU to MWC with CU and KU.  As the original KSU to MWC advocate, I must stick to my guns.  Plus, with the possibility that CU and KU will need a new home as well, we could be bringing about 85% of the Big 12 fun along with us.

2.  KSU to SEC.  Holy crap.  Those fuckers are hilarious and INSANE about their football.  So many awesome football matchups.  So much pummeling week after week after week.  It would be incredible.

3.  KSU to Big East (with KU or whatever).  Incredible opportunity to get your basketball only on.  Face it.  We’re not going to be relevant in football ever again if we ever were.  Let’s throw everything we’ve got at basketball.

4.  Big 12 stays intact (or more or less does so). :zzz:  I’m now completely against this.  I want a shiny new schedule full of exciting new teams that don’t come from crap states like Texas or worse.  Is anyone really going to be disappointed if we can’t continue to play teams like Mizzou and Oklahoma State every year?  I didn’t rough ridin' think so.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on June 07, 2010, 09:44:23 AM
1.  KSU to MWC with CU and KU.  As the original KSU to MWC advocate, I must stick to my guns.  Plus, with the possibility that CU and KU will need a new home as well, we could be bringing about 85% of the Big 12 fun along with us.

2.  KSU to SEC.  Holy crap.  Those frackers are hilarious and INSANE about their football.  So many awesome football matchups.  So much pummeling week after week after week.  It would be incredible.

3.  KSU to Big East (with KU or whatever).  Incredible opportunity to get your basketball only on.  Face it.  We’re not going to be relevant in football ever again if we ever were.  Let’s throw everything we’ve got at basketball.

4.  Big 12 stays intact (or more or less does so). :zzz:  I’m now completely against this.  I want a shiny new schedule full of exciting new teams that don’t come from crap states like Texas or worse.  Is anyone really going to be disappointed if we can’t continue to play teams like Mizzou and Oklahoma State every year?  I didn’t fracking think so.


although i don't totally disagree w/ anything above... the scenarios listed and anti big 12 sentiment are much more palatable when you live a thousand miles away from kansas. the new teanms and towns part sounds great but i like going to a couple of away games a year and it's going to get quite a bit harder if lincoln, stillwater, etc aren't options anymore.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: steve dave on June 07, 2010, 09:45:12 AM
1.  Yes, would be a great "fit"
2.  They would never go out with us. They only date cheerleaders and rich girls.  But, agree it would be amazing.
3.  Would be weird but provide plenty of opportunities to learn where schools without their location in their name are on the map.
4.  agree, snoozefest
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: chum1 on June 07, 2010, 09:53:55 AM
i like going to a couple of away games a year and it's going to get quite a bit harder if lincoln, stillwater, etc aren't options anymore.

You'll still have Lawrence.  And Boulder and Ft. Collins are more than worth a few more hours in the car.  You should be thankful if Lincoln and Stillwater are no longer options.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: Trim on June 07, 2010, 09:57:34 AM
i like going to a couple of away games a year and it's going to get quite a bit harder if lincoln, stillwater, etc aren't options anymore.

You'll still have Lawrence.  And Boulder and Ft. Collins are more than worth a few more hours in the car.  You should be thankful if Lincoln and Stillwater are no longer options.

Joint MHK flights and conference expansion announcement tomorrow?
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on June 07, 2010, 09:58:35 AM
Boulder and Ft. Collins are more than worth a few more hours in the car. 

if i were going to go up for three or four days and ski and hike and stuff then yeah. maybe. but i'm not. i'm just going to go drink for a day and probably watch an athletic event. not really worth the drive imo.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: steve dave on June 07, 2010, 10:00:55 AM
i like going to a couple of away games a year and it's going to get quite a bit harder if lincoln, stillwater, etc aren't options anymore.

You'll still have Lawrence.  And Boulder and Ft. Collins are more than worth a few more hours in the car.  You should be thankful if Lincoln and Stillwater are no longer options.

Joint MHK flights and conference expansion announcement tomorrow?

DIA directs would be amazing
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 07, 2010, 10:20:06 AM
Like I mentioned in another thread.   I think the recent ACC TV deal is a big deal, because IMO it potentially takes the Clemson, FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech to the SEC that you hear around these parts completely off the table.    They very well could look at the additional competition as not being worth a few extra million dollars . . . when they can draw a nice payout from their TV deals and have better shots at conference titles, BCS births and NCAA tourney invites. 

