Left Behind: A Quick Dose Of Post Big 12 Reality

[billfromlaketravis 11456]

16 minutes ago, nineliveslost said:

agree. I think the conference can build its way to become a solid 3rd and have a say to who wins the championship in some years 

By the way, I hope Texas plays some out of conference games with you guys. You have been good people 

I applaud your politeness. 

But Texas is going to have to be very selective in future scheduling. We're likely going to play a 9 game SEC Schedule. UTSA/UTEP are already on the books for future seasons. Rice has been a good scheduling partner. Tech will cry/scream/beg in the legislature/press for a home and home series with Texas. There's not much room left. 

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

lulz no there wasn't. You honestly think there was an effort to do whatever would make Texas and Oklahoma happy? Half the conference constantly bitched about and talked shit about Texas to the media, off the record of course, whenever they had a chance.

Texas tried a bunch of shit that people voted down. For example, the Big 12 network idea. Then that became the Lone Star network idea. Then when A&M rejected that it became the Longhorn Network.

A bunch of the things Texas has done on its own happened specifically because the Big 12 didn't do what would make Texas happy.

Yes, 100%.  I think all of the remaining Big 12 schools knew it was in our financial best interest to make this workable for Texas and OU.

I think you left over things that we couldn't give you - basically bigger name brands on the home schedule and the same kind of TV dollars that you get joining with Bama.

[SEC 1174]

3 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

They probably hate Oklahoma's more?

I mean, the thing that's hard for us is why are you guys the way you are and Ohio State and Michigan aren't?  We have to look at Iowa, who is as "worthless" as we are or more less, and they don't have to worry about shit because Ohio State and Michigan are completely fine subsidizing them.

75% of the current P5 are schools that would be in this spot if the blue bloods they associate with got sick of doing so.

This sounds like historic revisionism regarding Michigan. Michigan has a long, long history of being a dick regarding Big Ten membership. Ask Notre Dame.

If the tables were turned, and instead of Nebraska bolting the Big 12, say Penn State had left the Big Ten and suddenly things were looking rocky over there, historically I'd expect Michigan to look out for itself primarily.

['stache 21802]

1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

They probably hate Oklahoma's more?

I mean, the thing that's hard for us is why are you guys the way you are and Ohio State and Michigan aren't?  We have to look at Iowa, who is as "worthless" as we are or more less, and they don't have to worry about shit because Ohio State and Michigan are completely fine subsidizing them.

75% of the current P5 are schools that would be in this spot if the blue bloods they associate with got sick of doing so.

The best I can figure is that those leagues have so much more history that cooperation has become institutional. Texas is from the SWC where, after OU and Georgia sued the NCAA, tv rights became a big deal, the disparity between UT/A&M and Rice/UH was too much for them to stay. Arky had already left. The Big 8 merger was a marriage of convenience in an era where 12 became a magic number. There was never the type of history or camaraderie that exists in the older conferences. OU leadership (mainly David Boren) still had some of that old sense and the old Big 8 had been together before and after the tv rights changes, but he's gone, and now OU is too. I could be wrong, but that's how I've always viewed the difference.

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

2 minutes ago, SEC said:

This sounds like historic revisionism regarding Michigan. Michigan has a long, long history of being a dick regarding Big Ten membership. Ask Notre Dame.

If the tables were turned, and instead of Nebraska bolting the Big 12, say Penn State had left the Big Ten and suddenly things were looking rocky over there, historically I'd expect Michigan to look out for itself primarily.

I'd expect that to, but it's never really happened as much as it has here.

Because, is there any doubt Ohio State and Michigan could make more by hooking up with you guys and Bama?

[Scholz 11941]

On 9/3/2021 at 7:40 PM, LTtxfan said:

This just popped into my head...

More like have you met Jugdish?

 

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The best I can figure is that those leagues have so much more history that cooperation has become institutional. Texas is from the SWC where, after OU and Georgia sued the NCAA, tv rights became a big deal, the disparity between UT/A&M and Rice/UH was too much for them to stay. Arky had already left. The Big 8 merger was a marriage of convenience in an era where 12 became a magic number. There was never the type of history or camaraderie that exists in the older conferences. OU leadership (mainly David Boren) still had some of that old sense and the old Big 8 had been together before and after the tv rights changes, but he's gone, and now OU is too. I could be wrong, but that's how I've always viewed the difference.

That's probably it, I suppose.

I think that's why ISU fans are so venomous as a fanbase.  We're stuck watching our arch rival whistle pass the graveyard and rub our nose in it.  We understand that we aren't a blue blood.  But how did blue bloods get where they are today?  By beating the shit out of schools like us for 100 years.  While they subsidize us, they also built a lot of their power from beating us in the first place.  There was a symbiotic relationship in that arrangement that's never been acknowledged much.

[SEC 1174]

8 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'd expect that to, but it's never really happened as much as it has here.

Because, is there any doubt Ohio State and Michigan could make more by hooking up with you guys and Bama?

If the big dicks at the SEC started cutting dead weight and jettisoning the Mississippis, Mizzou, Vandy, etc, and seriously consolidating the blue bloods and movers and shakers of the sport into a power conference, you bet your ass OSU and Michigan would leave. If it was looking like this lone ultra-conference would constitute official "top dog" college football, like a new tier, and thus would be the only way towards a real top-end national championship, OSU and Michigan would take their places at the table. The reason they don't leave right now, is because they already have their in via the college football playoffs. They don't need to move anywhere, because their invitation is already sent if they win their conference. As we saw in the Big 12, multiple times a worthy Big 12 winner would be left out of the playoffs discussion. The Big 12 is a catch 22. In order for the conference to seem viable for playoff contention, OU and Texas need to be good. But in order for non-OU and non-Texas teams to win the conference, they have to beat OU and Texas, which makes OU and Texas "not good."

