Left Behind: A Quick Dose Of Post Big 12 Reality

[TKthunder2 4,992]

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Yeah, I don't think Texas fans have any malice towards the Big 12, but there's a natural desire to know you made the right move, and the failure of the Big 12 would confirm that, even if Texas football doesn't really improve on the field in the SEC.

This is fair and accurate.  But I do hate Baylor and hope that entire place burns to the ground.

[SL Xpress 7,516]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Give me some concrete examples of what the other schools did to "let this happen".

I'll spare it - there aren't any.  This happened because your program slipped, ESPN waged war on the Big 12 constantly negging it and harming it's public perception, and in light of your own struggles you craved more prestige and cash.  It's about money first and perception second, and there isn't anything the remaining Big 12 schools could do to fix the perception and money issues short of a bunch of Plains states suddenly becoming booming population centers.

The terrible officiating fucked schools like us worse than it did you.  You think we liked it?  I've linked many examples of ISU agreeing to play on the LHN, and our AD openly praising Texas and OU for being financial bell cows of the league.  We did everything we could and it wasn't enough.  It was never going to be, and that has less to do with what we were willing to do than what you were willing to have or be.  If you can't be dominant on the field, you'd rather be hitched to the big wagon.  I get it.  It's better to go 6-6 against Bama and LSU than go 6-6 against us and KSU.  Prestige Worldwide, baby.

The only thing that could have saved the previous iteration of the Big 12 was Texas and Oklahoma winning some nattys in the last decade.  That's it.  College football at it's highest financial level only values who you were.  Not who you are or what you could be.

That’s a heartfelt response. 

The inevitability of UT’s exit occurred when Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, and A&M left. 

When the 1984 Supreme Court ruling against the NCAA controlling TV rights for football came down it spelled the end of the SWC. The SWC was never going to be able to negotiate competitive television contracts. Frankly, it made it rough on anyone not in the population centers of the B1G and SEC. The Big 8 incorporated a lot of flyover country (not a big fan of the term, but it suffices here). The west coast was locked into geography and a cursed time zone. If the PAC had been wiser, it would have been more aggressive in grabbing the biggest fish in terms of population centers in the Big 12, made a PAC 18 or PAC 20 or something, and had a 4 team playoff to determine the conference champion. But the presidents of many of the PAC schools hadn’t grasped the level of cognitive dissonance that was necessary to be financially competitive nationally in collegiate sports, and now they’re in as rough a place as the current Big 12 schools in many respects. 

It has been inevitable the B1G and SEC would dwarf everyone else without aggressive action by the other conferences - aggressive action that did not occur. Both the SWC and the Big 12 gave unequal revenue to their big daddies - for the SWC it was Texas and Texas A&M, for the Big 12 it was Texas and OU. But those were always stop gap measures that showed weakness more than collective strength. The ACC has their huge grants of rights poison pill, but that just kicks the can down the road. The PAC 12 flounders to come up with a solution to their time zone issue and a demographic that doesn’t care for college football all that much. And the Big 12 adds BYU (that won’t play on Sundays) and 3 practically commuter schools that don’t actually command the markets they’re located in. 

Texas fans blaming Iowa State or other members of the Big 12 for UT’s exit are missing the big picture, just as you allude. Outside of cataclysmic climate change making Iowa a paradise to move to and food scarcity making the farmers there multi billionaires, I’m not sure what ISU was supposed to do. They were always beholden on other members of the conference to hold it together. Nothing they did was going to move the needle. ISU has certainly done their part, expanding their athletic department spending, making good hires, being supportive of OU and Texas as member institutions. It’s not like anything they said or did was going to keep CU, Nebraska, Mizzou, and the Aggies in the fold, and therefore nothing they did was going to keep Texas and OU around when the next tv deal term was up. 

Frankly, back in 1996 I was excited to sub the small enrollment, small budget schools of Rice, TCU, SMU and UH for state schools like Kansas State, Iowa State, and Oklahoma State. But we really needed those other 4 (NU, CU,, UM, A&M) to stick around. Deloss Dodds got completely out maneuvered during that conference reshuffling, and it doomed the Big 12 - at least as a conference viable for UT and OU to remain a part of. None of that is ISU’s fault. 

ISU’s biggest hope in terms of long range viability as a top tier collegiate sports competitor, are antitrust litigation threats that will force the collegiate powers to be minimally inclusive when they determine who gets a seat at the table, and a need to have some kind of national appeal for collegiate sports. While Iowa State won’t help the national appeal by themselves, they may be able to be packaged in a group that does have that appeal. I guess there’s a Hail Mary shot to be included in the B1G someday, but with the loss of AAU status they lose a big feather in their cap for that to be a realistic outcome some day. 

As far as prestige with mediocre results, I don’t think that actually matters. No one is going to be excited by 6-6 regardless of opponent. UT’s baffling ability to make shitty football hire after shitty football hire begs disbelief. Mack Brown is the only time they even tried to realistically make the best hire possible. 

What is important in this new age of college sports is to be among institutions who are willing to throw caution to the wind and raise their athletic spending astronomically. That was never going to be the Big 12, which meant the commissioner wasn’t going to be able to be a constant advocate for UT’s position. That’s the biggest reason for the move. The other Big 12 members were simply never going to be able to spend money on their athletic program at the kind of levels UT needed them to be able to, and therefore UT’s exit was inevitable. 

Oh, and I’m unconvinced winning national championships in football changes things. Maybe it does, in the sense it helps recruiting and so it’s a big virtuous cycle. But at the end of the day UT wanted out. In any case, Texas has been so far from being nationally relevant the last 12 years other than 2018, it feels like a silly what if to contemplate. I do feel confident OU winning championships wouldn’t have changed the calculus. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,469]

Winning natties fixes the prestige issue for UT and OU.

It also makes the SEC seem less dominant.

[SL Xpress 7,516]

32 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Winning natties fixes the prestige issue for UT and OU.

It also makes the SEC seem less dominant.