So then the SEC has to start looking WEST IMO . . . one smart poster in Powertardville pointed out that Texas doesn't like the SEC.   Texas from what I know from living there and such views themselves as more Southwestern oriented . . . SEC territory to them is still dominated by the "old south".   They hate Arkansas, they hate LSU, they consider almost everyone of the SEC schools as inferior to them in every way. 

While it's a massive longshot I know . . . the SEC is still not totally out of the equation.    Taking KSU completely out of the SEC equation, it wouldn't shock me at all if OU, OSU and A&M didn't get a call and seriously consider the SEC.   
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: pissclams on June 07, 2010, 10:20:44 AM
MWC is my first and only choice. anything else (including staying in the current b12N, would be a major disappointment).

i'm sicking of our athletic dept running up hill.  we've failed a few grades and need to enjoy being the big kid in class for a while.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: Pete on June 07, 2010, 10:26:38 AM
Mostly agree with Chum on this, but I really only like two options.

1.  MWC has really grown on me over the past two weeks.  Did some research, and it turns out that they are almost a BCS conferece, but nearly every schools sucks complete ass.....amazing combination for us.

2.  The SEC would prolly make me and the other Mods on this site rich.  Their message boarding is second-to-none.  I am not really that greedy, so I favor the MWC deal, but an SEC deal would basically let me quit my day job because of the increased traffic on this site.

Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 07, 2010, 10:27:44 AM
Mostly agree with Chum on this, but I really only like two options.

1.  MWC has really grown on me over the past two weeks.  Did some research, and it turns out that they are almost a BCS conferece, but nearly every schools sucks complete ass.....amazing combination for us.

2.  The SEC would prolly make me and the other Mods on this site rich.  Their message boarding is second-to-none.  I am not really that greedy, so I favor the MWC deal, but an SEC deal would basically let me quit my day job because of the increased traffic on this site.



It's a pipe dream . . . but a damn fun pipe dream none-the-less.



Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: steve dave on June 07, 2010, 10:28:25 AM
Mostly agree with Chum on this, but I really only like two options.

1.  MWC has really grown on me over the past two weeks.  Did some research, and it turns out that they are almost a BCS conferece, but nearly every schools sucks complete ass.....amazing combination for us.

2.  The SEC would prolly make me and the other Mods on this site EVEN MORE rich.  Their message boarding is second-to-none.  I am not really that greedy, so I favor the MWC deal, but an SEC deal would basically let me quit my day job because of the increased traffic on this site.

FYP Pete.  Have you seen the latest numbers?  We broke last month's record and should each see 6 figures take home this month.  
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: get_HIT on June 07, 2010, 12:59:11 PM
i like going to a couple of away games a year and it's going to get quite a bit harder if lincoln, stillwater, etc aren't options anymore.

You'll still have Lawrence.  And Boulder and Ft. Collins are more than worth a few more hours in the car.  You should be thankful if Lincoln and Stillwater are no longer options.

Joint MHK flights and conference expansion announcement tomorrow?

DIA directs would be amazing

Agree, but that's why they died when we did have them, not enough traffic.  I only few to DIA once, there was me, one other old lady, and the 2 pilots-weird as hullabaloo. 
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: catzacker on June 07, 2010, 01:10:45 PM
first and foremost, I want the Big 12 to remain in tact if and only if it becomes an aboslute and complete hate fest amongst its members.  Like, out in the open, no holds barred, universities, administrators, and coaches taking pot shots at each other kind of hate fest.  Otherwise, I like Chum's set up.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: nicname on June 07, 2010, 01:24:24 PM
first and foremost, I want the Big 12 to remain in tact if and only if it becomes an aboslute and complete hate fest amongst its members.  Like, out in the open, no holds barred, universities, administrators, and coaches taking pot shots at each other kind of hate fest.  Otherwise, I like Chum's set up.

Agreed.  An intact Big 12 with all original members would be epically bloodthirsty.  MWC is my second choice.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on June 07, 2010, 01:25:28 PM
first and foremost, I want the Big 12 to remain in tact if and only if it becomes an aboslute and complete hate fest amongst its members.  Like, out in the open, no holds barred, universities, administrators, and coaches taking pot shots at each other kind of hate fest.  Otherwise, I like Chum's set up.

if it was kstate and ku to the mwc and mizzou to the big10 and ku thinks they are stuck in the mwc because of kstate then the kstate and ku could have a pretty good hatefest going.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: The42Yardstick on June 07, 2010, 01:40:59 PM
Like I mentioned in another thread.   I think the recent ACC TV deal is a big deal, because IMO it potentially takes the Clemson, FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech to the SEC that you hear around these parts completely off the table.    They very well could look at the additional competition as not being worth a few extra million dollars . . . when they can draw a nice payout from their TV deals and have better shots at conference titles, BCS births and NCAA tourney invites. 

