Realignment talk not going away

[closetohumping 17438]

1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That doesn't make it false.

That you guys are leeches?  You said it not me.  We tried. 

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

1 minute ago, closetohumping said:

That you guys are leeches?  You said it not me.  We tried. 

There are only about 10-15 schools in the country with real high end value.

We contribute something and our compensation going forward reflects that.  You guys seemed offended by having to financially provide for others in the Big 12, that I don't see why you'd want to keep doing it in the future.  So you create a division that only consists of the Top 16 revenue generators and let the rest of us have our own circus.  Everyone gets what they want.  You don't have to prop anyone up, the rest of us can win a championship.

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

4 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Gonna throw you a bone.  Cincinnati fans hate it when you call their team the Barecats.  

Need more than 10 Brewers though.  

Tech got scoreboard on us!!!!!!

They do, and it’s rightly embarrassing, but 3-11 during a putrid stretch for Texas isn’t something I’d shout about from the rooftops if I wore red and black. 

[closetohumping 17438]

Just now, Al_4_ISU said:

There are only about 10-15 schools in the country with real high end value.

We contribute something and our compensation going forward reflects that.  You guys seemed offended by having to financially provide for others in the Big 12, that I don't see why you'd want to keep doing it in the future.  So you create a division that only consists of the Top 16 revenue generators and let the rest of us have our own circus.  Everyone gets what they want.  You don't have to prop anyone up, the rest of us can win a championship.

Offended?  Nah.  A little gratitude would've been nice.  And we don't want to keep doing it in the future, which is why we are leaving.  I'd like a 32 team league, for variety.  Playing the same teams over and over can get old.  Hell, I'd welcome a game against your school some time down the line.  Could use the big payday I would guess?

Just now, Doc Daneeka said:

They do, and it’s rightly embarrassing, but 3-11 during a putrid stretch for Texas isn’t something I’d shout about from the rooftops if I wore red and black. 

I'd lock myself in a shed.

[TexArcher 37774]

38 minutes ago, slorch said:

I just get a kick out of the folks who think if they say it enough times, Texas, being elite will come true.

I mean, we're in the top 5 winningest programs of all time, we have 4 national titles, and the SEC has been courting us for over 30 years, but you're probably right.  I mean, how dare we think we're a bigger deal than Tech, right?

You're the mousey chick telling the other mousey chicks in the lunch room that the prom queen isn't even that pretty.  Even if you're right, it just makes you look like a jealous bitch.

Edited February 8, 2023 by TexArcher

[closetohumping 17438]

17 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

I mean, we're in the top 5 winningest programs of all time, we have 4 national titles, and the SEC has been courting us for over 30 years, but you're probably right.  I mean, how dare we think we're a bigger deal than Tech, right?

You're the mousey chick telling the other mousey chicks in the lunch room that the prom queen isn't even that pretty.  Even if you're right, it just makes you look like a jealous bitch.

We suck.  But he'd like to point out that Tech beat us.  Tying it back to realignment, ironic that a "Tech problem" stymied any B1G talk back before we considered the PAC.

[KennyPowders 331]

Hombres,

Got to love that this thread is essentially just a bunch of people from other schools bitching about how much Texas sucks while they have been nibbling at the ole teet for two long.

In short, nobody gives a fuck about your little rural regional schools and Daddy is tired of fucking carry you everywhere. Get over and enjoy manufacturing a rival against (checks notes because who gives a fuck about the new big12) Houston and UCF.

Enjoy!

[closetohumping 17438]

Just now, KennyPowders said:

Hombres,

Got to love that this thread is essentially just a bunch of people from other schools bitching about how much Texas sucks while they have been nibbling at the ole teet for two long.

In short, nobody gives a fuck about your little rural regional schools and Daddy is tired of fucking carry you everywhere. Get over and enjoy manufacturing a rival against (checks notes because who gives a fuck about the new big12) Houston and UCF.

Enjoy!

The Barecats!!!!!

[TexArcher 37774]

12 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

The Barecats!!!!!

RAWWWWWWRRRRR!!!

I'm sure even after Texas and ou are gone, all of America will still tune in on a Wednesday night for that classic matchup of the 5th best team in Texas against the 2nd best team in Ohio.

Edited February 8, 2023 by TexArcher

[Okie State 3818]

It's amazing how easily you all get riled up over this bullshit.