Edited September 9, 2021 by SEC

[Burt Macklin 19020]

18 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'm optimistic that with a more level standing among the schools, there will be a more unified effort in branding.  I think there was a lot of effort put into trying to figure out what would make Texas and Oklahoma happy the last 10 years, and that was a fool's errand in hindsight.  With no individual school that can dynamite everything, it's probably easier to collaborate.

This is complete and total bullshit with no basis to support it, but whatever makes you feel better I guess.
 

And Bowlsby is not going to magically reach even a moderate level of competence as a commissioner just because OU and UT are gone. He’s a visionless moron. 

[n64ra 1081]

20 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Since this is happening, here are my expected and preferred divisions.

This seems like the most obvious split.

East: WVU, UCF, Cincy, ISU, KU, KSU
West: BYU, OSU, Tech, TCU, Houston, BU

But my preference would be newbs vs olds so at least the old Big 8 teams are together and our closest old Big XII partners.

Newbs: BYU, UCF, Cincy, Houston, TCU, WVU
Olds: OSU, KU, KSU, ISU, Tech, BU

Newbs and Olds makes too much sense so Bowlsby will probably go with names like Leaders and Legends.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

21 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Since this is happening, here are my expected and preferred divisions.

This seems like the most obvious split.

East: WVU, UCF, Cincy, ISU, KU, KSU
West: BYU, OSU, Tech, TCU, Houston, BU

But my preference would be newbs vs olds so at least the old Big 8 teams are together and our closest old Big XII partners.

Newbs: BYU, UCF, Cincy, Houston, TCU, WVU
Olds: OSU, KU, KSU, ISU, Tech, BU

 

20 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'd rather not have divisions, but if we do it absolutely should be Olds vs Newbs.

Interesting as I thought the obvious split is what everyone outside of maybe BYU would want with

East: WVU, UCF, Cincy, ISU, KU, KSU
West: BYU, OSU, Tech, TCU, Houston, BU

 

I know the Texas 4 would prefer to play each other every year and that makes sure that KSU/ISU is annual. I would've assumed that oSu would want as many games in Texas as possible for recruiting reasons.

[Longboard Horn 40301]

3 hours ago, slorch said:

Word is that UH will be official today.

 

Maybe now they'll shut the fuck up.

I remember how the Big 12 didn't want UH because their fans don't travel and they really don't have many fans. Now they welcome them in with open arms.... what a joke. Good riddance indeed

Edited September 9, 2021 by Longboard Horn
Fuck you Blowsby

[Huckleberry 32851]

15 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Yes, 100%.  I think all of the remaining Big 12 schools knew it was in our financial best interest to make this workable for Texas and OU.

I think you left over things that we couldn't give you - basically bigger name brands on the home schedule and the same kind of TV dollars that you get joining with Bama.

Right, but that's not what you said. You said do whatever Texas and Oklahoma wanted which is just hilariously untrue when taken in total. The Big 12 would shit on Texas's plans whenever everyone else didn't want to do something then come running back with "BUT WE'LL GIVE YOU EVEN MORE UNEQUAL REVENUE PLEASE STAY" while simultaneously whining to the press about how big bad evil Texas wanted more money. You know, despite Texas never having asked for more money.

Certainly the other schools would try to give Texas and to a lesser extent Oklahoma something when they felt like their relevance was in danger but they spent most of the time bitching about Texas and stabbing them in the back through the media. Texas finally had enough so they're leaving for metaphorically greener pastures.

Part of the problem for the 8 that are left over is that you believed your own bullshit about Texas and it turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy. When the Big 12 formed it was Nebraska and Texas A&M who pushed for unequal revenue sharing. Texas wasn't going to say no, that's a fair take. But Nebraska and A&M were adamant about it. That created the unequal system from the very start. Did any of the other schools defend Texas as a good conference partner when Nebraska and A&M lied about that as they left? Nope. They let Texas twist in the wind as the big evil baddy and let the national media run with the complete falsehoods that Nebraska and A&M spread.

So forgive us if we don't feel sorry for schools who are now wondering why Texas never treated them as equals at the same time they never treated Texas as an equal but rather as the big evil empire who was the cause of all their problems, even when that was a lie.

To be fair, Iowa State is not nearly the main culprit in any of that, but it's the way the Big 12 was and is to this day.

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

3 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

This is complete and total bullshit with no basis to support it, but whatever makes you feel better I guess.
 

And Bowlsby is not going to magically reach even a moderate level of competence as a commissioner just because OU and UT are gone. He’s a visionless moron. 

Do you really think Bowlsby could have done ANYTHING to keep Texas and OU?  ANYTHING.

The idea that there was an realistic solution to keep Texas and OU happy is complete and total bullshit with no basis to support it.  You wanted more blue bloods on the home slate and more money.  That's it.  And the only way to get it is to do what you did.  You could switch Bowlsby and Greg Sankey and this shit would happen regardless.

The Big 12 hasn't floundered because it had shitty commissioners.  It floundered because the schools involved (particularly the more powerful ones) never wanted the same thing at the same time and always thought the association was beneath them.  Nebraska, Texas, OU, Aggy, Mizzou all carried this mentality.  Varying degrees of course - obviously Texas and OU were more willing to than Nebraska and Aggy to at least try, but at the end of the day all them had a completely self-centered worldview and determined the Big 12 wasn't in their self interest.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Longboard Horn said:

I remember how the Big 12 didn't want UH because their fans don't travel and they really don't have many fans. Now they welcome them in with open arms.... what a joke. Good riddance indeed

Enjoy renewing your ties with the sheep fucking moron brothers of the state.