I just don’t think the prestige issue is what makes Texas leave the Big 12. Having a conference commissioner being a wholehearted advocate for increased spending at an athletic department level is the driving factor as much as anything. Just too many smaller athletic departments in the Big 12. National championships doesn’t change that. If you want to equate prestige with athletic department spending, then we can agree, but it means I think you’re mislabeling what was important.

You keep lumping in OU as a factor, too. OU winning national championships doesn’t move the needle for Texas. OU tied their fate to Texas many years ago because they didn’t want to be left behind. Texas agreed to it because the institutions are like minded enough regarding athletic department spending. If OU could have earned a B1G invite on their own they would have been gone in a heartbeat long ago. 

Texas winning national championships wouldn’t have mattered, either. Just makes them an even more attractive partner for either the B1G or SEC, which wasn’t really necessary. TVs, eyeballs, and brand already did the heavy lifting for the SEC. 

[ouflak 60]

8 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

If OU could have earned a B1G invite on their own they would have been gone in a heartbeat long ago. 

 

I can't see OU ever going to the B1G (without UT). After what the CFB world has witnessed happened to Nebraska, nobody in the OU stables would be willing or foolish enough to take that risk.

[SL Xpress 7,516]

2 minutes ago, ouflak said:

I can't see OU ever going to the B1G (without UT). After what the CFB world has witnessed happened to Nebraska, nobody in the OU stables would be willing or foolish enough to take that risk.

They were practically begging for it on an institutional level. David Boren was the main guy wanting it, but he wasn’t alone. And yeah, they would have tried to pull UT with them, but that was secondary. It wasn’t just a sports thing. They wanted to be part of the academic prestige of the B1G.

The main problem with going to the B1G in this latest round is that the conference wanted any talks to be transparent, and a few of the member institutions weren’t in favor of adding UT/OU from the get go, so they would have had to be persuaded to change their mind. Both OU and Texas liked the stealth approach of Stankey - where it was a done deal before an announcement was made - to circumvent potential obstacles thrown up by the respective state legislatures. 

BTW, Nebraska and Texas have practically identical records in football since the Cornhuskers left for the B1G. Is Nebraska truly a cautionary tale more than Texas here?

[JWinTX 53]

8 minutes ago, ouflak said:

I can't see OU ever going to the B1G (without UT). After what the CFB world has witnessed happened to Nebraska, nobody in the OU stables would be willing or foolish enough to take that risk.

KU is the only piece that the B1G will want from the next iteration of the Big 12. If KU can make their football program anything above worst P5 program, their hoops program, AAU membership, and KC market will make them the next B1G piece

 

[thunderlounge 7,868]

2 minutes ago, JWinTX said:

KU is the only piece that the B1G will want from the next iteration of the Big 12. If KU can make their football program anything above worst P5 program, their hoops program, AAU membership, and KC market will make them the next B1G piece

 

That isn’t a very bright take. KU delivers KC about as well as missouri does. They really don’t. 
 

Even then, there aren’t numbers anywhere attractive enough to make that play.

Any team with a better place to go is gone or on their way. 
 

What is left is a league nobody outside that footprint gives a flying fuck about.

There is still hope for some, since every conference needs its doormats.

The grasping at straws to believe there is any relevancy left for remaining teams is well beyond cute by this point, and bordering on pathetic. 
 

“Look, we fucking matter too!”

Nah. If they did, they would have received an offer and taken it without hesitation.

Maybe a streaming service picks it up. Maybe the mouse, via hulu, throws you a bone.

But either way the big12 and remaining members have nobody to blame but themselves. Sitting around crying that they had no choice or way to enact change is nothing more than a pussified excuse to try and seem like they tried or care. 

They don’t. Else they would have taken better care of their athletic assets.

 

Their game is over. The two pieces keeping  any interest in the conference have had enough, they are leaving.

Just because others want to go the way of the dodo does not mean others have to sit around to keep you company while risking becoming extinct themselves. Fuck that.

 

[Al_4_ISU 12,469]

OU winning natties keeps them happy, and it raises league prestige. This move probably doesn’t happen without both wanting to go.

There’s been a very clear “we’re just better than you” mentality coming from both schools for awhile, and that comes back to league prestige.

If ESPN isn’t spending the last decade talking shit about the Big 12, my guess is you guys aren’t looking around much.

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

3 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

OU tied their fate to Texas many years ago because they didn’t want to be left behind.

I think OU just likes being with UT for rivalry purposes. There is a 0% chance OU gets left out of realignment.

Edited June 9, 2022 by SimonBolivar

[thunderlounge 7,868]

27 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

OU winning natties keeps them happy, and it raises league prestige. This move probably doesn’t happen without both wanting to go.

There’s been a very clear “we’re just better than you” mentality coming from both schools for awhile, and that comes back to league prestige.

If ESPN isn’t spending the last decade talking shit about the Big 12, my guess is you guys aren’t looking around much.

Welp, you missed it then. This all but blew up many a moon ago when the deal to the Pac was scuttled last minute.
 

Didn’t happen this time. Wasn’t going to be that chance.

[SL Xpress 7,516]

18 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

OU winning natties keeps them happy, and it raises league prestige. This move probably doesn’t happen without both wanting to go.

There’s been a very clear “we’re just better than you” mentality coming from both schools for awhile, and that comes back to league prestige.

If ESPN isn’t spending the last decade talking shit about the Big 12, my guess is you guys aren’t looking around much.

I don't know what to tell you. When the realignment musical chairs ended, and Texas was left being in a conference with Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Texas Tech, I wanted out immediately. Adding TCU and West Virginia didn't just not move the needle in a positive direction. They absolutely moved it in a negative direction. It's stupid to blame Iowa State for the state of the conference, but I felt like Texas had stepped back into 1995 where it shared a league affiliation with Baylor, Tech, TCU, SMU, Rice, UH, and A&M. The presence of state schools was mildly helpful, but not that much. 