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

35 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Offended?  Nah.  A little gratitude would've been nice.  And we don't want to keep doing it in the future, which is why we are leaving.  I'd like a 32 team league, for variety.  Playing the same teams over and over can get old.  Hell, I'd welcome a game against your school some time down the line.  Could use the big payday I would guess?

I'd lock myself in a shed.

I'm sure Missouri, South Carolina, Mississippi State, and Vanderbilt will hand you a bouquet of roses and say "thanks for the increased revenue".

What chaps the leftovers raw isn't that you and OU are leaving for more marquee matchups and a bigger payday.  I think we all understand that desire.  It's more of an ire towards schools that aren't really any different than us who get to keep riding the gravy train.  While there was plenty of lashing out at UT and OU, at the end of the day the anger was less about your actions and more about being jealous of the other suckling piglets.

Everyone gets the appeal of Prestige Worldwide to the big fish.  It's the arbitrariness of who gets to go along for the ride that's grating.

[closetohumping 17438]

1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'm sure Missouri, South Carolina, Mississippi State, and Vanderbilt will hand you a bouquet of roses and say "thanks for the increased revenue".

What chaps the leftovers raw isn't that you and OU are leaving for more marquee matchups and a bigger payday.  I think we all understand that desire.  It's more of an ire towards schools that aren't really any different than us who get to keep riding the gravy train.  While there was plenty of lashing out at UT and OU, at the end of the day the anger was less about your actions and more about being jealous of the other suckling piglets.

Everyone gets the appeal of Prestige Worldwide to the big fish.  It's the arbitrariness of who gets to go along for the ride that's grating.

The other suckling piglets, in the B1G and SEC have been around their alphas for a long ass time.  This was a shotgun wedding and we did everything to keep you guys happy and still got trashed.  We're going to a conference where we are ceding a lot of power and we're happier than shit to do so.  

3 minutes ago, Okie State said:

It's amazing how easily you all get riled up over this bullshit.

Exactly.  Surely there's an OKC, Tech, ISU board you all can go to to trash Texas?  Or, maybe Barecats.com.

[Vertigo 20276]

21 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'm sure Missouri, South Carolina, Mississippi State, and Vanderbilt will hand you a bouquet of roses and say "thanks for the increased revenue".

What chaps the leftovers raw isn't that you and OU are leaving for more marquee matchups and a bigger payday.  I think we all understand that desire.  It's more of an ire towards schools that aren't really any different than us who get to keep riding the gravy train.  While there was plenty of lashing out at UT and OU, at the end of the day the anger was less about your actions and more about being jealous of the other suckling piglets.

Everyone gets the appeal of Prestige Worldwide to the big fish.  It's the arbitrariness of who gets to go along for the ride that's grating.

How dare you besmirch the fine people of starkville mississippi sir. 

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'd love to see the Top 10-15 programs just go have their own division and championship.

UT

OU

Bama

LSU

Georgia

Ohio State 

Michigan

Penn State

USC

Notre Dame

Tennessee

Clemson

 

There's 12.  Just play it like a 12 team conference with some rotational games, and have your CCG on New Year's or whatever.  Everyone else reorganizes on a geographic basis and has divisions and playoffs in another division down that's basically comprised of your remaining P5 schools.  Then a division created out of the G5, and then FCS.

One thing you're failing to put into this equation is basketball and march madness being part of expansion as a big whole. 

 

Members from Current Conferences that include yours.

 

ACC - Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Duke, North Carolina, Syracuse, Louisville, Virginia(8)

Big 12 - Oklahoma, Texas, Baylor, Kansas(4)

Big 10 - Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan State, Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Iowa(10)

Notre Dame, BYU, UCONN(3)

PAC - USC, Washington, Oregon, UCLA, Arizona, Stanford(6)

SEC - Bama, LSU, Auburn, Texas A&M, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, Arkansas(9)

 

For a total of 40 teams.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[closetohumping 17438]

7 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

One thing you're failing to put into this equation is basketball and march madness being part of expansion as a big whole. 

 

Members from Current Conferences that include yours.

 

ACC - Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Duke, North Carolina, Syracuse, Louisville, Virginia(8)

Big 12 - Oklahoma, Texas, Baylor, Kansas(4)

Big 10 - Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan State, Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Iowa(10)

Notre Dame, BYU, UCONN(3)

PAC - USC, Washington, Oregon, UCLA, Arizona, Stanford(6)

SEC - Bama, LSU, Auburn, Texas A&M, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, Arkansas(9)

 

For a total of 40 teams.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd find a way to replace Baylor.  Cal could work

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

2 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

I'd find a way to replace Baylor.  Cal could work

Fuck both honestly but Baylor is more attractive team than Cal.