 

[Huckleberry 32851]

1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Do you really think Bowlsby could have done ANYTHING to keep Texas and OU?  ANYTHING.

The idea that there was an realistic solution to keep Texas and OU happy is complete and total bullshit with no basis to support it.  You wanted more blue bloods on the home slate and more money.  That's it.  And the only way to get it is to do what you did.  You could switch Bowlsby and Greg Sankey and this shit would happen regardless.

The Big 12 hasn't floundered because it had shitty commissioners.  It floundered because the schools involved (particularly the more powerful ones) never wanted the same thing at the same time and always thought the association was beneath them.  Nebraska, Texas, OU, Aggy, Mizzou all carried this mentality.  Varying degrees of course - obviously Texas and OU were more willing to than Nebraska and Aggy to at least try, but at the end of the day all them had a completely self-centered worldview and determined the Big 12 wasn't in their self interest.

You're completely wrong on this. Weak and ineffective leadership is the absolute #1 cause of all the Big 12's problems since day one.

Has it not clicked in your head what it implies that Texas is moving to a league where revenue sharing is equal and even third tier rights are pooled? Despite the fact that Texas is still the most valuable single property in the SEC?

It makes you feel better to have Texas hate to hang on to right now, but Texas's move is not nearly all about money and home games against blue bloods. We're going to get just as many home games against South Carolina as Florida. Against Vanderbilt as Alabama.

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Right, but that's not what you said. You said do whatever Texas and Oklahoma wanted which is just hilariously untrue when taken in total. The Big 12 would shit on Texas's plans whenever everyone else didn't want to do something then come running back with "BUT WE'LL GIVE YOU EVEN MORE UNEQUAL REVENUE PLEASE STAY" while simultaneously whining to the press about how big bad evil Texas wanted more money. You know, despite Texas never having asked for more money.

Certainly the other schools would try to give Texas and to a lesser extent Oklahoma something when they felt like their relevance was in danger but they spent most of the time bitching about Texas and stabbing them in the back through the media. Texas finally had enough so they're leaving for metaphorically greener pastures.

Part of the problem for the 8 that are left over is that you believed your own bullshit about Texas and it turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy. When the Big 12 formed it was Nebraska and Texas A&M who pushed for unequal revenue sharing. Texas wasn't going to say no, that's a fair take. But Nebraska and A&M were adamant about it. That created the unequal system from the very start. Did any of the other schools defend Texas as a good conference partner when Nebraska and A&M lied about that as they left? Nope. They let Texas twist in the wind as the big evil baddy and let the national media run with the complete falsehoods that Nebraska and A&M spread.

So forgive us if we don't feel sorry for schools who are now wondering why Texas never treated them as equals at the same time they never treated Texas as an equal but rather as the big evil empire who was the cause of all their problems, even when that was a lie.

To be fair, Iowa State is not nearly the main culprit in any of that, but it's the way the Big 12 was and is to this day.

We hate Nebraska and Aggy too, and have always recognized their role in this exceeding Texas/OU.  As I pointed out, at least you tried for awhile.

What are your examples of the remaining 8 sabotaging Texas?  Maybe Tech and Baylor say shit in the local media, but I've never seen any of it up here.  What's crazy is what you've said is almost verbatim what Nebraska fans say when we call them assholes.  They accuse the old Big 8 of siding with Texas against them on partial qualifiers (which we did, because PQs were bullshit) and moving the league office from KC to Dallas.  I think those excuses mask the real reason:  Like them, you felt we were beneath you and left for more money after you stopped winning as much as you expected to.

Our (being ISU here) AD has blown Texas and OU to the media on many occasions.  Especially after the last realignment.  I haven't heard the remaining 8 talk an ounce of shit from 2011 to 2021.  Yeah, there's a lot of shit being talked now, but that's because of the move.

It would be equally true that OU/Texas's refrain of the Big 12 holding them back became a self fulfilling prophecy.  Which comes back to the whole point that there's never been cohesion in this league, and that has to do with how the individual schools view themselves.  I also think if Texas and OU had each won a natty in the last decade, they probably don't pull the anchor up.

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You're completely wrong on this. Weak and ineffective leadership is the absolute #1 cause of all the Big 12's problems since day one.

Has it not clicked in your head what it implies that Texas is moving to a league where revenue sharing is equal and even third tier rights are pooled? Despite the fact that Texas is still the most valuable single property in the SEC?

It makes you feel better to have Texas hate to hang on to right now, but Texas's move is not nearly all about money and home games against blue bloods. We're going to get just as many home games against South Carolina as Florida. Against Vanderbilt as Alabama.

You're moving for equal revenue after you opposed equal revenue?  This is literally Nebraska.  Word for word.

It's funny how we completely lose objectivity in sports, ain't it?

Edited September 9, 2021 by Al_4_ISU

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

Ok, I'll give you a chance to make an intellectually honest argument.

Lay out what this hypothetical competent leader could have done to keep Texas and OU in the league.  No psycho-babble about "competency" and "vision".  Concrete, real life examples of moves that could be made.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Al_4_ISU

['stache 21802]

20 minutes ago, Longboard Horn said:

I remember how the Big 12 didn't want UH because their fans don't travel and they really don't have many fans. Now they welcome them in with open arms.... what a joke. Good riddance indeed

I mean, arms open with a gun to your head is still arms open, I suppose.