And Texas fans think we're better than EVERYONE. It's an unattractive combination of a parody level of state pride combined with being the flagship school (look at how Iowa thinks about Iowa State as a comparison). I'm not going to apologize for it. It is what it is. It's a mindset practically flowing through my veins. I spent a great deal of time on Nebraska boards back in the 90s and early 2000s, and I've always spent time on the KU basketball boards going back to the 90s. There was (is) the same sort of arrogance present there, but it was at least alleviated by a bit of midwestern humility and a bit of defensiveness regarding flyover state status. UT fans - frankly, members of UT as an institution - have all of the arrogance without a smidgen of the humility. You'd think all of Texas' struggles in football would ameliorate it some...but nope. It's as fully formed as it was in the 70s back when Texas really had been dominant for 20 years. 

Personally I just think you're kidding yourself that national championships, especially national championships by OU, would have changed anything. I also don't think ESPN shit talking had any effect on the Texas psyche whatsoever. I haven't listened to ESPN at all over the past decade, and my opinion has always been that Texas needs to get out of the Big 12 as soon as possible. I've always hated the idea of going to the SEC. I still do. But I've come to grips with it as the only realistic alternative to what I considered a dead end of a conference, and I know I haven't been alone. Shoot, plenty of fans I've talked to haven't had the misgivings about entering the evil empire of the SEC. I'm sure they're overjoyed with no negative associations with those mouth breathers whatsoever. 

The bottom line is that Texas wants to be in a conference with other schools with large athletic department budgets and all that entails. If you want to equate that to prestige, that's fine, too, but that's not the driving factor. That was never going to happen in the Big 12 regardless of how many national championships in football OU won (or Texas, for that matter, in some kind of alternate universe I can't actually fathom). 

[TrashMaster G 17,565]

8 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Give me some concrete examples of what the other schools did to "let this happen".

I'll spare it - there aren't any.  This happened because your program slipped, ESPN waged war on the Big 12 constantly negging it and harming it's public perception, and in light of your own struggles you craved more prestige and cash.  It's about money first and perception second, and there isn't anything the remaining Big 12 schools could do to fix the perception and money issues short of a bunch of Plains states suddenly becoming booming population centers.

The terrible officiating fucked schools like us worse than it did you.  You think we liked it?  I've linked many examples of ISU agreeing to play on the LHN, and our AD openly praising Texas and OU for being financial bell cows of the league.  We did everything we could and it wasn't enough.  It was never going to be, and that has less to do with what we were willing to do than what you were willing to have or be.  If you can't be dominant on the field, you'd rather be hitched to the big wagon.  I get it.  It's better to go 6-6 against Bama and LSU than go 6-6 against us and KSU.  Prestige Worldwide, baby.

The only thing that could have saved the previous iteration of the Big 12 was Texas and Oklahoma winning some nattys in the last decade.  That's it.  College football at it's highest financial level only values who you were.  Not who you are or what you could be.

1 - So it's OUR fault the Big 12 is what it is? Interesting take, but I think it's crap.

2 - Horseshit.  Show me another game like the 2015 UT-oSu game. And we have multiple other games in the same vein, though less egregious. 

3 - If we want a home game on LHN, there is no "agreeing" to it.  It just means the other contracted networks have passed.

4 - Douchy term used by people unfamiliar with winning national championships.

5 - It's eyeballs, not a judgement by "college football".

[Hurtlocker 2,213]

1 hour ago, TrashMaster G said:

1 - So it's OUR fault the Big 12 is what it is? Interesting take, but I think it's crap.

2 - Horseshit.  Show me another game like the 2015 UT-oSu game. And we have multiple other games in the same vein, though less egregious. 

3 - If we want a home game on LHN, there is no "agreeing" to it.  It just means the other contracted networks have passed.

4 - Douchy term used by people unfamiliar with winning national championships.

5 - It's eyeballs, not a judgement by "college football".

1 - I think he was saying the other Big 12 schools didn't do something to drive people away, matter a fact they did what you'd want them to do, invest heavily in facilities.   Places like Tech and ISU have gone from having like $40m athletic departments to $100m.   I think @SL Xpress nailed it down pretty well.   Its not that @Al_4_ISU didn't do what was asked of him, they weren't leaches.  The big issue was losing Nebraska and A&M.  You need more than two tent poles.   The only difference between Mississippi State/Iowa State or Kansas/Iowa/Illinois/Kentucky is where you happened to be originally.   Those are never going to be tent pole schools, but some get fed and some don't primarily due to recruiting.

2 - The Big 12's officiating is not one sided.   There are so many terrible calls.   So.  Many.   Follow Big12Refs on twitter.

3 - LHN, by contract, doesn't have any Big 12 games included and its only 1 in football a year as it is.   To get a second or to get a Big 12 game, the other school has to agree to it.

4 - Very weird comment. Are you going to say this is douchy too?

5 - You're both basically saying the same thing here and you can't have it both ways.   The only brands that have been built in the past three decades have done so by winning at an egregious rate.  Namely the run FSU had under Bowden and the Miami run, both included "nattys".   Clemson is probably the only other one of note and I don't think its hit the FSU/Miami level yet, even with two rings.   Oregon is the odd duck here, but that's mostly due to marketing.    Outside that, everyone with a massive fanbase that outpaces its alumni are schools that have been historically good, e.g. what you did in the 60s/70s/80s/90s.   Its sort of like how the Steeler fanbase outperforms Pittsburgh's population.  Kids tend to lock on to whoever is winning when they grow up, not always the local team.

Now, to be fair Al, no one ever values what you could be, except venture capital, and they don't do it for free.  If you want to be part of the eyeball club, go win.  KState isn't a "brand" now, but two decades of winning makes them a lot more viable than prior, same with Baylor.   Hell the only difference between Iowa and Iowa State is Iowa hired Fry in 1980, giving them a 3 decade head start over Campbell.   Boise State is known only because it would take any chance it could to be on TV, no matter what day of the week, and they won a lot and in big games.    Being consistently in the Top 25 or Top 10 over decades builds a brand, which gains eyeballs, which has a value in media rights deals.  Its really the only way to do it.

