[JDIII2007]

Now, that the seasons are done people can start to judge how all these teams have done in their first year in a new conference.

West Virginia has had a disappointing year in its first year but is poised to become bowl eligible with a win over Iowa State or Kansas. Obviously, they were hoping for a lot more this season but were competitive in most of their losses save the Tech loss where the West Texas winds were a big factor.

A&M has had the exact opposite compared to WV's season where they exceeded expectations and have won a number of games including beating Bama at Bama. They have shown that they can compete and that the Sumlin/Kingsbury combination has worked in year 1. A&M has also benefited some with the collapse of Arkansas and Auburn this year making the SEC West the weakest it has been in years.

Missouri has had a tough season and will have to knock off A&M to become bowl eligible. Prior to the start of the season, I thought they would do better than A&M but obviously they have struggled in the SEC East this season.

TCU has had an up and down season this year but has been competitive in every game. Despite the record attrition and loss of their starting QB this season, TCU still has managed to become bowl eligible and is now sitting at 7 wins with a game to go against OU. In the tough final 5 games, they are 2-2 with one to play.

Looking at things at this point, I think A&M and TCU have proven they can perform in their new conferences and WV and Mizz still have some work to do to meet their expectations. We will need to wait a few more years to really tell which conference benefited the most from these moves.

[Chise]

Originally Posted by JDIII2007

Now, that the seasons are done people can start to judge how all these teams have done in their first year in a new conference.

West Virginia has had a disappointing year in its first year but is poised to become bowl eligible with a win over Iowa State or Kansas. Obviously, they were hoping for a lot more this season but were competitive in most of their losses save the Tech loss where the West Texas winds were a big factor.

A&M has had the exact opposite compared to WV's season where they exceeded expectations and have won a number of games including beating Bama at Bama. They have shown that they can compete and that the Sumlin/Kingsbury combination has worked in year 1. A&M has also benefited some with the collapse of Arkansas and Auburn this year making the SEC West the weakest it has been in years.

Missouri has had a tough season and will have to knock off A&M to become bowl eligible. Prior to the start of the season, I thought they would do better than A&M but obviously they have struggled in the SEC East this season.

TCU has had an up and down season this year but has been competitive in every game. Despite the record attrition and loss of their starting QB this season, TCU still has managed to become bowl eligible and is now sitting at 7 wins with a game to go against OU. In the tough final 5 games, they are 2-2 with one to play.

Looking at things at this point, I think A&M and TCU have proven they can perform in their new conferences and WV and Mizz still have some work to do to meet their expectations. We will need to wait a few more years to really tell which conference benefited the most from these moves.

The Kansas St. game in Morgantown (55-14) was even worse than the Tech game.

On a grading scale:

TAMU: B+
WVU: F
Mizzou: F
TCU: D (If they beat OU which gives them a winning conference record, C)

[JDIII2007]

Originally Posted by Chise

The Kansas St. game in Morgantown (55-14) was even worse than the Tech game.

On a grading scale:

TAMU: B+
WVU: F
Mizzou: F
TCU: D (If they beat OU which gives them a winning conference record, C)

Are you just trolling? How could you possibly grade TCU so low? Few teams in the country could have the attrition they had in the offseason and lose their starting QB and still match their performance. Even the most ardent TCU fans PRIOR to the attrition were thinking a 9 or 10 win season. TCU has 7 wins now and has a shot at a 8 or 9 win season. If you think that is a C or D effort, you must have expected TCU to win the National title going into the season.

The rest of your grades are pretty harsh as well. Even the East German judge is saying come on.

[AggieNation]

Originally Posted by Chise

The Kansas St. game in Morgantown (55-14) was even worse than the Tech game.

On a grading scale:

TAMU: B+
WVU: F
Mizzou: F
TCU: D (If they beat OU which gives them a winning conference record, C)

I think Texas A&M should be rated at an A if not A- due to the fact that many people thought that they would not compete and have proven many people wrong. This however may be very biased due to the fact that I am an Aggie.

If WV could have pulled the upset against OU I would have considered a higher ranking but they did not.

Mizzou, I agree with. Not looking so hot this year. Hopefully they'll bounce back next year. I'd like to see another former Big 12 team compete in the SEC.

With TCU making the win last night against Texas I would give them a C because they have shown that they can compete, or at least better than West Virginia has.

