Realignment talk not going away

[YouLoveMyPenises 79]

3 minutes ago, statsman said:

So, there was aB12 team asking about the PAC last summer? Who was it?

Any one of them with competent leadership.

Edited July 31, 2022 by YouLoveMyPenises

[Gidnik 3268]

 

[kopp0e 1135]

On 7/29/2022 at 12:22 PM, camel at sea said:

OU didn't want to saddle itself with the most difficult conference slate every year.  At the time, playing Nebraska, Texas, and A&M annually would have done that.  

Hypothetically, you could have set up Texas or A&M with an annual game against the Buffs - who were elite when the Big 12 was formed - and that might have helped OU with the Huskers.  But that still left one of those two without a "peer" North division school as a cross-division opponent.  Texas and OU weren't going to sign on for CU and Nebraska, annually, while A&M played a pre-Pinkel Mizzou.    

KSU hadn't shaken off their historical stink, ISU and Mizzou were both terrible at the time, and KU wasn't a good enough program to be the annual opponent of Texas or A&M.

The SEC's cross-division slate always worked because they had a "Big 6."  The two divisions could be balanced, with balanced schedules.  The Big 12 1.0 need another heavy-ish hitter in the North.  The best option out there for that was BYU (which was rolling and had a recent-ish NC and Heisman winner) but it would have meant being a 14 team league.  
  

What Big8 & SWC should have done is dissolved & reformed (in 1990):

Texas

Texas A&M

Arkansas

Oklahoma

Missouri

Iowa State

Nebraska

Kansas

Colorado

BYU

Pick 2 brands to tag along in Texas Tech/ Oklahoma State ect (my choice, those 2)

[YouLoveMyPenises 79]

The major factor of the Big 12 falling apart was the abject failure of the Big 12 North after 2002. Winners get eyeballs, wins out almost as much as pussy.

Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas State nosedived from Must Watch National games every week to just their core fan bases. You cant tell me that a Big 12 with Nebraska, KSU, and CU at the same level that OU, UT, A&M, Tech, and OSU were pulling wouldn't be the by far premiere conference in the country.

Every team has it's floor. Texas, A&M, Ohio State, and maybe Michigan have the highest. Everyone else has to win to get eyeballs to stay off the floor. Nobody was watching Alabama in the early 2000s.

Edited July 31, 2022 by YouLoveMyPenises

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

6 minutes ago, YouLoveMyPenises said:

Every team has it's floor. Texas, A&M, Ohio State, and maybe Michigan have the highest. Everyone else has to win to get eyeballs to stay off the floor. Nobody was watching Alabama in the early 2000s.

 

One of these things is not like the others.

[LTbear 4168]

 

11 minutes ago, YouLoveMyPenises said:

The major factor of the Big 12 falling apart was the abject failure of the Big 12 North after 2002. Winners get eyeballs, wins out almost as much as pussy.

Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas State nosedived from Must Watch National games every week to just their core fan bases. You cant tell me that a Big 12 with Nebraska, KSU, and CU at the same level that OU, UT, A&M, Tech, and OSU were pulling wouldn't be the by far premiere conference in the country.

Every team has it's floor. Texas, A&M, Ohio State, and maybe Michigan have the highest. Everyone else has to win to get eyeballs to stay off the floor. Nobody was watching Alabama in the early 2000s.

Thinking about the weakness of the Big XII North reminded me of this, seen during the 2007 Kansas vs Missouri/ Border War game when KU entered at 11-0. Without question the best sign seen at any college football game, ever.

 

 

Edited August 1, 2022 by LTbear

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

13 minutes ago, YouLoveMyPenises said:

The major factor of the Big 12 falling apart was the abject failure of the Big 12 North after 2002. Winners get eyeballs, wins out almost as much as pussy.

Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas State nosedived from Must Watch National games every week to just their core fan bases. You cant tell me that a Big 12 with Nebraska, KSU, and CU at the same level that OU, UT, A&M, Tech, and OSU were pulling wouldn't be the by far premiere conference in the country.

Every team has it's floor. Texas, A&M, Ohio State, and maybe Michigan have the highest. Everyone else has to win to get eyeballs to stay off the floor. Nobody was watching Alabama in the early 2000s.