['stache 21802]

Just now, Al_4_ISU said:

Ok, I'll give you a chance to make an intellectually honest argument.

Lay out what this hypothetical competent leader could have done to keep Texas and OU in the league.

Add LSU, Arkansas, and the Dallas Cowboys! Why didn't he get this done!

[mdmost 43001]

Nothing. Texas and OU were leaving at some point. Pac 12, Big 10, ACC, SEC, wherever. OU wants more money and increasing their brand. Texas wants the same and better recruiting. We're willing to give up the LHN and unequal tier 3 revenue for more money, better home matchups, and increasing the brand. Everyone else in the Big 12 who would've been in that position would've done the same. 

[chase25 2048]

23 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

They probably hate Oklahoma's more?

I mean, the thing that's hard for us is why are you guys the way you are and Ohio State and Michigan aren't?  We have to look at Iowa, who is as "worthless" as we are or more less, and they don't have to worry about shit because Ohio State and Michigan are completely fine subsidizing them.

75% of the current P5 are schools that would be in this spot if the blue bloods they associate with got sick of doing so.

We are the way we are because since Texas can remember they’ve wore the big bad evil empire label, really for very little reason at all.

Up until the news broke that Texas was heading to the SEC, Texas had been in 2 conferences (SWC and Big 12) since 1915. Yet anywhere you go Texas is this evil entity pillaging college athletics that leaves conferences destroyed in its wake.

I’ll say similarly to what Huckleberry was saying, just like the Big 12s lack of leadership, Texas biggest issue under Dodds is he just didn’t give a fuck about Texas public perception. Oklahoma and Nebraska were more selfish than Texas and OU during their time in the Big 12 and Dodds pretty much just stood there and let them slander Texas in the court of public opinion and didn’t do a damn thing to combat it simply because they (Texas administration) were arrogant. I think this current administration led by Del Conte had enough of the rest of the schools biting the hand that fed them and took their ball to the SEC and said good luck, will give you a real reason to hate us. Not saying you have to love us, genuine hate and passion between the white lines is what makes college sports great, but the hate for Texas amongst the Big 12 schools ran way deeper than that and much of it was based on the bullshit spewed by the 4 schools that left (mainly NEB and A&M)

Iowa isn’t as worthless as you think they are if you see past the hate. Iowa has only had two losing seasons since 2000 and have six 10 win seasons in that same time period. Iowa has been a pretty solid football program since 1980 especially when you look at the fact that they have been sandwiched by historical powers in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State.

['stache 21802]

1 minute ago, chase25 said:

We are the way we are because since Texas can remember they’ve wore the big bad evil empire label, really for very little reason at all.

Up until the news broke that Texas was heading to the SEC, Texas had been in 2 conferences (SWC and Big 12) since 1915. Yet anywhere you go Texas is this evil entity pillaging college athletics that leaves conferences destroyed in its wake.

I’ll say similarly to what Huckleberry was saying, just like the Big 12s lack of leadership, Texas biggest issue under Dodds is he just didn’t give a fuck about Texas public perception. Oklahoma and Nebraska were more selfish than Texas and OU during their time in the Big 12 and Dodds pretty much just stood there and let them slander Texas in the court of public opinion and didn’t do a damn thing to combat it simply because they (Texas administration) were arrogant. I think this current administration led by Del Conte had enough of the rest of the schools biting the hand that fed them and took their ball to the SEC and said good luck, will give you a real reason to hate us. Not saying you have to love us, genuine hate and passion between the white lines is what makes college sports great, but the hate for Texas amongst the Big 12 schools ran way deeper than that and much of it was based on the bullshit spewed by the 4 schools that left (mainly NEB and A&M)

Iowa isn’t as worthless as you think they are if you see past the hate. Iowa has only had two losing seasons since 2000 and have six 10 win seasons in that same time period. Iowa has been a pretty solid football program since 1980 especially when you look at the fact that they have been sandwiched by historical powers in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State.

Like you guys keep saying with us, people aren't tuning in to see Iowa play Minnesota. They tune in when Iowa plays tOSU or Mich. 

[ABSR 5309]

35 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

They probably hate Oklahoma's more?

I mean, the thing that's hard for us is why are you guys the way you are and Ohio State and Michigan aren't?  We have to look at Iowa, who is as "worthless" as we are or more less, and they don't have to worry about shit because Ohio State and Michigan are completely fine subsidizing them.

75% of the current P5 are schools that would be in this spot if the blue bloods they associate with got sick of doing so.

I agree, but I think the relationship and interaction is different.  Look at the Big 10 when Ohio State would not have enough games played during Covid to play in the Big 10 championship.   The conference changed the rules mid-season just to make sure Ohio State could play in that game and then could have a chance at playing in the BCS final 4. 

If this had been the Big 12 and it was Texas or Oklahoma in that situation, all past actions indicate to me that the conference and the other teams in the conference would NOT support that change to benefit Texas, Oklahoma...and really the conference ($'s, prestige, etc).

Look at the SEC scheduling when they went to the SEC only schedule during Covid.  Everyone called them out for giving their best teams the easiest path.  Does anyone think the Big 12 and Bowlsby would have done that to favor Texas or OU? 

[Dirk X West 772]

1 minute ago, ABSR said:

I agree, but I think the relationship and interaction is different.  Look at the Big 10 when Ohio State would not have enough games played during Covid to play in the Big 10 championship.   The conference changed the rules mid-season just to make sure Ohio State could play in that game and then could have a chance at playing in the BCS final 4. 