[Chise]

Originally Posted by JDIII2007

Are you just trolling? How could you possibly grade TCU so low? Few teams in the country could have the attrition they had in the offseason and lose their starting QB and still match their performance. Even the most ardent TCU fans PRIOR to the attrition were thinking a 9 or 10 win season. TCU has 7 wins now and has a shot at a 8 or 9 win season. If you think that is a C or D effort, you must have expected TCU to win the National title going into the season.

The rest of your grades are pretty harsh as well. Even the East German judge is saying come on.

Are we basing these grades on effort or performance? I mean if we're basing it on effort, we could give Auburn an A because they're putting forth an effort, but the performance is a F.

WVU was preseason #11 going into the season and was one of the Big 12 favorites (#2 behind OU)......they're sitting at 2-5 in the conference, that F is warranted....even Mounty would agree to that.

Mizzou is 5-6 (2-5), soon to be 5-7 (2-6) and not bowl eligible, what other grade would you give them?

If TCU loses to OU they will have a 4-5 conference record.....a losing conference record is below average, a grade of C is average.

Giving TAMU a B+ is harsh? If they had 1 loss, yes a B+ would be harsh but not with two.

[ShowMeTigers]

Grading vs Expectations:

TAM (A)
Mizzou (D)
West Viriginia (F)
TCU (C)

[Chise]

Originally Posted by AggieNation

I think Texas A&M should be rated at an A if not A- due to the fact that many people thought that they would not compete and have proven many people wrong. This however may be very biased due to the fact that I am an Aggie.

If WV could have pulled the upset against OU I would have considered a higher ranking but they did not.

Mizzou, I agree with. Not looking so hot this year. Hopefully they'll bounce back next year. I'd like to see another former Big 12 team compete in the SEC.

With TCU making the win last night against Texas I would give them a C because they have shown that they can compete, or at least better than West Virginia has.

If A&M had only 1 loss, I definitely would've given them an A. (Giving up 57 to La Tech didn't help either)

WVU, along with VT and USC, will probably end up being the most overrated team(s) due to where each started the season at......that's why I gave them a F.

I probably should've given TCU a C-, with a final grade of C if they beat OU and a D if they don't.

[BamaChamps]

Originally Posted by Chise

If A&M had only 1 loss, I definitely would've given them an A. (Giving up 57 to La Tech didn't help either)

WVU, along with VT and USC, will probably end up being the most overrated team(s) due to where each started the season at......that's why I gave them a F.

I probably should've given TCU a C-, with a final grade of C if they beat OU and a D if they don't.

QFT. To me an A/A+ should only be awarded for being undefeated in a conference, and an A/-A for only 1 conference loss or conference champ. I completely agree with everything else, this USC is probably the most over-rated team of all team, being almost an unanimous preseason #1 with the potential for a 7-5 season.

[Kinnick]

If they remained in their conferences, WV would go 9-3 and be 3rd in BE. A&M would be 12-0, MO 8-4, TCU 11-1.

[SoonerDog]

Originally Posted by Kinnick

If they remained in their conferences, WV would go 9-3 and be 3rd in BE. A&M would be 12-0, MO 8-4, TCU 11-1.

The last time Texas A&M was unbeaten and untied was in 1939. They haven't won 10 games since 1998. Yet in their first year in the mighty SEC they'll likely have 10 to 11 wins and theoretically, could still win the SEC in the highly unlikely event Alabama loses to Auburn.

If A & M were still in the Big 12, I suspect they'd still have 2 losses at this point in the season. In fact, if Alabama was in the Big 12 they'd probably have 2 losses as well, given the difficulty they had against the only really good offensive team they've faced all season.

I think what you guys that have grown up mainly watching SEC & Big Ten football fail to understand is that it's practically impossible to shut down a great offense IF that offense is playing at its absolute best. It doesn't matter how good your defense is, you simply cannot cover everything when facing a team with a great offense that is on a roll. The problem is- No matter how good an Offense is, it's going to have some off days. The same isn't necessarily true for great defensives.

That's why you'll see a team like Oklahoma look really good one week and like crap the next- When it's all 'clicking', a great offense is going to beat a great defense. It's when that "great offense" has a mediocre day that the defensive team is going to prevail.

Teams like Alabama and LSU would definitely be competitive in the Big 12, but they'd also lose some games they weren't supposed to for the reasons above.