[Hank Chinaski 6314]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Go 16.  Add Florida, Oregon, Aggy, and Florida State.

['stache 21802]

20 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

One thing you're failing to put into this equation is basketball and march madness being part of expansion as a big whole. 

 

Members from Current Conferences that include yours.

 

ACC - Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Duke, North Carolina, Syracuse, Louisville, Virginia(8)

Big 12 - Oklahoma, Texas, Baylor, Kansas(4)

Big 10 - Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan State, Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Iowa(10)

Notre Dame, BYU, UCONN(3)

PAC - USC, Washington, Oregon, UCLA, Arizona, Stanford(6)

SEC - Bama, LSU, Auburn, Texas A&M, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, Arkansas(9)

 

For a total of 40 teams.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I imagine Prestige Worldwide being for football only. Everyone else would align geographically or historically and the football bluebloods would play everything else as part of those realigned conferences. I think it's clear that football is the big money maker by orders of magnitude over basketball. KU and UK move the needle some, but not in comparison to football. Baylor, Illinois, Louisville, Syracuse, Virginia certainly don't. If its 40 teams and football driven, OKST and ISU almost certainly make the cut over those programs, and also Maryland, Indiana, and UConn.  

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

58 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

The other suckling piglets, in the B1G and SEC have been around their alphas for a long ass time.  This was a shotgun wedding and we did everything to keep you guys happy and still got trashed.  We're going to a conference where we are ceding a lot of power and we're happier than shit to do so.  

Exactly.  Surely there's an OKC, Tech, ISU board you all can go to to trash Texas?  Or, maybe Barecats.com.

Yeah, we're not bitching about you at this point.  You get that, right?

[closetohumping 17438]

4 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Yeah, we're not bitching about you at this point.  You get that, right?

You were the one with the “leeches” quote so you’re sarcastically bitching about something or someone.  

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

2 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

You were the one with the “leeches” quote so you’re sarcastically bitching about something or someone.  

I'm bitching about the arbitrary nature of how some programs that aren't revenue machines on their own get to profit off the backs of other programs while programs with similar profiles aren't afforded such luxuries.

Of course the "leeches" line is a shot at a frequent shot taken at us.  It doesn't mean I'm simmering with hatred that Texas switched leagues.  It means I'm annoyed that Mississippi State and Purdue benefit from the randomness of history.

[closetohumping 17438]

15 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'm bitching about the arbitrary nature of how some programs that aren't revenue machines on their own get to profit off the backs of other programs while programs with similar profiles aren't afforded such luxuries.

Of course the "leeches" line is a shot at a frequent shot taken at us.  It doesn't mean I'm simmering with hatred that Texas switched leagues.  It means I'm annoyed that Mississippi State and Purdue benefit from the randomness of history.

Those schools have 80+ year histories with each other.  They also are cooperative. Big 12 unfortunately had neither of those.  

 

I think most of the Texas posters have chilled out but you, the osu and tech posters just won't let it die.  Prestige Worldwide.  Top 16 schools?  That's all trolling.  

[Trojan Man 429]

23 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I imagine Prestige Worldwide being for football only. Everyone else would align geographically or historically and the football bluebloods would play everything else as part of those realigned conferences. I think it's clear that football is the big money maker by orders of magnitude over basketball. KU and UK move the needle some, but not in comparison to football. Baylor, Illinois, Louisville, Syracuse, Virginia certainly don't. If its 40 teams and football driven, OKST and ISU almost certainly make the cut over those programs, and also Maryland, Indiana, and UConn.  

Why would the smaller schools agree to an arrangement like this, where they are cut off from the financial benefits of being associated with the big time football programs yet are still expected to compete in the same conference with the rest of their very well-funded sports and bail them out for deciding geography is irrelevant?  The Prestige Worldwide schools would have so much more money thanks to their football consolidation that they could vastly outspend the non-PW schools for all coaching hires and build palaces for every sport.

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

5 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Those schools have 80+ year histories with each other.  They also are cooperative. Big 12 unfortunately had neither of those.  

 

I think most of the Texas posters have chilled out but you, the osu and tech posters just won't let it die.  Prestige Worldwide.  Top 16 schools?  That's all trolling.  

It really isn't on my end.  I think the resource gap is big enough that the game would be more entertaining if the biggest dogs did their own thing, and the schools that have been associated with them historically, but down the food chain did their own thing.