[kopp0e 1135]

2 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

 

What I would (now) like to eventually see is an SEC expanded to compete with B1G… It seems that B1G may look to add #17 Notre Dame, then #18 Stanford/ #19 Oregon/ #20 Washington & swing for a fractured ACC taking (I guess) #21 Virginia/ #22 Duke/ #23  Georgia Tech/ #24 Miami…

That makes B1G a national conference while SEC is “regional”… It would be a good idea if SEC countered with: #17 Virginia Tech/ #18 North Carolina/ #19 NC State/ #20 Clemson/ #21 Florida State… Then expand the footprint with 3 solid brands: #22 Kansas/ #23 Colorado/ #24 Arizona State… 

This gives content in 3 time zones of east/ central/ mountain & covers a swath from DC/ Atlanta/ Orlando/ Nashville/ St Louis/ Kansas City/ Oklahoma City/ Dallas/ Austin/ San Antonio/ Houston/ Denver/ Phoenix…

It also keeps both OU & UT with a “toe hold” in the market of California by proxy of PHX & DEN markets… and allows a few old “filler games” but with quality brand names… 

Here is a prospective Saturday lineup in a 24 team SEC (with 3 MTZ schools):

Auburn vs North Carolina 11:00am ESPN
Oklahoma vs Georgia 2:30pm ABC
Colorado vs LSU 3:30pm SECN
Texas vs Florida 6:00pm ABC
Florida State vs Alabama 6:00pm ESPN
Clemson vs Texas A&M 6:00pm ESPN2
Kentucky vs South Carolina 6:00pm SECN
Tennessee vs Arkansas 9:00pm ESPN
NC State vs Kansas 9:00pm SECN
Ole Miss vs Arizona State 10:00pm ESPN2

bye week for 4 SEC brands, but 10 games in ETZ/ CTZ/ MTZ with a late game…
#SECAfterDark could be solid recruiter for capturing west coast athletes from ‘Cali…

[bullet 1596]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Minnesota? No. Minnesota has been inferior on the field to KSU for decades, ISU since Campbell, and has absolutely no fanbase.

Wisconsin is a good game on paper, and they have a good fanbase, but that hasn’t become a rivalry by any stretch.

CU probably stays if Nebraska is committed too.

No.  CU was going.

Minnesota and Nebraska have played each other a lot over the years.

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, Gidnik said:

 

He needs to work on his years a little.  But in substance +

[jTower 227]

7 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

https://www.uiltexas.org/

scroll down a little

[TKthunder2 4990]

2 hours ago, kopp0e said:

What I would (now) like to eventually see is an SEC expanded to compete with B1G… It seems that B1G may look to add #17 Notre Dame, then #18 Stanford/ #19 Oregon/ #20 Washington & swing for a fractured ACC taking (I guess) #21 Virginia/ #22 Duke/ #23  Georgia Tech/ #24 Miami…

That makes B1G a national conference while SEC is “regional”… It would be a good idea if SEC countered with: #17 Virginia Tech/ #18 North Carolina/ #19 NC State/ #20 Clemson/ #21 Florida State… Then expand the footprint with 3 solid brands: #22 Kansas/ #23 Colorado/ #24 Arizona State…

While I’d love an excuse to travel to Colorado and understand the appeal of Arizona, I just don’t see them as a fit.

I think, keeping it more regional will likely pay off in the long term.  Let the B1G go coast to coast with great matchups like Rutgers v UCLA while the SEC dominates on the field. If the B1G/SEC ever go head to head for members it seems more likely that OhioSt/Michigan/Iowa/Wisconsin would join the SEC versus Alabama/LSU/Florida/Georgia joining the B1G.

If they expand by 8 more these would be the candidates:

Football powers: FSU, Clemson, VT, Miami

New State Flagships: UNC, UVA, Kansas, WVU

Basketball powers: UNC, Duke, Kansas

Secondary powers in important states: FSU/Miami, VT, Duke/NCSU, GT

Secondary powers in non important states: Okie St, Louisville

The best line up seems to be FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Duke, UVA, VT, Kansas

The addition of Texas/OU and FSU/Clemson/Miami plus top 20 in all times wins VTmore than offset the basketball/academic adds on UNC/Duke/UVA/Kansas.

UNC, Duke, Kansas and Kentucky would be an insane basketball league.  It would literally have all the consensus bluebloods in the sport in a single conference. Which conference would you watch?

SEC: UK, KU, UNC, Duke, UF, Texas, OU, Arkansas

B1G: UI, UCLA, Michigan St, IU, MD, Ohio St, UM, Purdue

Miami/FSU/Clemson bring in state rivalries, Kansas can restart the border war, UNC can be a rival with the gamecocks and bring their rivalries with Duke/UVA.  UVA/VT would also add to the rivalries list.

NC/VA are good markets to add to the conference profile and KC would be solidified with Kansas/Mizzou. Kansas along with the Virginia schools and Kentucky/Missouri sets a very clear border for the conference and pulls just about every major university in the region worth its salt in athletics.

You can make arguments about rivalries and market protection for Georgia Tech, Louisville, Oklahoma State though that they seem unlikely and unnecessary and likely won’t be able to justify their inclusion.

The SEC would have 3 of the Big 8, the 3 main powers of the SWC, 5 of the 8 original ACC (WF, NCSU, MD) and now 16 of the 20 Southern Conference member that still play FBS before the SEC split off (MD, GT, NCSU, Tulane).