[camel at sea 589]

6 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

They were practically begging for it on an institutional level. David Boren was the main guy wanting it, but he wasn’t alone. And yeah, they would have tried to pull UT with them, but that was secondary. It wasn’t just a sports thing. They wanted to be part of the academic prestige of the B1G.

The main problem with going to the B1G in this latest round is that the conference wanted any talks to be transparent, and a few of the member institutions weren’t in favor of adding UT/OU from the get go, so they would have had to be persuaded to change their mind. Both OU and Texas liked the stealth approach of Stankey - where it was a done deal before an announcement was made - to circumvent potential obstacles thrown up by the respective state legislatures. 

BTW, Nebraska and Texas have practically identical records in football since the Cornhuskers left for the B1G. Is Nebraska truly a cautionary tale more than Texas here?

The OU BMDs were never going to let David Boren drag the football program into a HS recruiting desert.  When push came to shove there, Boren was not going to get his way on that.  Boren and the academic side wanted the Big Ten and still want AAU membership, but the only way relocating to a Great Lakes conference  was ever going to be allowed to happen was if Texas (and TX HS recruiting turf) went, too.  OU could have gone alone to the SEC, though, which would not have been great for UT.  Ultimately it was in the best interest of both UT and OU to work together.    

The big difference between Texas and Nebraska is that Texas still recruits elite players.  Texas also has a NY6 win in recent memory.  The records might be nearly identical but the two situations are vastly different.  Texas is one competent coaching staff away from Top 10 teams and national title contention.  Nebraska - with a great coach - has a ceiling of looking like Wisconsin.     

[camel at sea 589]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

OU winning natties keeps them happy, and it raises league prestige. This move probably doesn’t happen without both wanting to go.

There’s been a very clear “we’re just better than you” mentality coming from both schools for awhile, and that comes back to league prestige.

If ESPN isn’t spending the last decade talking shit about the Big 12, my guess is you guys aren’t looking around much.

OU winning natties elevates OU's value, it's self-perception, and probably also increases OU's disdain for the rest of the league (i.e. "we're tired of you riding our coattails.")  From OU's end of things, the biggest problem with the 2011-> Big 12 was that there weren't any conference games on the home slate that got the OU fanbase excited to donate and buy tickets.  Nothing other than Big 12 expansion could fix that.  The Big 12 with an 8 game conference slate could have allowed for better OOC schedules, at least.  The Big 12 didn't want that and several admins were vocal about it.    

OU has been deeply unhappy since 2011 and the Big 12 office (for one reason or another) has consistently told OU to go pound sand.  Texas played the whole thing more quietly but I'd guess a lot of the same gripes existed beneath the surface. 

You can look at the debate about adding Louisville back in 2012 where OU was the party pushing that agenda, the debate about expansion in 2015 with OU again leading the way, the whole Baker Mayfield Rule thing about walk-on transfers (Texas sided with OU on both votes, ISU for example voted against the rule change both times), etc.  At one point during the 2015 expansion debate, a bunch of Big 12 North school admins were telling KC media sources that Boren was an egomaniac and that if he'd just shut up, the perception of the Big 12 would improve.  Boren might have been an egomaniac but he was publicly griping on behalf of his alums who were deeply unhappy.  So if you're OU, at that point, you realize that your best option is to put your head down and leave as soon as possible b/c the folks up in Ames and Manhattan don't share your goals and objectives, and don't really seem to respect them, either.    

[SL Xpress 7,516]

4 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

The OU BMDs were never going to let David Boren drag the football program into a HS recruiting desert.  When push came to shove there, Boren was not going to get his way on that.  Boren and the academic side wanted the Big Ten and still want AAU membership, but the only way relocating to a Great Lakes conference  was ever going to be allowed to happen was if Texas (and TX HS recruiting turf) went, too.  OU could have gone alone to the SEC, though, which would not have been great for UT.  Ultimately it was in the best interest of both UT and OU to work together.    

The big difference between Texas and Nebraska is that Texas still recruits elite players.  Texas also has a NY6 win in recent memory.  The records might be nearly identical but the two situations are vastly different.  Texas is one competent coaching staff away from Top 10 teams and national title contention.  Nebraska - with a great coach - has a ceiling of looking like Wisconsin.     

I don’t disagree with anything you wrote there. OU was never going to get into the B1G without UT anyway. My point was that plenty of people at OU wanted to. Publicly. 

I also agree wholeheartedly it was in both UT and OU’s interest to be tied at the hip. 

I don’t know what a program’s ceiling is. Nebraska had two all time Hall of Fame coaches back to back from 1962 to 1997. Maybe they find another one who loves living in Lincoln, Nebraska. That state will support their program regardless of what it entails. But Nebraska will always have a shorter list of candidates for head coach to choose from than Texas, and a lower likelihood of keeping them if they turn out to be superstars. All I know is that Texas has to do a better job in hiring the right person. It’s ridiculous at how badly they regularly mangle the hiring process. 

[camel at sea 589]

3 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

I don’t disagree with anything you wrote there. OU was never going to get into the B1G without UT anyway. My point was that plenty of people at OU wanted to. Publicly. 

I also agree wholeheartedly it was in both UT and OU’s interest to be tied at the hip. 

I don’t know what a program’s ceiling is. Nebraska had two all time Hall of Fame coaches back to back from 1962 to 1997. Maybe they find another one who loves living in Lincoln, Nebraska. That state will support their program regardless of what it entails. But Nebraska will always have a shorter list of candidates for head coach to choose from than Texas, and a lower likelihood of keeping them if they turn out to be superstars. All I know is that Texas has to do a better job in hiring the right person. It’s ridiculous at how badly they regularly mangle the hiring process. 