So then the SEC has to start looking WEST IMO . . . one smart poster in Powertardville pointed out that Texas doesn't like the SEC.   Texas from what I know from living there and such views themselves as more Southwestern oriented . . . SEC territory to them is still dominated by the "old south".   They hate Arkansas, they hate LSU, they consider almost everyone of the SEC schools as inferior to them in every way. 

While it's a massive longshot I know . . . the SEC is still not totally out of the equation.    Taking KSU completely out of the SEC equation, it wouldn't shock me at all if OU, OSU and A&M didn't get a call and seriously consider the SEC.   

I think that your statement is very true of UT and their fans. They think that they are too good for the SEC. A&M? Not so much. I think about 80% of their fans would jump at the chance if the SEC offered.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: Ghost of Stan Parrish on June 07, 2010, 02:58:48 PM
OK, trying to think outside the box.  My beloved NYU Violets' conference, the Nerdy Nine, is currently one member short (only eight nerds).  The conference is already in Missouri, so no geographic worries.  Roadies to NYC, Chicago, Pittsburgh?  Rubbing elbows with NYU alumns like the Olsen twins and Lady Gaga?  Pretty sexy!  (Probably KSU will have to act on this quickly before someone else thinks of it.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Athletic_Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Athletic_Association)

Just putting this out there as a viable option, bros, don't hate on me.   :dunno:
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: Panjandrum on June 07, 2010, 03:31:12 PM
Mostly agree with Chum on this, but I really only like two options.

1.  MWC has really grown on me over the past two weeks.  Did some research, and it turns out that they are almost a BCS conferece, but nearly every schools sucks complete ass.....amazing combination for us.

2.  The SEC would prolly make me and the other Mods on this site rich.  Their message boarding is second-to-none.  I am not really that greedy, so I favor the MWC deal, but an SEC deal would basically let me quit my day job because of the increased traffic on this site.



Same with our blog.  Remotes from SEC locales would be fantastic.

Podcasting from Oxford, MS would be amazing.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: goldenticket on June 07, 2010, 05:57:44 PM
i hate that the big 12 is most likely going to be blown up due to greed. i would prefer it to stay the way it is or try to flip things and add teams it self. i dont see that happening though. i would of course would want to join the SEC but no way do they want us. they dont want to share their tv money with anyone that isnt going to raise the level of the conference and lead to a larger tv deal in the future. i guess its mountain west if they can add the big 12 teams not going to the pac10/big10 and add boise state it will be ok but prob not bcs worthy which will be lame. not really liking the big east idea they are so far away and not a fan of the teams they have. would prefer going to an updated MWC then the current big east
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: michigancat on June 07, 2010, 06:25:09 PM
spent the weekend in San Diego ( :gocho: ) and could't stop daydreaming about a late September trip to Jack Murphy (or the VegasPak).

VegasPak, people!
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: TBL on June 07, 2010, 06:37:35 PM
According to ESPN, MWC says they will not be expanding.  :dunno:
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: Paul Moscow on June 07, 2010, 06:38:39 PM
According to ESPN, MWC says they will not be expanding.  :dunno:

Wait and see approach.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: steve dave on June 07, 2010, 06:41:38 PM
According to ESPN, MWC says they will not be expanding.  :dunno:

That's just in reference to Boise (who they were going to add). 
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: steve dave on June 07, 2010, 06:42:13 PM
spent the weekend in San Diego ( :gocho: ) and could't stop daydreaming about a late September trip to Jack Murphy (or the VegasPak).

VegasPak, people!

Going to be unbelievable.  UNBELIEVABLE. 
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: TheMadCatter on June 07, 2010, 06:48:23 PM
According to ESPN, MWC says they will not be expanding.  :dunno:

They are placing it on hold until they find out if we are available or not. They want us. They want us bad.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: TBL on June 07, 2010, 06:50:18 PM
According to ESPN, MWC says they will not be expanding.  :dunno:

They are placing it on hold until they find out if we are available or not. They want us. They want us bad.