This seems like a good plan but only if it’s in response to the B1G raiding more.  If the ACC could keep its members and jump to 16+ then I’d prefer the current alignment.

[Wulaw Horn 19069]

You people seem nuts in this expansion. What’s the point of 24 schools in your league?  It ceases being a conference at that point in time. 
16 is the highest end manageable conference. With 3 permanent rivaled you can play the same 3 teams every year and then go home and home with 6 others, and flip it to home and home with the other 6 and play in every stadium in the conference in a 4 year career and see everyone come to you city. 
in basketball you can play those same 3 rivals home and home 6 games and the other 12 once for 18. Makes for no bye 4 day conference tournament. Easy peasy. 
you get to 24 and it’s just pointless to call it a conference anymore. No thanks. 

[Gidnik 3268]

https://theathletic.com/3465138/2022/08/01/3465138-pac12-usc-ucla-realignment/
 

can someone hit us up with the copy paste 

[Vermin 3043]

Quote

One Pac-12 athletic director told The Athletic on Friday that the most surprising aspect of the move was on the UCLA side, since it’s a public school connected to California-Berkeley, and the Bruins’ move has been ripped by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The University of California Board of Regents has ordered a review of how the decision unfolded.

“I wasn’t shocked because I’ve been in this business long enough, but I was surprised because I had accepted the notion that UCLA could not uncouple from Cal because of the whole regent thing,” another Pac-12 AD told The Athletic. “They’re governed by the same group, and it makes no logical sense that the same oversight board would vault one at the detriment, the expense, of the other. That is counter to their responsibility. That’s really where the surprise came in.

“Look at all the work Oklahoma and Texas had to do when, 12 years ago, the Pac-12 tried to raid them. But it was always Oklahoma State and Texas Tech coupling them, and that stopped it. So, obviously they’d learned their lessons, and whatever work they needed to get done behind the scenes to fix it, they did. UCLA obviously did no work because this should not be a political issue at this point. It’ll be interesting to see what happens at that hearing.”

The relevant part.

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

30 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

https://theathletic.com/3465138/2022/08/01/3465138-pac12-usc-ucla-realignment/
 

can someone hit us up with the copy paste 

 

Spoiler

LOS ANGELES — It’s been about a month since the news that USC and UCLA are bolting for the Big Ten, and the disappointment and anger toward the two L.A. schools from inside the Pac-12 haven’t eased up much — if at all.

“It’s clear that UCLA and USC made a decision for short-term financial gain at the expense of their student-athletes,” Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff told The Athletic on Friday. “It’s 100 percent clear to me. It’s really unfortunate, and I think they are already regretting it, given the pushback that they’ve gotten from almost every corner of their communities. I think they will regret it more as time goes on.”

Kliavkoff was at the start of his first vacation since taking the commissioner job a year ago when the news broke. He was in Montana, driving to Idaho, in an area without much cellular reception when he received multiple texts from his deputy commissioner.

“The surprising part, to me, is the Pac-12 has a mission that is related to the health and well-being of its student-athletes, and this is a decision that, in my opinion, goes directly against the health and well-being of student-athletes. That’s the surprise for me.”

One Pac-12 athletic director told The Athletic on Friday that the most surprising aspect of the move was on the UCLA side, since it’s a public school connected to California-Berkeley, and the Bruins’ move has been ripped by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The University of California Board of Regents has ordered a review of how the decision unfolded.

“I wasn’t shocked because I’ve been in this business long enough, but I was surprised because I had accepted the notion that UCLA could not uncouple from Cal because of the whole regent thing,” another Pac-12 AD told The Athletic. “They’re governed by the same group, and it makes no logical sense that the same oversight board would vault one at the detriment, the expense, of the other. That is counter to their responsibility. That’s really where the surprise came in.

“Look at all the work Oklahoma and Texas had to do when, 12 years ago, the Pac-12 tried to raid them. But it was always Oklahoma State and Texas Tech coupling them, and that stopped it. So, obviously they’d learned their lessons, and whatever work they needed to get done behind the scenes to fix it, they did. UCLA obviously did no work because this should not be a political issue at this point. It’ll be interesting to see what happens at that hearing.”

Kliavkoff also did not hold back his feelings for Big 12 leadership in the wake of what he said have been numerous overtures to try to poach Pac-12 programs that, he says, have been forwarded to him from administrators in his league.

“I’ve been trying to focus on stuff that moves the conference forward, and I’ve been trying to spend as little time as possible responding to the fake news and nonsense that has come out of other conferences in an effort to destabilize us,” he said.