Nebraska football is wildly mismanaged.  When they were in the Big 12, they never made a really concerted effort to recruit Texas until Pelini was the HC.  Just as their TX and Louisiana recruit numbers started to increase, they moved to the Big Ten and turned those pipelines off.  Now that they've got cornfed Big Ten west recruiting turf, they hired a guy in Scott Frost who runs an offense that needs TX/FL skill position athletes to make it work.  Maybe they can get it turned this year... but I don't know.  They just feel like they're going against the grain in too many ways to be successful long term.  They also hired a West Coast offense guy to run their program when the Big 12's turf at the HS level was trending in the direction of the spread.  They hired Mike Riley, way past his prime, jut for his pleasant personality.      

The smart move at NU would have been to go all-in on TX HS recruiting when the Big 12 was formed, in the 90s, when their brand was at an all-time high.  That might have supplemented the losses they took with the rule change on partial qualifiers.  If that happens, maybe they keep winning big, their feelings never get hurt so much, and maybe they stay in the Big 12.  Mizzou did a really good job of raising their program from the dead in the Pinkel era by making deep inroads in Texas.  NU could have done that and done it better.  Now that they're a Great Plains program, for the long haul, I think Nebraska should try to look like Iowa and Wisconsin but it'll require a lot of patience to overhaul the roster from what Frost has put together.  Maybe the transfer portal could speed that along.  

[SL Xpress 7,516]

5 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

Nebraska football is wildly mismanaged.  When they were in the Big 12, they never made a really concerted effort to recruit Texas until Pelini was the HC.  Just as their TX and Louisiana recruit numbers started to increase, they moved to the Big Ten and turned those pipelines off.  Now that they've got cornfed Big Ten west recruiting turf, they hired a guy in Scott Frost who runs an offense that needs TX/FL skill position athletes to make it work.  Maybe they can get it turned this year... but I don't know.  They just feel like they're going against the grain in too many ways to be successful long term.  They also hired a West Coast offense guy to run their program when the Big 12's turf at the HS level was trending in the direction of the spread.  They hired Mike Riley, way past his prime, jut for his pleasant personality.      

The smart move at NU would have been to go all-in on TX HS recruiting when the Big 12 was formed, in the 90s, when their brand was at an all-time high.  That might have supplemented the losses they took with the rule change on partial qualifiers.  If that happens, maybe they keep winning big, their feelings never get hurt so much, and maybe they stay in the Big 12.  Mizzou did a really good job of raising their program from the dead in the Pinkel era by making deep inroads in Texas.  NU could have done that and done it better.  Now that they're a Great Plains program, for the long haul, I think Nebraska should try to look like Iowa and Wisconsin but it'll require a lot of patience to overhaul the roster from what Frost has put together.  Maybe the transfer portal could speed that along.  

It’ll be honest. I have zero sympathy for Nebraska. Their struggles have done my heart good. Unfortunately, watching other programs struggle is really the only enjoyment I’ve gotten out of college football the last 12 years, and it doesn’t really cut it. 

But what I know is that they don’t lack resources in their athletic department. They don’t lack a commitment to winning in either the administration or the public. That’s where things can go off the rails permanently. You have an administration that makes it harder to get athletes in, or you start prioritizing something other than winning when making coaching hires. Nebraska is always going to be a challenge to recruit to. They have to hit the lottery with a coaching hire. They need another hall of fame caliber coach, frankly. But at least if they get the right guy they’ll get out of his way, they’ll give him every tool he needs to succeed, and they’re not going to care if a few eggs have to be broken along the way. 

Don’t know if they’ll be able to find that guy or not, but that’s what it’s going to take. 

[Deej 76,831]

Fuck Nebraska.

 

[clapclapclap 9,000]

20 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

 They just feel like they're going against the grain in too many ways to be successful long term.   

You'd think Cornhuskers would know better than to go against the grain.

[Al_4_ISU 12,469]

I don't know what to tell you. When the realignment musical chairs ended, and Texas was left being in a conference with Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Baylor, and Texas Tech, I wanted out immediately. Adding TCU and West Virginia didn't just not move the needle in a positive direction. They absolutely moved it in a negative direction. It's stupid to blame Iowa State for the state of the conference, but I felt like Texas had stepped back into 1995 where it shared a league affiliation with Baylor, Tech, TCU, SMU, Rice, UH, and A&M. The presence of state schools was mildly helpful, but not that much. 
And Texas fans think we're better than EVERYONE. It's an unattractive combination of a parody level of state pride combined with being the flagship school (look at how Iowa thinks about Iowa State as a comparison). I'm not going to apologize for it. It is what it is. It's a mindset practically flowing through my veins. I spent a great deal of time on Nebraska boards back in the 90s and early 2000s, and I've always spent time on the KU basketball boards going back to the 90s. There was (is) the same sort of arrogance present there, but it was at least alleviated by a bit of midwestern humility and a bit of defensiveness regarding flyover state status. UT fans - frankly, members of UT as an institution - have all of the arrogance without a smidgen of the humility. You'd think all of Texas' struggles in football would ameliorate it some...but nope. It's as fully formed as it was in the 70s back when Texas really had been dominant for 20 years. 
Personally I just think you're kidding yourself that national championships, especially national championships by OU, would have changed anything. I also don't think ESPN shit talking had any effect on the Texas psyche whatsoever. I haven't listened to ESPN at all over the past decade, and my opinion has always been that Texas needs to get out of the Big 12 as soon as possible. I've always hated the idea of going to the SEC. I still do. But I've come to grips with it as the only realistic alternative to what I considered a dead end of a conference, and I know I haven't been alone. Shoot, plenty of fans I've talked to haven't had the misgivings about entering the evil empire of the SEC. I'm sure they're overjoyed with no negative associations with those mouth breathers whatsoever. 
The bottom line is that Texas wants to be in a conference with other schools with large athletic department budgets and all that entails. If you want to equate that to prestige, that's fine, too, but that's not the driving factor. That was never going to happen in the Big 12 regardless of how many national championships in football OU won (or Texas, for that matter, in some kind of alternate universe I can't actually fathom). 

Yeah, you think you’re too good to be associated with us.

You don’t have to pretend that’s not the case. It’s been real obvious for a long time. Why dance around it?