 :bigtoke:
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: ChiComCat on June 07, 2010, 07:23:58 PM
I would definitely be setting any roadies @ Tommy Mack as the premiere event on my schedule every year.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: michigancat on June 07, 2010, 07:34:56 PM
And, as been alluded to in another thread, I can't fathom how awesome it would be to watch a more-than-slightly drunk Pete screaming obscenities at Mormons in Provo.

It would be incredible.  That's bucket-list* type stuff, folks.

*stupid, but applies here.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: TheMadCatter on June 07, 2010, 07:37:28 PM
According to ESPN, MWC says they will not be expanding.  :dunno:

They are placing it on hold until they find out if we are available or not. They want us. They want us bad.


 :bigtoke:

http://www.lvrj.com/sports/mwc-decides-not-to-expand-___-for-now-95792014.html (http://www.lvrj.com/sports/mwc-decides-not-to-expand-___-for-now-95792014.html)

Quote
The Pacific-10 Conference is considering going up to 16 schools, and the same could occur with the Big Ten and Southeastern conferences. Such moves could effectively end the Big 12 Conference, which could leave some of those schools left out of the mix --Â such as Colorado, Kansas and Kansas State -- for the Mountain West to possibly pick up.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: raquetcat on June 07, 2010, 09:47:47 PM
Roadies  :driving: in auburn (HATE these frackers), baton rouge, and NASHVILLE (super elite)! but on the downside we'll have to start wearing khaki pants and polos to the games, i'm more of a cut off jeans and wife beater at the games type of guy  :dunno:
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: jtksu on June 07, 2010, 10:13:13 PM
1)  Am I the only one who didn't know Get Hit was an old lady?  Weird.  2)  As long as we get to keep Frank and are able to compete at a national level in b-ball, I am all about a move to a strengthened MWC.  It'll probably pick up the BCS spot vacated by the defunct Big 12, and we could easily win 8-9 football games a year (including non-con) in that conference.  Plus, the baseball team could prob win that conference pretty handidly.  Couple that with some nice 'pak locales and we have a winner. 
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: cas4ksu on June 07, 2010, 10:14:08 PM
And, as been alluded to in another thread, I can't fathom how awesome it would be to watch a more-than-slightly drunk Pete screaming obscenities at Mormons in Provo.

It would be incredible.  That's bucket-list* type stuff, folks.

*stupid, but applies here.

My. Lord.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: Trim on June 08, 2010, 12:30:25 AM
And, as been alluded to in another thread, I can't fathom how awesome it would be to watch a more-than-slightly drunk Pete screaming obscenities at Mormons in Provo.

It would be incredible.  That's bucket-list* type stuff, folks.

*stupid, but applies here.

My. Lord.

It's all ahead of you kid.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: theKSU on June 08, 2010, 01:17:51 AM
Considering that I live within an 8 our drive of 6 MWC schools right now, I suppose there are worse things in the world than being downgraded to that slum.  By adding K-State, ISU, and Boise, they'll likely become the 6th BCS conference. 

It would be great if CU and KU joined the MWC as well, but I'm pretty sure CU will find its way into the Pac 10 somehow and KU will likely land in the SEC or Big East.  If Notre Dame joins the Big 10, then I think KU will find an easier time finding a landing spot outside of the MWC.  Joining the MWC could revive the CU sports programs by creating fierce rivalries.  Then they could continue feeling superior to everyone as well, which befits Boulder. 
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep on June 08, 2010, 01:49:46 AM
1)  Am I the only one who didn't know Get Hit was an old lady?  Weird.  2)  As long as we get to keep Frank and are able to compete at a national level in b-ball, I am all about a move to a strengthened MWC.  It'll probably pick up the BCS spot vacated by the defunct Big 12, and we could easily win 8-9 football games a year (including non-con) in that conference.  Plus, the baseball team could prob win that conference pretty handidly.  Couple that with some nice 'pak locales and we have a winner. 