If this had been the Big 12 and it was Texas or Oklahoma in that situation, all past actions indicate to me that the conference and the other teams in the conference would NOT support that change to benefit Texas, Oklahoma...and really the conference ($'s, prestige, etc).

Look at the SEC scheduling when they went to the SEC only schedule during Covid.  Everyone called them out for giving their best teams the easiest path.  Does anyone think the Big 12 and Bowlsby would have done that to favor Texas or OU? 

So OU and UT are leaving because of an unprovable hypothetical?  Huh.  I thought it was for more money.

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

6 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Nothing. Texas and OU were leaving at some point. Pac 12, Big 10, ACC, SEC, wherever. OU wants more money and increasing their brand. Texas wants the same and better recruiting. We're willing to give up the LHN and unequal tier 3 revenue for more money, better home matchups, and increasing the brand. Everyone else in the Big 12 who would've been in that position would've done the same. 

So your fans need to quit acting like this isn't what this is about.

Because this exactly what this is about.

[Burt Macklin 19020]

9 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Ok, I'll give you a chance to make an intellectually honest argument.

Lay out what this hypothetical competent leader could have done to keep Texas and OU in the league.  No psycho-babble about "competency" and "vision".  Concrete, real life examples of moves that could be made.

Imagine talking about Intellectually dishonest arguments when you repeatedly claim the Big 12 did whatever OU and UT wanted with no basis to support it. 

You also moved the goalposts on my Big 12 leadership post. Bowlsby has been a visionless leader lacking any foresight for ages regardless of whether he could’ve kept UT or OU. 

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

3 minutes ago, ABSR said:

I agree, but I think the relationship and interaction is different.  Look at the Big 10 when Ohio State would not have enough games played during Covid to play in the Big 10 championship.   The conference changed the rules mid-season just to make sure Ohio State could play in that game and then could have a chance at playing in the BCS final 4. 

If this had been the Big 12 and it was Texas or Oklahoma in that situation, all past actions indicate to me that the conference and the other teams in the conference would NOT support that change to benefit Texas, Oklahoma...and really the conference ($'s, prestige, etc).

Look at the SEC scheduling when they went to the SEC only schedule during Covid.  Everyone called them out for giving their best teams the easiest path.  Does anyone think the Big 12 and Bowlsby would have done that to favor Texas or OU? 

You have no reason to think this.

You are just inventing a way to justify your position like I did when I hoped that a lack of hierarchy would improve cohesion.

['stache 21802]

3 minutes ago, ABSR said:

I agree, but I think the relationship and interaction is different.  Look at the Big 10 when Ohio State would not have enough games played during Covid to play in the Big 10 championship.   The conference changed the rules mid-season just to make sure Ohio State could play in that game and then could have a chance at playing in the BCS final 4. 

If this had been the Big 12 and it was Texas or Oklahoma in that situation, all past actions indicate to me that the conference and the other teams in the conference would NOT support that change to benefit Texas, Oklahoma...and really the conference ($'s, prestige, etc).

Look at the SEC scheduling when they went to the SEC only schedule during Covid.  Everyone called them out for giving their best teams the easiest path.  Does anyone think the Big 12 and Bowlsby would have done that to favor Texas or OU? 

Lol, of course the conference would have done that, especially for OU or Texas. The conference managed to screw over Baylor and TCU with the "shared title" shit after years of "one true champion" tagline. They have more to bitch about than you guys. I personally can't stand the fact that OU gets away with holding on literally every offensive play in Bedlam. Conference doesn't do shit to stop them as long as they're winning.

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

1 minute ago, Burt Macklin said:

Imagine talking about Intellectually dishonest arguments when you repeatedly claim the Big 12 did whatever OU and UT wanted with no basis to support it. 

You also moved the goalposts on my Big 12 leadership post. Bowlsby has been a visionless leader lacking any foresight for ages regardless of whether he could’ve kept UT or OU. 

I agree with you on Bowlsby.  I'm not shifting anything.   I just think he's nearly completely irrelevant.

The Big 12 didn't expand in '16 because Texas and Oklahoma didn't want it to.  There's a concrete example of the conference doing something because OU and UT wanted a certain outcome.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Al_4_ISU

['stache 21802]

Just now, Al_4_ISU said:

I agree with you on Bowlsby.  I'm not shifting anything.   I just think he's nearly completely irrelevant.

I agree. Bowlsby sucks. But there's nothing he could have done to keep aggy, nebby, etc. in 2011, or to keep ou/tex today.

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

Also, if Texas fans want concrete examples of remaining schools helping them, ISU and KU routinely agreed to let their road trips to Austin be the LHN conference game.

In '14, '16, and '18 ISU v Texas in Austin was on the LHN.  Our AD was enthusiastic in doing this and publicly stated that ISU cooperating with UT on LHN matters was in our interest and a thanks to you guys for providing the revenue.

[Scholz 11941]

7 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

So your fans need to quit acting like this isn't what this is about.

Because this exactly what this is about.

OK.  Happy?

 

[Had Enough 2081]

Ok, I'll give you a chance to make an intellectually honest argument.
Lay out what this hypothetical competent leader could have done to keep Texas and OU in the league.  No psycho-babble about "competency" and "vision".  Concrete, real life examples of moves that could be made.

I’ll throw it out as I have previously. This board gave it no credence other than one who provided the courtesy of saying hell no to California schools.

Big 12 at some point should have approached LSU and Arkansas a decade ago.

This time around - USC then Oregon. Kill the PAC.