[Al_4_ISU 12,469]

1 - So it's OUR fault the Big 12 is what it is? Interesting take, but I think it's crap.
2 - Horseshit.  Show me another game like the 2015 UT-oSu game. And we have multiple other games in the same vein, though less egregious. 
3 - If we want a home game on LHN, there is no "agreeing" to it.  It just means the other contracted networks have passed.
4 - Douchy term used by people unfamiliar with winning national championships.
5 - It's eyeballs, not a judgement by "college football".

No, it’s your fault that you’re so unsatisfied with the Big 12.

Texas becoming an average program just made it easier for ESPN to do what they did.

You guys are old money rich kids that are unable to accept that you really aren’t that good. You get to sit at the cool kids table because you’re loaded and they want your money. The majority of Big 12 schools are scrappy try hards from the wrong side of the tracks. We know it.

You read a whole lot of things you wanted me to say into that last post. Texas and OU could have stayed in the Big 12, made a shit load of money, and raked in top 10 recruiting classes. You left because you’re insecure about your lack of success, have blamed the Big 12 instead of your obvious institutional dysfunction, and want to glob onto the SEC glory just like Aggy. And you’ll get more money to keep wasting.

Yeah, yeah, we’re an irrelevant #2 school in a small population state in the vast emptiness of middle America. We’ll make less money without you. We know, we’ve always known. Blow me.

[Thiefery 5,012]

Like you Al, but it's just isn't the same anymore..  I'm looking forward to LSU, Ark, UF, TN, GA being part of future home games in Austin.

[closetohumping 17,449]

17 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

I think OU just likes being with UT for rivalry purposes. There is a 0% chance OU gets left out of realignment.

Yes, but ou made a very public declaration last go around "we're not Texas's wallflower, we can do our own thing" only to be shut down by the PAC>  Yes, they are a take, but their academics didn't sit well with the B1G.

[closetohumping 17,449]

18 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

OU winning natties keeps them happy, and it raises league prestige. This move probably doesn’t happen without both wanting to go.

There’s been a very clear “we’re just better than you” mentality coming from both schools for awhile, and that comes back to league prestige.

If ESPN isn’t spending the last decade talking shit about the Big 12, my guess is you guys aren’t looking around much.

Clemson won titles and is a perennial contender but yet they are stuck in a conference that, according to some, is equal to the Big 12 leftovers? 

[Deej 76,831]

6 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

Like you Al, but it's just isn't the same anymore..  I'm looking forward to LSU, Ark, UF, TN, GA being part of future home games in Austin.

If his program was worth a shit, he'd be on an ISU board. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,469]

OU winning natties elevates OU's value, it's self-perception, and probably also increases OU's disdain for the rest of the league (i.e. "we're tired of you riding our coattails.")  From OU's end of things, the biggest problem with the 2011-> Big 12 was that there weren't any conference games on the home slate that got the OU fanbase excited to donate and buy tickets.  Nothing other than Big 12 expansion could fix that.  The Big 12 with an 8 game conference slate could have allowed for better OOC schedules, at least.  The Big 12 didn't want that and several admins were vocal about it.    
OU has been deeply unhappy since 2011 and the Big 12 office (for one reason or another) has consistently told OU to go pound sand.  Texas played the whole thing more quietly but I'd guess a lot of the same gripes existed beneath the surface. 
You can look at the debate about adding Louisville back in 2012 where OU was the party pushing that agenda, the debate about expansion in 2015 with OU again leading the way, the whole Baker Mayfield Rule thing about walk-on transfers (Texas sided with OU on both votes, ISU for example voted against the rule change both times), etc.  At one point during the 2015 expansion debate, a bunch of Big 12 North school admins were telling KC media sources that Boren was an egomaniac and that if he'd just shut up, the perception of the Big 12 would improve.  Boren might have been an egomaniac but he was publicly griping on behalf of his alums who were deeply unhappy.  So if you're OU, at that point, you realize that your best option is to put your head down and leave as soon as possible b/c the folks up in Ames and Manhattan don't share your goals and objectives, and don't really seem to respect them, either.    

OU simply chose to look down on their home slate. No different than UT. There was deep seeded arrogance that you were just better than these schools. OU chose unhappiness.

[Al_4_ISU 12,469]

Clemson won titles and is a perennial contender but yet they are stuck in a conference that, according to some, is equal to the Big 12 leftovers? 

They seem to be fine with it. This attitude is fairly unique to the schools that came out of the Big 12 footprint.

Ohio State never seems bummed about playing Purdue. Clemson never seems bummed about playing Wake.

[Texas Wahoo 3,397]

 

 

[Al_4_ISU 12,469]

If his program was worth a shit, he'd be on an ISU board. 

Surly/Shaggy has always drawn a unique crowd and has morphed into something far beyond Texas athletics, and I’ve always found that entertaining a hell. That’s why I’m here. ISU has a very active board, and I’m on it, but I enjoy the totally different perspective here. Even when I’m calling you guys arrogant fucks and you’re pointing out our poverty.

Interesting disagreement > boring harmony.

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

4 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

 

 

Good to hear it and now if we can get OU & UT out next summer too then everyone can move on.

[Deej 76,831]

2 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Surly/Shaggy has always drawn a unique crowd and has morphed into something far beyond Texas athletics, and I’ve always found that entertaining a hell. That’s why I’m here. ISU has a very active board, and I’m on it, but I enjoy the totally different perspective here. Even when I’m calling you guys arrogant fucks and you’re pointing out our poverty.

Interesting disagreement > boring harmony.

Your sour grapes for the past months and months are just getting tiresome. 

[closetohumping 17,449]

8 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

They seem to be fine with it. This attitude is fairly unique to the schools that came out of the Big 12 footprint.

Ohio State never seems bummed about playing Purdue. Clemson never seems bummed about playing Wake.

Ohio st is in either the #1 or #2 conference in the league.   We’re not bummed playing you but would we rather play aggy or Tennessee?   Yes.  Sorry.  The only team I care to play now is Oklahoma.   I just don’t care about anyone else. Don’t really hate other teams other than maybe baylor.  
 