If it's not going to be a fairly big tent, that's a better product, IMO.  Straight up, no bullshit, no snark.

The majority of people in this thread have made it pretty clear that they view the remaining Big 12 schools as the type of institutions they don't want to associate with.  I can understand why.  This idea fully frees the blue bloods from those arrangements.  If you don't think you'll be hated by the lower tier SEC schools (or that USC won't get hated by the lower tier Big 10 schools) you're nuts.  My proposal lets everyone duke it out at their respective peer group levels.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Al_4_ISU

['stache 21802]

11 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

Why would the smaller schools agree to an arrangement like this, where they are cut off from the financial benefits of being associated with the big time football programs yet are still expected to compete in the same conference with the rest of their very well-funded sports and bail them out for deciding geography is irrelevant?  The Prestige Worldwide schools would have so much more money thanks to their football consolidation that they could vastly outspend the non-PW schools for all coaching hires and build palaces for every sport.

I don't follow. It's already the case that conferences with bluebloods and not bluebloods co-exist with massive wealth disparities, even with the tv revenues roughly equal. The bluebloods can already hire away from the nonbluebloods by paying a lot more. OSU has had multiple coordinators taken by the bluebloods, including just last year with Knowles to Ohio State. The only reason we've kept Gundy is that he's an alum and turned down other opportunities when we pay him a little more. By your theory non-conference matchups like OKST-FSU, TCU-Ohio State, WVU-Bama (just a few I recall) would never happen because the nonblueblood is almost always at a disadvantage and your theory is that they would not accept the matchup (they don't get straight payouts like G5 and FCS opponents). It also doesn't really track that the Prestige Worldwide football revenues would carry over into basketball to much notable extent. If it did, there's no way Baylor would every have won a national title or Tech come within a few points of one too. The disparities already exist and are far less extreme in basketball regardless of program incomes. I don't think that would change much.

[closetohumping 17438]

15 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I don't follow. It's already the case that conferences with bluebloods and not bluebloods co-exist with massive wealth disparities, even with the tv revenues roughly equal. The bluebloods can already hire away from the nonbluebloods by paying a lot more. OSU has had multiple coordinators taken by the bluebloods, including just last year with Knowles to Ohio State. The only reason we've kept Gundy is that he's an alum and turned down other opportunities when we pay him a little more. By your theory non-conference matchups like OKST-FSU, TCU-Ohio State, WVU-Bama (just a few I recall) would never happen because the nonblueblood is almost always at a disadvantage and your theory is that they would not accept the matchup (they don't get straight payouts like G5 and FCS opponents). It also doesn't really track that the Prestige Worldwide football revenues would carry over into basketball to much notable extent. If it did, there's no way Baylor would every have won a national title or Tech come within a few points of one too. The disparities already exist and are far less extreme in basketball regardless of program incomes. I don't think that would change much.

The Lakers still need the Thunder just like Alabama needs MSU

[Evil Bill Obrien 3275]

On 2/3/2023 at 1:34 PM, BurntOrange&White said:

So the number cited earlier was what 7 games by Fox allegeldy?


So lets give them 1 RRS in 2024

 

That leaves 6 games between Texas and OU and we could make them future  games.  To be aired on Fox with the opponent of Fox choosing for these dates crossed out/inserted because of OU's 2024 schedule

 

Looking at future schedules I've come up with this:

 

We essentially continue to play the schools in our UT system(UTEP/UTSA) but we replace the crossed out schools with the Big 12 opponent.

Oklahoma Adds a game in 2024 and they remove the kickoff matchups with UTEP and Illinois St with Big 12 opponents. 

Big 12 gets 4 home games in the 6 game block and Texas/OU each get 1 home game.  

 

But reality is the better option would be to get rid of the marquee Ohio State and Michigan games for both since we will both be playing the rigorous SEC schedule. Either way please get us the fuck outta Big 12.

As much as I want to see the Bobcats in DKR in 2026 the program would prob be happy with whatever the buyout of that bodybag game contract is...and UT got plenty of money so...

[statsman 5457]

As a Texas fan, I was kind of envious of what the old Big Eight had. Remember, it was also called “The Big 2 and Little 6”. The six little schools understood that OU and NU drove the bus and paid the bills. There were opportunities when one dipped, but they knew that they needed to get out of the way when they rebuilt (“rebuild” meant buying players and “get out of the way” meant “don’t complain”). 
 