Asked about his relationship with Brett Yormark, Kliavkoff said he and the new Big 12 commissioner have talked a couple of times in the past month. “I told him I believe that college athletics is healthier when we have a healthy and vibrant Big 12 and a healthy and vibrant Pac-12. Having those votes in the CFP (College Football Playoff) room is valuable. We have those conversations, and then folks in his conference go out of their way to try and destabilize their conference. I keep reminding him of that, and it’s a repeating pattern.”

Kliavkoff declined to go into the specifics of how Yormark responded to that, other than adding, “It’d be in the best interest of college athletics if both conferences are strong. I know for a fact that we’re going to be strong, and I think if he does the right things, they’ll be fine.”

 

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

14 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

 

I’m awaiting an article that will somehow blame us lol. 
 

 

Also when is the deadline for pacs exclusive tv deal negotiation?

[FartingDreamer 138]

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I’m awaiting an article that will somehow blame us lol. 
 

 

Also when is the deadline for pacs exclusive tv deal negotiation?

Thurs Aug 4th

[Al_4_ISU 12459]

11 hours ago, bullet said:

No.  CU was going.

Minnesota and Nebraska have played each other a lot over the years.

Playing each other on a somewhat frequent basis isn't enough to make a rivalry.

Minnesota fans are very apathetic, and only get really wound up for their border games (Wisconsin and Iowa) and those games still usually have the Gophers 50K seat stadium (it would be the 7th largest in the current Big 12) with 1/3 of the fans being the opposing team's fans.

Nebraska and Minnesota just isn't a rivalry, and it's nowhere close to being one.  Not to mention it's about a 6+ hour drive to Minneapolis from Lincoln, and that's the 2nd closest road game they play.  They had 5 road games in the old Big 12/8 closer (ISU, KU, KSU, Mizzou, OK State) than that.

[thunderlounge 7816]

13 hours ago, kopp0e said:

What I would (now) like to eventually see is an SEC expanded to compete with B1G… It seems that B1G may look to add #17 Notre Dame, then #18 Stanford/ #19 Oregon/ #20 Washington & swing for a fractured ACC taking (I guess) #21 Virginia/ #22 Duke/ #23  Georgia Tech/ #24 Miami…

That makes B1G a national conference while SEC is “regional”… It would be a good idea if SEC countered with: #17 Virginia Tech/ #18 North Carolina/ #19 NC State/ #20 Clemson/ #21 Florida State… Then expand the footprint with 3 solid brands: #22 Kansas/ #23 Colorado/ #24 Arizona State… 

This gives content in 3 time zones of east/ central/ mountain & covers a swath from DC/ Atlanta/ Orlando/ Nashville/ St Louis/ Kansas City/ Oklahoma City/ Dallas/ Austin/ San Antonio/ Houston/ Denver/ Phoenix…

It also keeps both OU & UT with a “toe hold” in the market of California by proxy of PHX & DEN markets… and allows a few old “filler games” but with quality brand names… 

Here is a prospective Saturday lineup in a 24 team SEC (with 3 MTZ schools):

Auburn vs North Carolina 11:00am ESPN
Oklahoma vs Georgia 2:30pm ABC
Colorado vs LSU 3:30pm SECN
Texas vs Florida 6:00pm ABC
Florida State vs Alabama 6:00pm ESPN
Clemson vs Texas A&M 6:00pm ESPN2
Kentucky vs South Carolina 6:00pm SECN
Tennessee vs Arkansas 9:00pm ESPN
NC State vs Kansas 9:00pm SECN
Ole Miss vs Arizona State 10:00pm ESPN2

bye week for 4 SEC brands, but 10 games in ETZ/ CTZ/ MTZ with a late game…
#SECAfterDark could be solid recruiter for capturing west coast athletes from ‘Cali…

[bullet 1596]

5 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

  Hide contents

LOS ANGELES — It’s been about a month since the news that USC and UCLA are bolting for the Big Ten, and the disappointment and anger toward the two L.A. schools from inside the Pac-12 haven’t eased up much — if at all.

“It’s clear that UCLA and USC made a decision for short-term financial gain at the expense of their student-athletes,” Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff told The Athletic on Friday. “It’s 100 percent clear to me. It’s really unfortunate, and I think they are already regretting it, given the pushback that they’ve gotten from almost every corner of their communities. I think they will regret it more as time goes on.”

Kliavkoff was at the start of his first vacation since taking the commissioner job a year ago when the news broke. He was in Montana, driving to Idaho, in an area without much cellular reception when he received multiple texts from his deputy commissioner.

“The surprising part, to me, is the Pac-12 has a mission that is related to the health and well-being of its student-athletes, and this is a decision that, in my opinion, goes directly against the health and well-being of student-athletes. That’s the surprise for me.”

One Pac-12 athletic director told The Athletic on Friday that the most surprising aspect of the move was on the UCLA side, since it’s a public school connected to California-Berkeley, and the Bruins’ move has been ripped by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The University of California Board of Regents has ordered a review of how the decision unfolded.

