WE NEED TO REALIZE THIS IS AN UPHILL BATTLE!

FremontTroll said:

dnc said:

FremontTroll said:

elord821 said:

dnc said:

bananasnblondes said:

This thread has made my dick so soft that it has changed states from a solid to a liquid. 3 more pages of this shit and it will be a gas

Only another page and a half to go guys, don't let bnb down!
Once his dick changes to a gas we can call him Air BNB

We won't get there if we go on about dick.

FremontTroll said:

dnc said:

FremontTroll said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

The Wisconsin comparison is most relevant right now as far as team culture that Petersen seems to expound, but I think we get a lot more elite athletes than they do.

We? should be pushing the "big city" narrative in recruiting. Coaches should post more likes about random gang violence, less about the fucking mountains and kayaking. Make the fast strategy kids from SoCal feel at home. How many major programs are located in the middle of a burgeoning urban environment? USC/UCLA, tOSU, Texas, Minnesota, and who else?

Georgia Tech and Vandy. Cal should count as Berkeley is right there. Is SLC urban?

Never been to Raleigh-Durham other than the airport but there are 2 million people there. Not sure if it feels like a city.

If we’re counting tOSU and Tejas then OU probably counts too. OKCsucks but it’s not significantly smaller than Columbus or Austin.

If we are counting schools that are in suburbs or close to major cities then we need to count Northwestern, Colorado, Rutgers, Maryland, Stanford, ASU...probably others.

Boulder is 25 miles outside of Denver. That's like saying Everett should count.

Thats my point. I was responding to dnc bringing up OU which is in Norman not OKC.

Norman is way more OKC than Boulder is Denver though

I will take your word for it having proudly never stepped foot in Oklahoma. Google maps says 20 miles from OKC so seems equivalent.

Norman is certainly less metropolitan than the other places I listed- Evanston, Palo Alto, Tempe, New Brunswick.

whlinder said:

Seattle is pretty unique in that it is a massively important U.S. and world city yet the local university garners a significant amount of local attention and is actually IN THE DAMN CITY and super close to the downtown core area. And is a major university both in athletics and academis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
U.S. cities ranked higher or equal to Seattle:

NYC- no football, Rutgers is not that close
Chicago- Northwestern? Lol.
L.A.- USC, UCLA
DC- Maryland isn't close to downtown
SF- Cal. Too high
Miami- The U's well documented underachieving is well documented
Boston- LOL
Atlanta- Ga Tech is so far down on the attention list of southerners
Dallas- Fighting MBAs
Houston- no P5 team
Philly- no P5 team
Denver- Boulder is not in Denver
Minneapolis- Minn sucks
St. Louis/San Diego- I'm not sure how they are Seattle's equal, but no teams

GTFOOH with calling Oklahoma City and Columbus and Nashville as cities on the level of Seattle. They might be to people from those regions, but that shit is small time.

If someone wants to go to college in a town where the college is the only thing going on and that's all that matters, that's fine, good for them, but our brand should be if you want to play big-time football for a big-time coach while going to a big-time school in a big-time city, your only option is Washington.

Dennis_DeYoung said:

creepycoug said:

I can remember on fagman bagging on all the Oregon brand people.

I haven't changed my mind. Branding is meaningless without winning.

LSU is a good example. Their brand today stems from having some of the most talented bad ass fucking teams in the las 20 years.

Brand means shit without winning. Winning comes first, then whatever your schtick is, even Peterson's boring no brand brand, becomes cool.

Oregon didn't win because of brand. Their brand became relevant because they won.

Rinse and repeat. Winning fixes everything.

Stanford is different and unique. A school egg heads turn down Harvard and Yale to attend that also offers elite D1 sports. The are in a class of one. Nobody in the PAC can match that. Nobody in the country can.

So your point is that winning and branding matter? Great. This is revolutionary.

Dennis_DeYoung said:

creepycoug said:

I can remember on fagman bagging on all the Oregon brand people.

I haven't changed my mind. Branding is meaningless without winning.

LSU is a good example. Their brand today stems from having some of the most talented bad ass fucking teams in the las 20 years.

Brand means shit without winning. Winning comes first, then whatever your schtick is, even Peterson's boring no brand brand, becomes cool.

Oregon didn't win because of brand. Their brand became relevant because they won.

Rinse and repeat. Winning fixes everything.

Stanford is different and unique. A school egg heads turn down Harvard and Yale to attend that also offers elite D1 sports. The are in a class of one. Nobody in the PAC can match that. Nobody in the country can.

So your point is that winning and branding matter? Great. This is revolutionary.