It was always different for Texas. Texas is a big enough state to have several FBS programs and small enough for their spheres to intersect. UT built its monster teams on recruiting the whole state, and necessarily taking players from Houston (sorry, Rice and UH), DFW (sorry, TCU and SMU), centex (sorry, BU) and west Texas (sorry, TT). 
 
The other schools all consider UT a special rival, and focus jihad-focus on UT. UT considered OU, TAMU and Arkansas rivals. When UT had elite talent, it didn’t matter what the smaller schools did. When it had less than elite talent, it found itself getting upset. 
 
Texas’ recent doldrums aren’t unique. Check out our record from ‘24 - ‘38. Or ‘53 to ‘’56. Check out Rice’s record against Texas from ‘40 to ‘65 or so. 
 
I expect SEC competition to be tough, but not like we have here. So many times the last decade, OSU or TCU beats Texas and then gets upset the next week, their emotional energy all spent. 

[Trojan Man 429]

27 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

It really isn't on my end.  I think the resource gap is big enough that the game would be more entertaining if the biggest dogs did their own thing, and the schools that have been associated with them historically, but down the food chain did their own thing.

If it's not going to be a fairly big tent, that's a better product, IMO.  Straight up, no bullshit, no snark.

The majority of people in this thread have made it pretty clear that they view the remaining Big 12 schools as the type of institutions they don't want to associate with.  I can understand why.  This idea fully frees the blue bloods from those arrangements.  If you don't think you'll be hated by the lower tier SEC schools (or that USC won't get hated by the lower tier Big 10 schools) you're nuts.  My proposal lets everyone duke it out at their respective peer group levels.

I think it's a bit different for Texas because they'll be in the SEC with Oklahoma and A&M and Arkansas, but I expect the amount of hatred USC will get in the B1G to pale in comparison to how much Pac 12 schools hate USC.  Geographic proximity plays a big part in hate and besides UCLA there will be 1500 miles separating USC from the next closest B1G school.  Ohio State and Michigan are the teams the rest of the B1G fanbases are taught to hate starting as children so they soak up most of that inferiority complex, measuring stick bullshit.  This is an underrated reason for joining the B1G.  Every Pac 12 team circles their game against USC the day the schedules are released.  The Buckeyes and Wolverines are the B1G teams who have to deal with every opponent turning them into their Super Bowl and unveiling a new uniform just for that game and doing a blackout in the stands and honoring some dead player or coach during a commercial break.  I'm optimistic that means fewer conference games for USC where 5-8 win teams come out with their hair on fire and play like the 1985 Bears, only to revert to their usual 5-8 win selves the next week and lose to Cal or some shit.

8 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I don't follow. It's already the case that conferences with bluebloods and not bluebloods co-exist with massive wealth disparities, even with the tv revenues roughly equal. The bluebloods can already hire away from the nonbluebloods by paying a lot more. OSU has had multiple coordinators taken by the bluebloods, including just last year with Knowles to Ohio State. The only reason we've kept Gundy is that he's an alum and turned down other opportunities when we pay him a little more. By your theory non-conference matchups like OKST-FSU, TCU-Ohio State, WVU-Bama (just a few I recall) would never happen because the nonblueblood is almost always at a disadvantage and your theory is that they would not accept the matchup (they don't get straight payouts like G5 and FCS opponents). It also doesn't really track that the Prestige Worldwide football revenues would carry over into basketball to much notable extent. If it did, there's no way Baylor would every have won a national title or Tech come within a few points of one too. The disparities already exist and are far less extreme in basketball regardless of program incomes. I don't think that would change much.

Living with the wealth disparity when you are also benefiting financially and with greater exposure from being affiliated with their big football programs is one thing.  Being cut out of the big football money/exposure then asked to stay together for basketball and the non-revenue sports seems like a slap in the face.  I'm pretty sure the rest of the Pac 12 schools would tell USC to fuck off if USC asked to continue participating in the Pac 12 for all sports except football.

As for the noncon games that's apples and oranges.  Those are one-off situations that have no impact on an athletic department's long term budget and health, plus the cut out schools still like the money and attention that comes from playing these big football games.  There also aren't any hurt feelings between West Virginia and Alabama the way there are between USC/UCLA or Texas/Oklahoma and the Pac 12/Big 12.  A point I'm seeing made in this thread is the cut out schools want to have their own football conferences they can win while competing against similar athletic departments and budgets.  Why should that not also apply to other sports?