“I wasn’t shocked because I’ve been in this business long enough, but I was surprised because I had accepted the notion that UCLA could not uncouple from Cal because of the whole regent thing,” another Pac-12 AD told The Athletic. “They’re governed by the same group, and it makes no logical sense that the same oversight board would vault one at the detriment, the expense, of the other. That is counter to their responsibility. That’s really where the surprise came in.

“Look at all the work Oklahoma and Texas had to do when, 12 years ago, the Pac-12 tried to raid them. But it was always Oklahoma State and Texas Tech coupling them, and that stopped it. So, obviously they’d learned their lessons, and whatever work they needed to get done behind the scenes to fix it, they did. UCLA obviously did no work because this should not be a political issue at this point. It’ll be interesting to see what happens at that hearing.”

Kliavkoff also did not hold back his feelings for Big 12 leadership in the wake of what he said have been numerous overtures to try to poach Pac-12 programs that, he says, have been forwarded to him from administrators in his league.

“I’ve been trying to focus on stuff that moves the conference forward, and I’ve been trying to spend as little time as possible responding to the fake news and nonsense that has come out of other conferences in an effort to destabilize us,” he said.

Asked about his relationship with Brett Yormark, Kliavkoff said he and the new Big 12 commissioner have talked a couple of times in the past month. “I told him I believe that college athletics is healthier when we have a healthy and vibrant Big 12 and a healthy and vibrant Pac-12. Having those votes in the CFP (College Football Playoff) room is valuable. We have those conversations, and then folks in his conference go out of their way to try and destabilize their conference. I keep reminding him of that, and it’s a repeating pattern.”

Kliavkoff declined to go into the specifics of how Yormark responded to that, other than adding, “It’d be in the best interest of college athletics if both conferences are strong. I know for a fact that we’re going to be strong, and I think if he does the right things, they’ll be fine.”

 

Then why did the Pac 12 join an alliance and ignore the Big 12?

Reality is that it doesn't matter if you have 2 or 3 votes.  SEC and Big 10 can veto if they agree.

[billfromlaketravis 11464]

6 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

  Hide contents

LOS ANGELES — It’s been about a month since the news that USC and UCLA are bolting for the Big Ten, and the disappointment and anger toward the two L.A. schools from inside the Pac-12 haven’t eased up much — if at all.

“It’s clear that UCLA and USC made a decision for short-term financial gain at the expense of their student-athletes,” Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff told The Athletic on Friday. “It’s 100 percent clear to me. It’s really unfortunate, and I think they are already regretting it, given the pushback that they’ve gotten from almost every corner of their communities. I think they will regret it more as time goes on.”

Kliavkoff was at the start of his first vacation since taking the commissioner job a year ago when the news broke. He was in Montana, driving to Idaho, in an area without much cellular reception when he received multiple texts from his deputy commissioner.

“The surprising part, to me, is the Pac-12 has a mission that is related to the health and well-being of its student-athletes, and this is a decision that, in my opinion, goes directly against the health and well-being of student-athletes. That’s the surprise for me.”

One Pac-12 athletic director told The Athletic on Friday that the most surprising aspect of the move was on the UCLA side, since it’s a public school connected to California-Berkeley, and the Bruins’ move has been ripped by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The University of California Board of Regents has ordered a review of how the decision unfolded.

“I wasn’t shocked because I’ve been in this business long enough, but I was surprised because I had accepted the notion that UCLA could not uncouple from Cal because of the whole regent thing,” another Pac-12 AD told The Athletic. “They’re governed by the same group, and it makes no logical sense that the same oversight board would vault one at the detriment, the expense, of the other. That is counter to their responsibility. That’s really where the surprise came in.

“Look at all the work Oklahoma and Texas had to do when, 12 years ago, the Pac-12 tried to raid them. But it was always Oklahoma State and Texas Tech coupling them, and that stopped it. So, obviously they’d learned their lessons, and whatever work they needed to get done behind the scenes to fix it, they did. UCLA obviously did no work because this should not be a political issue at this point. It’ll be interesting to see what happens at that hearing.”

Kliavkoff also did not hold back his feelings for Big 12 leadership in the wake of what he said have been numerous overtures to try to poach Pac-12 programs that, he says, have been forwarded to him from administrators in his league.

“I’ve been trying to focus on stuff that moves the conference forward, and I’ve been trying to spend as little time as possible responding to the fake news and nonsense that has come out of other conferences in an effort to destabilize us,” he said.

Asked about his relationship with Brett Yormark, Kliavkoff said he and the new Big 12 commissioner have talked a couple of times in the past month. “I told him I believe that college athletics is healthier when we have a healthy and vibrant Big 12 and a healthy and vibrant Pac-12. Having those votes in the CFP (College Football Playoff) room is valuable. We have those conversations, and then folks in his conference go out of their way to try and destabilize their conference. I keep reminding him of that, and it’s a repeating pattern.”