[Huckleberry 32851]

30 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

We hate Nebraska and Aggy too, and have always recognized their role in this exceeding Texas/OU.  As I pointed out, at least you tried for awhile.

What are your examples of the remaining 8 sabotaging Texas?  Maybe Tech and Baylor say shit in the local media, but I've never seen any of it up here.  What's crazy is what you've said is almost verbatim what Nebraska fans say when we call them assholes.  They accuse the old Big 8 of siding with Texas against them on partial qualifiers (which we did, because PQs were bullshit) and moving the league office from KC to Dallas.  I think those excuses mask the real reason:  Like them, you felt we were beneath you and left for more money after you stopped winning as much as you expected to.

Our (being ISU here) AD has blown Texas and OU to the media on many occasions.  Especially after the last realignment.  I haven't heard the remaining 8 talk an ounce of shit from 2011 to 2021.  Yeah, there's a lot of shit being talked now, but that's because of the move.

It would be equally true that OU/Texas's refrain of the Big 12 holding them back became a self fulfilling prophecy.  Which comes back to the whole point that there's never been cohesion in this league, and that has to do with how the individual schools view themselves.  I also think if Texas and OU had each won a natty in the last decade, they probably don't pull the anchor up.

The percentage of Texas people at the school and fans in general who think the Big 12 conference is what's held the program back from success is miniscule. You're making up arguments that don't actually happen often in Texas circles. Sure, every fanbase has idiots, but that's not what the move is really about.

I believe you that you don't hear as much anti-Texas stuff as actually happens all the time because you live in Iowa. But you would also have to never read any national coverage to honestly think that "Big 12 sources" aren't constantly planting stories about how evil and greedy Texas is. I can't even take that claim seriously.

28 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

You're moving for equal revenue after you opposed equal revenue?  This is literally Nebraska.  Word for word.

It's funny how we completely lose objectivity in sports, ain't it?

I didn't say we're moving for equal revenue sharing. I said we're moving to a conference that happens to have equal revenue sharing and that is evidence that we don't actually care about having unequal revenue sharing. It's not anywhere close to what Nebraska said when they claimed that they were moving because of equal revenue sharing after voting against it their entire time in the Big 12. You can't even read what's being written you're being so understandably emotional about things right now. But you don't get to tell other people they're losing objectivity when you can't even comprehend what's being said.

27 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Ok, I'll give you a chance to make an intellectually honest argument.

Lay out what this hypothetical competent leader could have done to keep Texas and OU in the league.  No psycho-babble about "competency" and "vision".  Concrete, real life examples of moves that could be made.

So in this thread you are attempting to simultaneously argue that the Big 12 has always had a problem because it gives special treatment instead of acting like a real conference and then wondering what specific concrete things the Big 12 could have done to keep Texas and Oklahoma. Are you even reading what you write at this point?

The answer is very simple. An actual leader would have stepped in and explained that a conference is strong when its members support each other. No shit talking to the media, no whining, no bullshit. Lay the law down with all members. Equal revenue sharing for at least the first two tiers. Developed a conference network when it was proposed instead of ALWAYS being behind the times. Supported its teams in playoff discussion instead of that Baylor/TCU bullshit. Pointed out when the round robin meant that the Big 12 had the toughest conference schedule in the country.

There are a million things the conference was and is terrible at. Their leader doesn't even have any idea what's going on with his member institutions until he reads about it on the internet. The conference has had one competent commissioner (Neinas) and, shockingly, that was the one time the conference members appeared to present a united front and all pull in the same direction publicly. Good leadership makes good conferences. And that is only standard everyday stuff that every commissioner should do. This has nothing to do with visionary things like expansion, etc. Targeting upset members of other power conferences when that happened during the last 25 years. I can't even wrap my mind around imagining Big 12 leadership being that competent.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Huckleberry

[Burt Macklin 19020]

12 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I agree with you on Bowlsby.  I'm not shifting anything.   I just think he's nearly completely irrelevant.

The Big 12 didn't expand in '16 because Texas and Oklahoma didn't want it to.  There's a concrete example of the conference doing something because OU and UT wanted a certain outcome.

So you’re claiming the entirety of the Big 12 was on board with this and OU and UT forced their hand to say no? Otherwise it’s not an example of what you claimed earlier. 

7 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Also, if Texas fans want concrete examples of remaining schools helping them, ISU and KU routinely agreed to let their road trips to Austin be the LHN conference game.

In '14, '16, and '18 ISU v Texas in Austin was on the LHN.  Our AD was enthusiastic in doing this and publicly stated that ISU cooperating with UT on LHN matters was in our interest and a thanks to you guys for providing the revenue.

A mutually beneficial arrangement is also not really an example of what you were discussing either. 
 

 

[GTNY 284]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

They probably hate Oklahoma's more?

I mean, the thing that's hard for us is why are you guys the way you are and Ohio State and Michigan aren't?  We have to look at Iowa, who is as "worthless" as we are or more less, and they don't have to worry about shit because Ohio State and Michigan are completely fine subsidizing them.

75% of the current P5 are schools that would be in this spot if the blue bloods they associate with got sick of doing so.

Because the Big Ten has more than 2 tier 1 programs that draw national audiences, and the east coast presence for TV deals. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

The best I can figure is that those leagues have so much more history that cooperation has become institutional. Texas is from the SWC where, after OU and Georgia sued the NCAA, tv rights became a big deal, the disparity between UT/A&M and Rice/UH was too much for them to stay. Arky had already left. The Big 8 merger was a marriage of convenience in an era where 12 became a magic number. There was never the type of history or camaraderie that exists in the older conferences. OU leadership (mainly David Boren) still had some of that old sense and the old Big 8 had been together before and after the tv rights changes, but he's gone, and now OU is too. I could be wrong, but that's how I've always viewed the difference.