[DFW Horn 6123]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If you don't think you'll be hated by the lower tier SEC schools (or that USC won't get hated by the lower tier Big 10 schools) you're nuts.  

We're already hated, dude, wherever we go. I'm surprised aggy isn't higher on this list.

 

[AeroHorn 749]

3 hours ago, Okie State said:

It's amazing how easily you all get riled up over this bullshit.

Yeah, I am somewhat embarrassed by the comments by UT fans here. I attended UT but it's not as if I am in any way responsible for what UT is, especially UT athletics. At least on the academics' side, I can say that I got some research dollars to Aero/Pickle Research and published a few papers, but there is no reason to look down on other athletic departments. It doesn't look like rivalry trash talk that we do with OU/aggy but just mean talk. I mean, Illinois-UC, for example, is UT comparable in academics, but can't be faulted for not happening to be in a football-rich environment.

 

5 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

I suspect the Pac's biggest problem these days is listening to Cal and Stanford.

I so wish that Cal and Stanford go the Ivy League route. I live in the Bay Area and their focus is so off of football that they are doing a disservice to themselves by trying to stay in a football-heavy setup. They should endow all the non-revenue sports (Stanford already did, Cal has rich enough alumni to do it), put all of them except football in some kind of an amalgamation of existing conferences, and play football at the Ivy League level, and beat up on CalTech and occasionally be the Rice to USC.

Edited February 8, 2023 by AeroHorn

[KennyPowders 331]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'm bitching about the arbitrary nature of how some programs that aren't revenue machines on their own get to profit off the backs of other programs while programs with similar profiles aren't afforded such luxuries.

Of course the "leeches" line is a shot at a frequent shot taken at us.  It doesn't mean I'm simmering with hatred that Texas switched leagues.  It means I'm annoyed that Mississippi State and Purdue benefit from the randomness of history.

Listen here you beautiful Bitch. Life isn’t fair. Just look in the mirror and you’ll know what I’m talking about. But it’s ok, look at me. I’m not what you would call classically beautiful by any means but I’m excellent at real sports and have the hair of a god damn champion. Cheer up. Whining like a little bitch isn’t going to get you anywhere. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by KennyPowders

[closetohumping 17438]

5 minutes ago, AeroHorn said:

Yeah, I am somewhat embarrassed by the comments by UT fans here. I attended UT but it's not as if I am in any way responsible for what UT is, especially UT athletics. At least on the academics' side, I can say that I got some research dollars to Aero/Pickle Research and published a few papers, but there is no reason to look down on other athletic departments. It doesn't look like rivalry trash talk that we do with OU/aggy but just mean talk. I mean, Illinois-UC, for example, is UT comparable in academics, but can't be faulted for not happening to be in a football-rich environment.

 

 

As a collective, the fact that we have a large and wealthy alumni base leads us to have a huge following, so yea, we are part of what makes Texas athletics go.  And, there are quite a few big time donors here.  

[AeroHorn 749]

1 minute ago, closetohumping said:

As a collective, the fact that we have a large and wealthy alumni base leads us to have a huge following, so yea, we are part of what makes Texas athletics go.  And, there are quite a few big time donors here.  

I see, the royal "we". In that sense, where we are wearing the rich feathers of our alumni, we should not be personally strutting so much as it is coming across here. It may just be my perception though.

[closetohumping 17438]

1 minute ago, AeroHorn said:

I see, the royal "we". In that sense, where we are wearing the rich feathers of our alumni, we should not be personally strutting so much as it is coming across here. It may just be my perception though.

“We” are on a Texas site being reamed by opposing fans.  And you honestly have no idea who may or may not be on the board.  But yes “we” even the poor tshirt fans contribute to what makes Texas, Texas.  Not something “we” should be embarrassed about

[LTbear 4168]

9 minutes ago, AeroHorn said:

Yeah, I am somewhat embarrassed by the comments by UT fans here. I attended UT but it's not as if I am in any way responsible for what UT is, especially UT athletics. 

I so wish that Cal and Stanford go the Ivy League route. 

1) Ya, This thread has really opened my eyes to how many Texas fans apparently put a lot of their self worth into how the UT football program (that they have zero to do with) is performing (but not actually performing on the field, just how much money they make). Sure sign that said individuals have nothing in their personal lives to really hang their self esteem on. Glad you got what you should out of UT - a fantastic education/ research dollars/ publications. It's a place that can absolutely open tremendous doors, but also one where you can skate by and do more or less nothing with it (like most big universities).