Kliavkoff declined to go into the specifics of how Yormark responded to that, other than adding, “It’d be in the best interest of college athletics if both conferences are strong. I know for a fact that we’re going to be strong, and I think if he does the right things, they’ll be fine.”

 

I don't think even Kliavkoff believes. Yes, I recognize it's his job to make public statements like this, but it's just so fundamentally false. 

[notre dame joe 187]

13 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

What’s the point of 24 schools in your league?  It ceases being a conference at that point in time. 

The point is to transform college football into a beta-NFL.  The schools that finish up in the 'conference' that is actually a league will greatly profit. 

[FartingDreamer 138]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

The point is to transform college football into a beta-NFL.  The schools that finish up in the 'conference' that is actually a league will greatly profit. 

But for how long?  Interest in the sport will sharply decline and the $$$ will dry up as a result.  

[closetohumping 17440]

13 minutes ago, FartingDreamer said:

But for how long?  Interest in the sport will sharply decline and the $$$ will dry up as a result.  

Nah

[billfromlaketravis 11464]

They come off as butthurt Oregon (Ty) and Colorado fans (Dan Carlin), but an interesting pod with the Solid Verbal hosts and Mr. Hardcore History. : 

https://www.solidverbal.com/2022/07/21/the-hardcore-history-crossover-episode-with-dan-carlin/

Carlin's basic point is the college football is regional, and if you take away regional matchups it'll kill the sport. 

Let's say Carlin is right about the regional interest thing, Texas definitely made the right choice with the SEC move. 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

3 hours ago, bullet said:

Then why did the Pac 12 join an alliance and ignore the Big 12?

Reality is that it doesn't matter if you have 2 or 3 votes.  SEC and Big 10 can veto if they agree.

I have a feeling it will be who agrees with the Big Ten vs who agrees with the SEC.   I don't see those two agreeing on a lot.

[closetohumping 17440]

4 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

I have a feeling it will be who agrees with the Big Ten vs who agrees with the SEC.   I don't see those two agreeing on a lot.

Seems like Warren is now onboard with a 12 team playoff though?  Now that the alliance is broken.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

46 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Seems like Warren is now onboard with a 12 team playoff though?  Now that the alliance is broken.

16

[TKthunder2 4990]

1 hour ago, closetohumping said:

Seems like Warren is now onboard with a 12 team playoff though?  Now that the alliance is broken.

Now they all are…funny how that works.

[XOVERX 5]

On 7/30/2022 at 2:52 PM, ChiTownDoc said:

OU never hated it.  And never will.  Who sued the ncaa so you could even have the LHN?

Im not talking message board morons.  

Yeah, I agree. OU is emotionally secure, though, unlike others.

My original comment about “all” was still too global and therefore still incorrect, even after clarifying for OU.

When we needed some schools to let us play them for our T3 LHN game, all said no in some of those early years except two: Kansas and Iowa State. Those guys helped us out early on and I think Kansas helped us twice. Thank you KU and ISU, tip of the hat.

Remember TT’s stupid reaction to our request to play on the LHN? They either played us on LHN or the game wouldn’t be televised at all. The idiots still refused. Sand aggy was so happy and proud of themselves. TT is dumb. And I mean “dumb” as a compliment, lol.

Edited August 1, 2022 by XOVERX

[Texzilla58 4733]

But for how long?  Interest in the sport will sharply decline and the $$$ will dry up as a result.  

Huh? Concentrating better talent into fewer teams makes better games. I hate college games of a powerful college team against some rentawin. No one watches that 55-6 shit except the diehard fan.

The haves will have more; those left behind have less and need to figure it out.

[Huckleberry 32856]

11 minutes ago, Texzilla58 said:

Huh? Concentrating better talent into fewer teams makes better games. I hate college games of a powerful college team against some rentawin. No one watches that 55-6 shit except the diehard fan.

The haves will have more; those left behind have less and need to figure it out.

It actually doesn't in the long run. It will lead to even more consolidation of tactics so that you're watching the same teams just wearing different uniforms. Just like the NFL where everyone runs the same stuff all the time.

Part of the beauty of college football is the talent spread leading to different tactics over the years. That has been dwindling of course, and will only be accelerated now. If I wanted to watch the NFL I would watch the NFL. To me, carbon copies of the same game being played in 16 different cities isn't "better games" despite the inarguable fact that they're being played by the best players.