This is all assuming that our recruiting remains the same in MWC. I think conference has a lot to do with what players come there, just look at the style of play in Big East basketball compared to that of the SEC, much more physical. We will lose recruits, and saying we can stay the same just in a different conference might be a bit farfetched, anyone else agree??
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: jtksu on June 08, 2010, 02:20:29 AM
The style of play each conference has results in certain types of players being rescruited, not vice versa.  Look at the Big 12 and the influx of spread option players, on both sides of the ball.   Snyders move to the ball control offense and 4-2-5 is a direct answer to those spreads, and it worked pretty damn well with shitty talent so I would expect more teams to experiment with it in years to come.  We haven't recruited well in football for some time now yet we were 1 win from playing in the CCG.  It's not like we're signing many highly recruited kids, even at a BCS school.  We'd be much better off competing against schools that are more our caliber than the UTs, OUs, UNLs, etc.  Not saying we will win the MWC every year, but we can go .500 every year there and that means a bowl trip every year.  I would be totally cool with that, so long as it doesn't hurt bball.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 08, 2010, 08:42:17 AM
It's Tuesday . . . so Tuesday mean's "SEC or Bust" day for Dax.

You're looking live at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium better known as the Swamp where today 93,000 will gather to watch their Florida Gators take on the Kansas State Wildcats  . . . hello everybody I'm . . .
Title: Silver lining...
Post by: Iceberg on June 08, 2010, 08:56:18 AM
In face of reality, we should look for the bright side of this shitty situation....


Maybe being in the Mountain West will help us drop the KS is totally flat misconception.  :dunno:
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: Paul Moscow on June 08, 2010, 08:57:03 AM
It's Tuesday . . . so Tuesday mean's "SEC or Bust" day for Dax.

You're looking live at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium better known as the Swamp where today 93,000 will gather to watch their Florida Gators take on the Kansas State Wildcats  . . . hello everybody I'm . . .

KSU + Verne Lundquist?

I'll watch the game with no pants if that happens.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: get_HIT on June 08, 2010, 10:55:24 AM
1)  Am I the only one who didn't know Get Hit was an old lady?  Weird.  2)  As long as we get to keep Frank and are able to compete at a national level in b-ball, I am all about a move to a strengthened MWC.  It'll probably pick up the BCS spot vacated by the defunct Big 12, and we could easily win 8-9 football games a year (including non-con) in that conference.  Plus, the baseball team could prob win that conference pretty handidly.  Couple that with some nice 'pak locales and we have a winner. 

hahah if you're talkin about when i said "me and some other old lady on the flight to denver" well hullabaloo, I guess i worded that wrong.  thanks for catching it.  for the record, I am not an old lady  :)
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: yoga-like_abana on June 08, 2010, 11:17:58 AM
What if instead of the few big XII teams that would remain joining the MWC, why don't we absorb the MWC and that way we can still stay a BCS conference. Genius I know.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: chum1 on June 08, 2010, 11:24:06 AM
What if instead of the few big XII teams that would remain joining the MWC, why don't we absorb the MWC and that way we can still stay a BCS conference. Genius I know.

The word is that if more than 6 schools bail, the Big 12 ceases to exist as a BCS conference.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: chum1 on June 08, 2010, 11:25:12 AM
2.5  KSU to BCS conference, KU to Atlantic 10. 
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: yoga-like_abana on June 08, 2010, 11:25:26 AM
What if instead of the few big XII teams that would remain joining the MWC, why don't we absorb the MWC and that way we can still stay a BCS conference. Genius I know.

The word is that if more than 6 schools bail, the Big 12 ceases to exist as a BCS conference.
:frown:
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 08, 2010, 11:29:04 AM
2.5  KSU to BCS conference, KU to Atlantic 10. 

It would be more likely that KSU goes to the MWC right before the MWC becomes BCS, and KU goes to the Big East right before it gets raided by the Big 10, ACC (again) and the SEC.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: CNS on June 08, 2010, 11:41:00 AM
Roadies  :driving: in auburn (HATE these frackers), baton rouge, and NASHVILLE (super elite)! but on the downside we'll have to start wearing khaki pants and polos to the games, i'm more of a cut off jeans and wife beater at the games type of guy  :dunno:

Mods, please group with the Harley Day thread.
Title: Re: Ranking of desired landing spots
Post by: CNS on June 08, 2010, 11:45:32 AM
It's Tuesday . . . so Tuesday mean's "SEC or Bust" day for Dax.

You're looking live at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium better known as the Swamp where today 93,000 will gather to watch their Florida Gators take on the Kansas State Wildcats  . . . hello everybody I'm . . .

Even with bowl game-like travel, there won't be enough purple for the camers to notice.