Clem and osu have been in their conferences for a long ass time.   The big 12 was piece mealed together.  A group of divorcées who needed to get laid.  Osu conference mates have mutual respect and are in it together.  Big 12 schools wouldn’t piss on Texas if we were on fire.  You just wanted the money and power five prestige.  See you later.  Enjoy your new conference mates who, I know, I know, are far better than we are at football

[Thiefery 5,012]

7 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Good to hear it and now if we can get OU & UT out next summer too then everyone can move on.

Very much this..  I'm ready for a beefed up home schedule

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

@Al_4_ISU with divisions looking out what is ISU looking for when it comes to scheduling? I would assume you want KU & KSU every year, but other than that is there anything in particular? I know I'd want BU to at least play TCU, Tech, and UH every year and would prefer to get oSu every year too, but it's all still a mystery.

[TrashMaster G 17,565]

31 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

No, it’s your fault that you’re so unsatisfied with the Big 12.

Texas becoming an average program just made it easier for ESPN to do what they did.

You guys are old money rich kids that are unable to accept that you really aren’t that good. You get to sit at the cool kids table because you’re loaded and they want your money. The majority of Big 12 schools are scrappy try hards from the wrong side of the tracks. We know it.

You read a whole lot of things you wanted me to say into that last post. Texas and OU could have stayed in the Big 12, made a shit load of money, and raked in top 10 recruiting classes. You left because you’re insecure about your lack of success, have blamed the Big 12 instead of your obvious institutional dysfunction, and want to glob onto the SEC glory just like Aggy. And you’ll get more money to keep wasting.

Yeah, yeah, we’re an irrelevant #2 school in a small population state in the vast emptiness of middle America. We’ll make less money without you. We know, we’ve always known. Blow me.

Somebody give this man a hug.

[SL Xpress 7,516]

26 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Yeah, you think you’re too good to be associated with us.

You don’t have to pretend that’s not the case. It’s been real obvious for a long time. Why dance around it?

Who is dancing around it? I’m not into going out of my way to insult high quality posters who I feel like bring a great deal of value to conversations, which is what you are. We’re a bunch of assholes, and we are proud of it. Why do you think so many schools hate us so much? It’s not an accident. When they say UT fans are arrogant, it’s not a false accusation.

I want to be in a conference with a bunch of schools with large athletic budgets that sell out 80,000+ seat stadiums. I wanted that in the 80s and 90s, when we also sucked shit through a straw in football. Nothing has changed. 

I wasn’t enamored about playing Baylor, Tech, TCU, UH, Rice, SMU in the SWC. I was irritated when we were forced by politics to bring Baylor and Tech with us. I was excited about adding Nebraska and OU as conference opponents. If Nebraska, Mizzou, and CU had stuck around, plus A&M, it could have made the conference work. Not ideal, but a heck of a lot better than joining the SEC. 

Once they left the only compelling football opponent from an athletic budget 80k stadium standpoint was OU. The media markets of St Louis and Denver were gone from a cable TV perspective. The state of Nebraska with their religious fervor for the state school was gone. There weren’t any good value add programs out there. Neither TCU nor West Virginia add a whole lot, and WVA is a terrible geographical fit.

I’ll miss the Big 12 in basketball, that’s for sure. But in football, which is what drives these conversations, I can hardly wait until the Big 12 is in the rear view mirror. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,469]

[mention=1238]Al_4_ISU[/mention] with divisions looking out what is ISU looking for when it comes to scheduling? I would assume you want KU & KSU every year, but other than that is there anything in particular? I know I'd want BU to at least play TCU, Tech, and UH every year and would prefer to get oSu every year too, but it's all still a mystery.

I want to play all the Big 8 schools every year. KSU being an annual game should be a non negotiable demand.

Ideally we’d have an annual road game in Texas, and then go to UCF and Cincy in alternating years.

[closetohumping 17,449]

14 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Who is dancing around it? I’m not into going out of my way to insult high quality posters who I feel like bring a great deal of value to conversations, which is what you are. We’re a bunch of assholes, and we are proud of it. Why do you think so many schools hate us so much? It’s not an accident. When they say UT fans are arrogant, it’s not a false accusation.

I want to be in a conference with a bunch of schools with large athletic budgets that sell out 80,000+ seat stadiums. I wanted that in the 80s and 90s, when we also sucked shit through a straw in football. Nothing has changed. 

I wasn’t enamored about playing Baylor, Tech, TCU, UH, Rice, SMU in the SWC. I was irritated when we were forced by politics to bring Baylor and Tech with us. I was excited about adding Nebraska and OU as conference opponents. If Nebraska, Mizzou, and CU had stuck around, plus A&M, it could have made the conference work. Not ideal, but a heck of a lot better than joining the SEC. 

Once they left the only compelling football opponent from an athletic budget 80k stadium standpoint was OU. The media markets of St Louis and Denver were gone from a cable TV perspective. The state of Nebraska with their religious fervor for the state school was gone. There weren’t any good value add programs out there. Neither TCU nor West Virginia add a whole lot, and WVA is a terrible geographical fit.

I’ll miss the Big 12 in basketball, that’s for sure. But in football, which is what drives these conversations, I can hardly wait until the Big 12 is in the rear view mirror. 

Had the same sentiment even when were good.  I wanted bigger games vs schools with similar profiles.  This has nothing to do with us being good or bad.  ou has been a top 8 program for how long?  They still wanted out.