If you want to see only the best play then the pinnacle of your preference would be a 2 team league. Sounds amazing. It's bad enough that in a 32 team league a clown like Jeff Fisher can survive for decades doing the most basic boring stuff and playing not to lose. That's where college football is headed if the consolidation doesn't stop and you're cheering for it.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Huckleberry

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It actually doesn't in the long run. It will lead to even more consolidation of tactics so that you're watching the same teams just wearing different uniforms. Just like the NFL where everyone runs the same stuff all the time.

Part of the beauty of college football is the talent spread leading to different tactics over the years. That has been dwindling of course, and will only be accelerated now. If I wanted to watch the NFL I would watch the NFL. To me, carbon copies of the same game being played in 16 different cities isn't "better games" despite the inarguable fact that they're being played by the best players.

If you want to see only the best play then the pinnacle of your preference would be a 2 team league. Sounds amazing. It's bad enough that in a 32 team league a clown like Jeff Fisher can survive for decades doing the most basic boring stuff and playing not to lose. That's where college football is headed if the consolidation doesn't stop and you're cheering for it.

Throw in being able to transfer over and over without sitting out and you'll lose fans fully buying into the players too...

Overall, undeniable that it will make the products shittier over time - unless you like the NFL more than college.  

[bullet 1596]

20 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Throw in being able to transfer over and over without sitting out and you'll lose fans fully buying into the players too...

Overall, undeniable that it will make the products shittier over time - unless you like the NFL more than college.  

Almost no starters at a winning program will transfer.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

11 minutes ago, XOVERX said:

Yeah, I agree. OU is emotionally secure, though, unlike others.

My original comment about “all” was still too global and therefore still incorrect, even after clarifying for OU.

When we needed some schools to let us play them for our T3 LHN game, all said no in some of those early years except two: Kansas and Iowa State. Those guys helped us out early on and I think Kansas helped us twice. Thank you KU and ISU, tip of the hat.

Remember TT’s stupid reaction to our request to play on the LHN? They either played us on LHN or the game wouldn’t be televised at all. The idiots still refused. Sand aggy was so happy and proud of themselves. TT is dumb. And I mean “dumb” as a compliment, lol.

 

 

TT? The program that hired a man from the shady world of lobbyists and politicians; a man well known to have been one involved in the shenanigans that led to the SMU death penalty. The program that hired this man, Kent Ronald Hance, as their Chancellor, who then proceeded to take the sides of his friend Craig James, the former SMU player known for taking some of these payments (CJK5H); and because this former players' son wasn't good enough to play at TT, they fired Mike Leach, the greatest coach in the history of Texas Texas football. They not only fired the school's greatest coach for not playing some scrub because his daddy had money and was friend's with Hance, but because Mike Leach was just too damn popular. They were jealous that the coach was more popular than the program. He was too successful to remain the head coach at TT. Years later they hid behind sovereign immunity instead of admitting their sins in the court of law.

This genius of a man, Kent Ronald Hance, now has a campus chapel named after him on campus and, when he retired, they gave him chancellor-emeritus for life. All this after his involvement in destroying TT football to the point it has zero chance of Power 2 inclusion.

TT, the program that never looks in the mirror but has no issue blaming Texas for everything.

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

4 minutes ago, bullet said:

Almost no starters at a winning program will transfer.

It will still be a hodgepodge of players moving all over.  Doesn't add anything of value and most would agree detracts from fandom as it currently exists in the college game.  Even 5 stars that may not start for a year or so.  Come in with lots of fan fare - usually fans are all about that person and supporting them until they get on the field.  In today's world there will be immediate rumors of an imminent transfer.  Throw in immature 18 and 19 years olds who put whatever on social media and the shitshow only intensifies.  

[DeadArmadillo 907]

Yeah, I agree. OU is emotionally secure, though, unlike others.
My original comment about “all” was still too global and therefore still incorrect, even after clarifying for OU.
When we needed some schools to let us play them for our T3 LHN game, all said no in some of those early years except two: Kansas and Iowa State. Those guys helped us out early on and I think Kansas helped us twice. Thank you KU and ISU, tip of the hat.
Remember TT’s stupid reaction to our request to play on the LHN? They either played us on LHN or the game wouldn’t be televised at all. The idiots still refused. Sand aggy was so happy and proud of themselves. TT is dumb. And I mean “dumb” as a compliment, lol.

Revisionist history

https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/texas-tech-still-not-fans-of-the-longhorn-network/amp/

ESPN was trying to place a Tech - Texas State game in San Marcos on the LHN. Tech had agreed to help the Bobcats open their expanded stadium and FBS membership by visiting them to open the 2013 season. It was the “1” in a 2 for 1. Mouse used some wording in a WAC contract to claim the action was legitimate.