The worst thing that happened when the Big 12 was formed was having 12 teams.  It should have been ten.  Baylor obviously should not have been admitted.  And one from the Big 8 should have been dropped.

That way, you get OU-NU, Texas-NU. Aggy-NU, etc. every year.

It would have been a great conference with basically no dead weight.  Losing the NU-OU annual game was awful.  Playing the southern teams annually would have helped the northern teams recruit.

[Huckleberry 32851]

20 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

So your fans need to quit acting like this isn't what this is about.

Because this exactly what this is about.

It's not all that it's about, it's obviously a large component. He also talked about "increasing the brand" which was not something you mentioned earlier. Everything he listed is also an aspect that a competent Big 12 would have made far less of an issue. Perhaps it would have been an inevitable result in the long run, but the Big 12 accelerated it through incompetence.

A large part is also that Texas is tired of subsidizing ingrates. Maybe not a very mature reason, but it's true. You keep asking why Texas and Oklahoma can't be happy like Ohio State and Michigan. Well a lot of that is because the Big Ten also-rans act thankful. The Big 12 also-rans bitch about the hands that feed them.

Congratulations, mean and evil Texas is gone.

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

The percentage of Texas people at the school and fans in general who think the Big 12 conference is what's held the program back from success is miniscule. You're making up arguments that don't actually happen often in Texas circles. Sure, every fanbase has idiots, but that's not what the move is really about.

I believe you that you don't hear as much anti-Texas stuff as actually happens all the time because you live in Iowa. But you would also have to never read any national coverage to honestly think that "Big 12 sources" aren't constantly planting stories about how evil and greedy Texas is. I can't even take that claim seriously.

I didn't say we're moving for equal revenue sharing. I said we're moving to a conference that happens to have equal revenue sharing and that is evidence that we don't actually care about having unequal revenue sharing. It's not anywhere close to what Nebraska said when they claimed that they were moving because of equal revenue sharing after voting against it their entire time in the Big 12. You can't even read what's being written you're being so understandably emotional about things right now. But you don't get to tell other people they're losing objectivity when you can't even comprehend what's being said.

So in this thread you are attempting to simultaneously argue that the Big 12 has always had a problem because it gives special treatment instead of acting like a real conference and then wondering what specific concrete things the Big 12 could have done to keep Texas and Oklahoma. Are you even reading what you write at this point?

The answer is very simple. An actual leader would have stepped in and explained that a conference is strong when its members support each other. No shit talking to the media, no whining, no bullshit. Lay the law down with all members. Equal revenue sharing for at least the first two tiers. Developed a conference network when it was proposed instead of ALWAYS being behind the times. Supported its teams in playoff discussion instead of that Baylor/TCU bullshit. Pointed out when the round robin meant that the Big 12 had the toughest conference schedule in the country.

There are a million things that conference was and is terrible at. Their leader doesn't even have any idea what's going on with his member institutions until he reads about it on the internet. The conference has had one competent commissioner (Neinas) and, shockingly, that was the one time the conference members appeared to present a united front and all pull in the same direction publicly. Good leadership makes good conferences.

I agree completely regarding Baylor/TCU and the Big 12 Network.

But the Big 12 Network proposal is a LONG ways in the past, and the opposition to that was Nebraska and Aggy, IIRC.  The ISU's of the world NEVER thought that.

All this media shit talking you're referring to is nothing I've ever observed in the Big 12 2.0.

[mdmost 43001]

28 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

So your fans need to quit acting like this isn't what this is about.

Because this exactly what this is about.

Well, let's not get ridiculous. Any school offered 15 million a year by ESPN before the conference network era really took off would've done it. It was the bribe ESPN threw out to keep us in the Big 12 and away from Fox. I have no problem with the unequal tier 3 revenue because teams were already getting that and Texas shouldn't be force to subsidize other smaller programs more than we were. The SEC Network was the reason people started whining about the LHN blocking a Big 12 Network. Even though there's no way the Big 12 Network would've amounted to a lot for everyone unless ESPN wanted to keep Texas and OU in the Big 12. The Pac 12 Network was dying. The ACC Network was a throw away so ESPN could redirect content. The Big 10 Network was its own sweetheart deal way ahead of the game. Texas was absolutely for equal tier 1 and 2 distribution. Nebraska and aggy were not. 

But if the LHN going away is the price for getting out of a bad conference that constantly paints us as the villain, that's fine. I'll miss the LHN programming I enjoyed but I'm sure some of it will carry over to ESPN+. But I'm tired of Texas being your villain. You guys can stand on your own now without mean, evil Texas dragging you down with our arrogance. I think it's quite poetic that the teams that hate us and branded us as the problem for so long can now be free to enjoy life without Texas. I really don't care if we ever schedule the former Big 12 teams. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by mdmost

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It's not all that it's about, it's obviously a large component. He also talked about "increasing the brand" which was not something you mentioned earlier. Everything he listed is also an aspect that a competent Big 12 would have made far less of an issue. Perhaps it would have been an inevitable result in the long run, but the Big 12 accelerated it through incompetence.

A large part is also that Texas is tired of subsidizing ingrates. Maybe not a very mature reason, but it's true. You keep asking why Texas and Oklahoma can't be happy like Ohio State and Michigan. Well a lot of that is because the Big Ten also-rans act thankful. The Big 12 also-rans bitch about the hands that feed them.