[Al_4_ISU 12,469]

Who is dancing around it? I’m not into going out of my way to insult high quality posters who I feel like bring a great deal of value to conversations, which is what you are. We’re a bunch of assholes, and we are proud of it. Why do you think so many schools hate us so much? It’s not an accident. When they say UT fans are arrogant, it’s not a false accusation.
I want to be in a conference with a bunch of schools with large athletic budgets that sell out 80,000+ seat stadiums. I wanted that in the 80s and 90s, when we also sucked shit through a straw in football. Nothing has changed. 
I wasn’t enamored about playing Baylor, Tech, TCU, UH, Rice, SMU in the SWC. I was irritated when we were forced by politics to bring Baylor and Tech with us. I was excited about adding Nebraska and OU as conference opponents. If Nebraska, Mizzou, and CU had stuck around, plus A&M, it could have made the conference work. Not ideal, but a heck of a lot better than joining the SEC. 
Once they left the only compelling football opponent from an athletic budget 80k stadium standpoint was OU. The media markets of St Louis and Denver were gone from a cable TV perspective. The state of Nebraska with their religious fervor for the state school was gone. There weren’t any good value add programs out there. Neither TCU nor West Virginia add a whole lot, and WVA is a terrible geographical fit.
I’ll miss the Big 12 in basketball, that’s for sure. But in football, which is what drives these conversations, I can hardly wait until the Big 12 is in the rear view mirror. 

Most of this board seems completely clueless as to why people hate Texas.

[DFW Horn 6,124]

1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Most of this board seems completely clueless as to why people hate Texas.

Most of this board doesn't give a fuck why you hate Texas.

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

2 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I want to play all the Big 8 schools every year. KSU being an annual game should be a non negotiable demand.

Ideally we’d have an annual road game in Texas, and then go to UCF and Cincy in alternating years.

That makes sense. I really liked the idea of divisions for this set up to mimic the old Big 12 with

 

"North"

KU

KU

ISU

UC

WVU

UCF

 

"South"

BU

UH

Tech

oSu

TCU

BYU

 

but divisions appear dead and that probably favors the Texhoma side of things too much like the old Big12 did. It'll be really interesting to see how the Big 12 works this moving forward. The idea of 4 Texas teams but only 1 permanent rival seems pretty crappy for us and teams like oSu and ISU that don't have that one in conference rival.

[Al_4_ISU 12,469]

Ohio st is in either the #1 or #2 conference in the league.   We’re not bummed playing you but would we rather play aggy or Tennessee?   Yes.  Sorry.  The only team I care to play now is Oklahoma.   I just don’t care about anyone else. Don’t really hate other teams other than maybe baylor.  
 
Clem and osu have been in their conferences for a long ass time.   The big 12 was piece mealed together.  A group of divorcées who needed to get laid.  Osu conference mates have mutual respect and are in it together.  Big 12 schools wouldn’t piss on Texas if we were on fire.  You just wanted the money and power five prestige.  See you later.  Enjoy your new conference mates who, I know, I know, are far better than we are at football

Well, at least you can admit it. I don’t see us winning 3 straight against any of the new comers.

Really, we just wanted a stable home. That was it. We thought the Big 8 was that. The Big 12 should have been that. But for some reason the 4 schools with the biggest fanbases and most clout had an inherent disdain for everyone else.

What sucks for us is looking at the Iowa’s and Purdue’s of the world sitting fat and happy because Ohio State and Michigan are happy to subsidize their existence.

[SL Xpress 7,516]

2 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Most of this board seems completely clueless as to why people hate Texas.

 

Well, the masses of any bulletin board aren't always good at being self aware of their community. I find surly better than most.

I've spent a lot of time on other bulletin boards over the years. Nebraska in the 90s and early aughts was particularly instructive since I got to see the hate form from a nascent state. I don't think there's another school the average Nebraska fan hates more than Texas to this day. And it transcends all sports. 

Somebody has to be the heel. Texas plays a good one, IMO. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,469]

Most of this board doesn't give a fuck why you hate Texas.

I don’t really hate Texas. My interactions with Texas fans have been vastly positive. I’m mad that Texas and OU pulled out of the Big 12, but I don’t really hate either.

I hate Nebraska.

[Al_4_ISU 12,469]

 
Well, the masses of any bulletin board aren't always good at being self aware of their community. I find surly better than most.
I've spent a lot of time on other bulletin boards over the years. Nebraska in the 90s and early aughts was particularly instructive since I got to see the hate form from a nascent state. I don't think there's another school the average Nebraska fan hates more than Texas to this day. And it transcends all sports. 
Somebody has to be the heel. Texas plays a good one, IMO. 

I personally hate Nebraska more than any entity in athletics. I root for Iowa when they play.

[DFW Horn 6,124]

1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I don’t really hate Texas. My interactions with Texas fans have been vastly positive. I’m mad that Texas and OU pulled out of the Big 12, but I don’t really hate either.

I hate Nebraska.

Well, we can certainly agree on that. It's the only fanbase who may be doucheier than aggy. I've enjoyed watching them flounder in the Rust Belt.

Corn got what they deserve.

[Al_4_ISU 12,469]

That makes sense. I really liked the idea of divisions for this set up to mimic the old Big 12 with
 
"North"
KU
KU
ISU
UC
WVU
UCF
 
"South"
BU
UH
Tech
oSu
TCU
BYU
 
but divisions appear dead and that probably favors the Texhoma side of things too much like the old Big12 did. It'll be really interesting to see how the Big 12 works this moving forward. The idea of 4 Texas teams but only 1 permanent rival seems pretty crappy for us and teams like oSu and ISU that don't have that one in conference rival.

KSU is a pretty intense rivalry for us.

OSU is in a tougher spot RE Bedlam and all that. I always thought it would be cool if ISU/KSU/OSU tracked a 3 way annual series like how the service academics do the Commander In Chief trophy.

[SL Xpress 7,516]

8 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I don’t really hate Texas. My interactions with Texas fans have been vastly positive. I’m mad that Texas and OU pulled out of the Big 12, but I don’t really hate either.

I hate Nebraska.

I enjoyed my interactions with them. It's fun to be hated that much, especially when so much of it is based on irrationality. The apoplecticism after each heart wrenching defeat in football was delicious nirvana to my sports soul.

Even in this past year, one of my favorite sports fan moments came when hallowed Cornhusker volleyball legend Jordan Larson was named to the staff at Texas after semi retiring from the pros. The crying and gnashing of teeth on all the various social media from Nebraska fans was wondrous to behold. That's a raw wound that is capable of being opened at any time, too, which I'm looking forward to.