Hocutt called them out and refused to play on LHN saying that he had donors that would cover any incurred monetary penalties for Tech not showing up for the game. And why the hell would you allow another school to benefit from your game? So ESPN had to back down and place the game on a similarly shitty ESPN network. But one that didn’t directly benefit a direct competitor

[statsman 5457]

By “direct competitor”, do you mean “conference mate”? Haven’t we heard plenty on this thread from alums of B12 schools, wondering where the conference camaraderie went? I mean, is it really a strategic goal of TT to hold Texas back as much as possible? 
And how does Texas benefit? We got paid, anyway, and the same amount. The k es that would benefit would be ESPN, the B12’s main media partner. 
I bet you’re mystified that Texas is willing to bail on you. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by statsman

[Guest]

UT was just being its altruistic self by volunteering to use its network to help ole Tech and Texas State out.

 

Really?  SMMFH.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

16 minutes ago, slorch said:

UT was just being its altruistic self by volunteering to use its network to help ole Tech and Texas State out.

 

Really?  SMMFH.

For the most part, I like Tech and their administrators probably complain less than most.

Texas has done way more than is required to attempt to help TT and A&M academics over the past 30 years.

Texas has wanted nothing more than to help TT on their bumpy road to Tier 1 status.

Texas has done way more than is required to assist in the inclusion of TT in major college athletics.

Texas has tried to maintain a good relationship with the Red Raiders. And for the most part it is a good relationship, unlike the immoral assholes to the East.

The LHN game is not a good example of being a bad partner. But you have a few fans on here reinventing history to blame Texas for Tech's problems.

With that said, let's look at that LHN scenario from the Texas POV. First, Big 12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg, Texas and Nebraska offered Tech and the other members an opportunity to be a member of the Big 12 Network. Tech and the other members declined. In fact, I've been told they laughed in our faces about it.  We lost the only good commissioner in the history of the conference to the Big 10 because A&M and the small schools didn't care about the long term stability of the league. Fast forward a decade or so and ESPN asked you to play a game on ESPN/LHN. It was a road game and really shouldn't have been up to you. It hurt Tech in no way. Financially? Nope. In fact, it probably hurt financially not to play the game on LHN. Recruiting? Nope. We don't recruit the same players. It hurt your pride. You were jealous.  By not playing the game on LHN, Tech not only hurt themselves but they hurt the chances of the Big 12 surviving in the future. Congrats, I guess? It wasn't going to survive, but Tech's decisions certainly didn't help its chances. I don't see how you can celebrate the move. 

Bluebloods can't let other bluebloods get too far ahead financially or it hurts recruiting at some point in time. The LHN was one of Tech's chances to remain in a power conference with Texas and OU. You should have loved LHN. Tech fans are now bitching about not getting to play in that same conference. All the leftover programs in the Big 12 are making up every excuse in the book to blame Texas/OU for their problems. We're just tired of it, that's all.

[DFW Horn 6123]

1 hour ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

TT, the program that never looks in the mirror but has no issue blaming Texas for everything.

Fuck sand aggy, too. I don't care if UT plays them again anytime soon.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

16 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Fuck sand aggy, too. I don't care if UT plays them again anytime soon.

I can see your point, but I wish them well. Overall, they are about as good of a partner as you can expect from a school with their disadvantages at this level of athletics. Most of my issues are directed at the media and the misinformation coming out of the administrations at Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado and A&M. Of course, A&M is also just an immoral clown show. 

Some of the fans in the new Big 12 need to get over it though. Texas/OU didn't kill the Big 12. And it was always going to die at some point. 

[DFW Horn 6123]

 

[billfromlaketravis 11464]

Offer Tech 2 games in Austin, 1 game in Lubbock, once a decade. No long term agreement. Just revisit at the beginning of each decade. If they don’t like it, screw ‘em.

Zero interest in playing TCU, Baylor, or U of H ever again. 

[statsman 5457]

TCU is fine. 2 for 1, same deal as we give Rice. 

[TrashMaster G 17551]

45 minutes ago, statsman said:

TCU is fine. 2 for 1, same deal as we give Rice. 

No.  No good reason to play them.

[closetohumping 17440]

1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Offer Tech 2 games in Austin, 1 game in Lubbock, once a decade. No long term agreement. Just revisit at the beginning of each decade. If they don’t like it, screw ‘em.

Zero interest in playing TCU, Baylor, or U of H ever again. 

Since tech would be giving g is an extra game I think we should offer to televise one of their games on lhn

[Hagbard Celine 10854]

3 hours ago, slorch said:

UT was just being its altruistic self by volunteering to use its network to help ole Tech and Texas State out.

Really?  SMMFH.

slorch!

where ya been buddy!

[notre dame joe 187]

5 hours ago, Texzilla58 said:

Huh? Concentrating better talent into fewer teams makes better games. I hate college games of a powerful college team against some rentawin. No one watches that 55-6 shit except the diehard fan.

The haves will have more; those left behind have less and need to figure it out.

You know who is watching?  The team that scored 6.