2) I did my PhD at Berkeley and am torn on this. I can attest to the fact that for the most part, no one gives a damn about any football game except for Cal vs Stanford, with a little secondary care about the USC game, and it's true on both campuses (I was at Stanford for a year on fellowship and went to every home game). On the other hand, when the team is doing well (those rare, elusive times), some pretty big crowds do appear. But the campus admin just isn't there to support big-time football (at both, but at Cal especially). 

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

9 minutes ago, KennyPowders said:

Listen here you beautiful Bitch. Life isn’t fair. Just look in the mirror and you’ll know what I’m talking about. But it’s ok, look at me. I’m not what you would call classically beautiful by any means but I’m excellent at real sports and have the hair of a god damn champion. Cheer up. Whining like a little bitch isn’t going to get you anywhere. 

Don't ever post out of character.

[LTbear 4168]

3 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

“We” are on a Texas site being reamed by opposing fans.  And you honestly have no idea who may or may not be on the board.  But yes “we” even the poor tshirt fans contribute to what makes Texas, Texas.  Not something “we” should be embarrassed about

No, but you should be embarrassed by said did-nothing-of-consequence with their lives fans puffing out their chest, calling the UT athletics programs "daddy" and bragging as though they individually actually have any tangible effect on UT athletics. It's so deeply aggy-esque. 

 

In case you mention it: yes, every sports programs has similar fans. And they're worth mocking every time. 

[closetohumping 17438]

Just now, LTbear said:

No, but you should be embarrassed by said did-nothing-of-consequence with their lives fans puffing out their chest, calling the UT athletics programs "daddy" and bragging as though they individually actually have any tangible effect on UT athletics. It's so deeply aggy-esque. 

 

In case you mention it: yes, every sports programs has similar fans. And they're worth mocking every time. 

Someone here call UT athletics daddy?  I think most of the alums here are pretty cynical about  our program.  

[Josef Pwag 1738]

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'm bitching about the arbitrary nature of how some programs that aren't revenue machines on their own get to profit off the backs of other programs while programs with similar profiles aren't afforded such luxuries.

Your program has never done anything that matters in the history of college football. So someone was luckier than you? So what. Until you earn it on your own, please, stop bitching. Shut up until you win a national title.

 

5 hours ago, slorch said:

We beat Texas.  Thanks for making my point.

I just get a kick out of the folks who think if they say it enough times, Texas, being elite will come true.

Your ceiling is beating Texas. Our ceiling is winning a national title.

Also, the rules have changed. We will soon be able to buy ourselves a title. You never will. 

[LTbear 4168]

12 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Someone here call UT athletics daddy?  I think most of the alums here are pretty cynical about  our program.  

Someone did earlier in this thread, yes

[AeroHorn 749]

11 minutes ago, LTbear said:

2) I did my PhD at Berkeley and am torn on this. I can attest to the fact that for the most part, no one gives a damn about any football game except for Cal vs Stanford, with a little secondary care about the USC game, and it's true on both campuses (I was at Stanford for a year on fellowship and went to every home game). On the other hand, when the team is doing well (those rare, elusive times), some pretty big crowds do appear. But the campus admin just isn't there to support big-time football (at both, but at Cal especially). 

Yes, both value sports but college football has changed so much with NIL and portal that it is just an unregulated professional league now. The best they can hope for is having a few decent players for a year that were overlooked by other teams before they transfer. This whole setup seems antithetical to their mission. Going about half-heartedly with SDSU/SMU will just relegate them further. It's not as if not having football lowers their visibility (Ivy League doesn't suffer) but a mediocre half-professional portal-driven football team could be an irritating thorn to their vision/mission, with no Rose Bowl possibilities to assuage the discomfort.

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

7 minutes ago, Josef Pwag said:

Your program has never done anything that matters in the history of college football. So someone was luckier than you? So what. Until you earn it on your own, please, stop bitching. Shut up until you win a national title.

 

Your ceiling is beating Texas. Our ceiling is winning a national title.

Also, the rules have changed. We will soon be able to buy ourselves a title. You never will. 

Most of the programs in D1 football have never done this.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Al_4_ISU

[camel at sea 589]

6 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The Pac 12 could have added the 6 non-Baylor Big 12 schools west of the Mississippi in 2021 the day UT and OU announced they were leaving.

Now they're taking SMU and SDSU.  