Congratulations, mean and evil Texas is gone.

Like Nebraska last fall?

I would like to see this examples of the Big 12 also rans bitching about the hand that feeds them.  I've provided a few examples of my Big 12 also ran being very publicly grateful towards OU and UT (especially).  Again, if it's Tech and Baylor I wouldn't see that.  But you keep alluding to it and haven't really shown me where they're doing it.

From my perspective, we've always been pretty aware of our place and pretty thankful that OU and UT stuck around.

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

5 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Well, let's not get ridiculous. Any school offered 15 million a year by ESPN before the conference network era really took off would've done it. It was the bribe ESPN threw out to keep us in the Big 12 and away from Fox. I have no problem with the unequal tier 3 revenue because teams were already getting that and Texas shouldn't be force to subsidize other smaller programs more than we were. The SEC Network was the reason people started whining about the LHN blocking a Big 12 Network. Even though there's no way the Big 12 Network would've amounted to a lot for everyone unless ESPN wanted to keep Texas and OU in the Big 12. The Pac 12 Network was dying. The ACC Network was a throw away so ESPN could redirect content. The Big 10 Network was its own sweetheart deal way ahead of the game. Texas was absolutely for equal tier 1 and 2 distribution. Nebraska and aggy were not. 

But if the LHN going away is the price for getting out of a bad conference that constantly paints us as the villain, that's fine. I'll miss the LHN programming I enjoyed but I'm sure some of it will carry over to ESPN+. But I'm tired of Texas being your villain. You guys can stand on your own now without mean, evil Texas dragging you down with our arrogance. I think it's quite poetic that the teams that hate us and branded us as the problem for so long can now be free to enjoy life without Texas. I really don't care if we ever schedule the former Big 12 teams. 

Texas was never my, or ISU's for that matter, villain.  You can check my posting history.

That changed in July, but prior to then Nebraska had always been #1 with a bullet.  They're still #1, and still lay claim to the largest share of the original shake up (which precipitated the current shake up), they just have some company now.

[Burt Macklin 19020]

11 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I agree completely regarding Baylor/TCU and the Big 12 Network.

But the Big 12 Network proposal is a LONG ways in the past, and the opposition to that was Nebraska and Aggy, IIRC.  The ISU's of the world NEVER thought that.

All this media shit talking you're referring to is nothing I've ever observed in the Big 12 2.0.

So you just gave  an example of shitty leadership by Bowlsby that could’ve kept the conference together and given an example of a time where UT didn’t get what it wanted, all while maintaining your position about the  schools leaving and UT and OU always getting what they want. 
 

 

[Dirk X West 772]

5 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Like Nebraska last fall?

I would like to see this examples of the Big 12 also rans bitching about the hand that feeds them.  I've provided a few examples of my Big 12 also ran being very publicly grateful towards OU and UT (especially).  Again, if it's Tech and Baylor I wouldn't see that.  But you keep alluding to it and haven't really shown me where they're doing it.

From my perspective, we've always been pretty aware of our place and pretty thankful that OU and UT stuck around.

No person representing Texas Tech in an official capacity has ever publicly bitched about UT prior to the SEC news, unless you want to cite Mike Leach complaining about the refs after a Tech-UT game in the mid '00s. 

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

4 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

So you just gave  an example of shitty leadership by Bowlsby that could’ve kept the conference together and given an example of a time where UT didn’t get what it wanted, all while maintaining your position about the  schools leaving and UT and OU always getting what they want. 
 

 

Big 12 Network was pre-Bowlsby.

I think everyone agrees Beebe sucked.  But again, I don't think he could have kept Nebraska.  Nebraska had to want to work things out and they didn't.  Which is why I'll always hate them the most.

[billfromlaketravis 11456]

3 minutes ago, Dirk X West said:

No person representing Texas Tech in an official capacity has ever publicly bitched about UT prior to the SEC news, unless you want to cite Mike Leach complaining about the refs after a Tech-UT game in the mid '00s. 

Especially post Leach, Tech has been a great partner to UT. They could never come with us, but we're leaving them in a very good place, I think. 

[Huckleberry 32851]

10 minutes ago, Dirk X West said:

No person representing Texas Tech in an official capacity has ever publicly bitched about UT prior to the SEC news, unless you want to cite Mike Leach complaining about the refs after a Tech-UT game in the mid '00s. 

I've specifically stated as "Big 12 sources" to the media. They do it anonymously, so I'm not going to have names for Al.

And I said I believe you @Al_4_ISU that you don't see much of it but that is based on location and reading choices. I mean all you have to do is google Texas Longhorns greedy and there will be plenty of results that claim to have sources from the Big 12. Hell, not the same thing, but there's a recent story from Missouri still trying to blame Texas's greed for why Missouri left for the SEC in 2011. That bullshit wasn't called out then and never has been by our conference partners, they just let everyone run with that story because they liked the evil Texas narrative. And, for the record, Missouri deserves a lot more of your scorn than they're getting. I still hope ISU ends up in the Big Ten somehow so you can laugh at Mizzou.

Missouri and A&M leave for the SEC - narrative is "It's because Texas is greedy!!!"

Texas and Oklahoma leave for the SEC - narrative is "It's because Texas is greedy!!!"

Edited September 9, 2021 by Huckleberry

['stache 21802]

4 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Especially post Leach, Tech has been a great partner to UT. They could never come with us, but we're leaving them in a very good place, I think. 

Lol, you know you don't truly believe that, and you don't care, which I wouldn't either if we had an invite.