The best case scenario for the PAC is going to be living out a version of the Big 12's 2010-2021 existence.  They'll probably add those two and lose two others (Arizona + Colorado.)  They'll have a decent chance of keeping Oregon and Washington around for a while if 1) the new Tier 1 media deal gives those two enough football exposure, and 2) if the PAC unequally splits the expanded CFP revenue (something that would probably also make Utah happy.)  Most of the rest of the conference has admins that would sacrifice sports on the alter of Stanford/Cal academic association and/or no other options.  If the PAC can limit any additional exodus to just Arizona + 1, they'll probably survive in the short term.  

Obviously at some point Oregon and Washington will leave but if the PAC can delay that eventuality for several years, they can give a heads up to a few MWC schools with "good enough" academics and those schools can get facilities projects built, winning programs on the field, etc.

[bullet 1596]

6 hours ago, Laxtonto said:

If SMU or Rice, with SDSU already being discussed, is being mentioned as potential adds for the PAC 12, they might as well shut it down now. (I mentioned both because it is the only way travel partner-wise to make the other sports viable.) The problem is that Rice is a boat anchor for a P5 and will never be a revenue positive add.
 

So you are telling me that the PAC12 schools will be ok adding those schools or that those schools will provide enough payout to make the conference viable longterm? I find that hard to believe. Why would the 4 corners prefer that type of setup vs defecting to the B12 for a higher payout? 
 

I can “understand” those adds if the Pac12 is trying to backfill after additional defections, but as just new adds they don’t move the needle enough to be considered a proactive move to help increase the payout to convince teams to stay.

If this is a move the Pac12 is truly considering then the B12 might as well break out the champagne and celebrate its new members. I can see little benefits for say Cal or Stanford for agreeing to add Texas schools. How do you sell these adds to your current members without them being a huge improvement to the current tv payout? The problem is that these adds are much worse than the departing schools and so they are not proving enough value to offset their warts.

This gets to the real crux of the problem of that what is killing the Pac12 from a realignment perspective is the lack of viable additions. The B12 struggled with this, with few solid regional options, and now the Pac12 is faced with the same scenario with even less viable alternatives.
 

The BYU add might actually be the real lynchpin in killing the Pac12.  They were a perfect “break in case of extreme emergency” option. Unfortunately the Pac12 waited for so long that the emergency life raft got used by someone else and now they are looking to dip into the ocean with the best emergency options being a soggy life preserver or a wooden door cast off their sinking ship.

When you look at the Sic-em TV ratings analysis, SDSU and SMU are both 3rd in their conferences.  MWC is Boise then Fresno, then SDSU is just a little ahead of the pack.  AAC remainders are USF, Memphis and then SMU is just a little ahead of the pack.

[Josef Pwag 1738]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Most of the programs in D1 football have never done this.

 

[KennyPowders 331]

1 hour ago, LTbear said:

Someone did earlier in this thread, yes

That would be I, the Kenny Powders, Esquire, the man with a mind like a scientist and a cock like a Burmese python.

['stache 21802]

I can see a future where Stanford and Cal join the WCC for olympic sports and the Ivy League for football despite the travel. I'm sure the extra cost is worth it to them to continue basking in the smell of their own academic farts. CU, UU, AU, and ASU join the XII, and UO and UW eventually do to having no other viable options, with us all understanding they'll continue begging the BIG for an invite. I'd love to have ORST and WSU, but I assume the financial numbers would not work out, if only we knew this would be a possibilty before adding the AAC and Mormon mid-majors.

Edited February 8, 2023 by 'stache

[Al_4_ISU 12457]

7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I can see a future where Stanford and Cal join the WCC for olympic sports and the Ivy League for football despite the travel. I'm sure the extra cost is worth it to them to continue basking in the smell of their own academic farts. CU, UU, AU, and ASU join the XII, and UO and UW eventually do to having no other viable options, with us all understanding they'll continue begging the BIG for an invite. I'd love to have ORST and WSU, but I assume the financial numbers would not work out, if only we knew this would be a possibilty before adding the AAC and Mormon mid-majors.

I think to some extent this become possible because of that.

[LTbear 4168]

14 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I can see a future where Stanford and Cal join the WCC for olympic sports and the Ivy League for football despite the travel. I'm sure the extra cost is worth it to them to continue basking in the smell of their own academic farts. 

🤣🤣 In all seriousness when I was at Cal I'd bet that 99% of my peers couldn't have named all of the other members of the PAC, and maybe half couldn't name the conference itself.