Realignment talk not going away

[XOVERX 5]

I can understand aggy hatred of the LHN, just for pure jealousy and spite. I can understand Mizz bolting to the SEC with aggy because the SEC instructed aggy to bring another school to balance the conference.

But for the life of me I cannot understand why the rest of the B12 hated the LHN. The LHN is what kept the B12 together for another decade +, allowing the remaining schools so much more income.

Ah well, life is oftentimes irrational.

[Hagbard Celine 10859]

1 hour ago, oSuJeff97 said:

How about the fact that the original Big 12 doesn’t exist any more?

What more “work” do you need?  If those four could get along, then the original Big 12 would still exist and be in a great position to be on-par with SEC and B1G as one of three “Super conferences.”

Does that mean the blame is equal? Of course not. I honestly think it’s mostly Nebraska’s and Aggy’s fault, mostly because both had massive inferiority complexes toward Texas.

But the bottom line is that if all four could have found ways to co-exist for the the betterment of the league (like the bluebloods in B1G and SEC have over the years) then the original Big 12 would be in a great spot today. 

Your answer is post-hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy of false association.

Your answer to the question is that the big12-4+2 doesn't exist, and that is proof that Texas is/was complicit in it's demise.

Nope, sorry.  Failure of logic there bubba.  I need the "work" i asked for.  The direct question.  No re-directs, deflects, projection attacks, chewbacca fuckery.   This goes back to al4isu's original assertion that Texas did ________________.  Fill in the blank.  What specifically did Texas do to cause or justify the departures which destabilized the conference?

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

27 minutes ago, XOVERX said:

I can understand aggy hatred of the LHN, just for pure jealousy and spite. I can understand Mizz bolting to the SEC with aggy because the SEC instructed aggy to bring another school to balance the conference.

But for the life of me I cannot understand why the rest of the B12 hated the LHN. The LHN is what kept the B12 together for another decade +, allowing the remaining schools so much more income.

Ah well, life is oftentimes irrational.

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

Im not talking message board morons.  

[Jabberwocky 1666]

2 hours ago, bullet said:

The Big 12 was Dodds baby.  He and the OU AD created the conference.  He was very much for saving it.

Lol

[Vertigo 20283]

1 hour ago, clapclapclap said:

 

Cam has aged 20 years since leaving Austin. 

[thunderlounge 7824]

18 hours ago, Okie State said:

What are you all going to do once you can't play the victim card anymore?

 

15 hours ago, closetohumping said:

Count our money.  Hbu?

 

 

[notre dame joe 187]

4 hours ago, bullet said:

The Big 12 was Dodds baby.  He and the OU AD created the conference.  He was very much for saving it.

When the ND-Big12 flirtation was occurring in 2012, ND AD Savvy Jack Swarbrick spoke to Dodds, not whoever was Big12 Commissioner.  That should answer all your questions on why the other schools did not like Texas. 

[oSuJeff97 3435]

2 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

Your answer is post-hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy of false association.

Your answer to the question is that the big12-4+2 doesn't exist, and that is proof that Texas is/was complicit in it's demise.

Nope, sorry.  Failure of logic there bubba.  I need the "work" i asked for.  The direct question.  No re-directs, deflects, projection attacks, chewbacca fuckery.   This goes back to al4isu's original assertion that Texas did ________________.  Fill in the blank.  What specifically did Texas do to cause or justify the departures which destabilized the conference?

Ergo fuck yourself.

(LOL sorry couldn’t resist.)

Seriously though, you’re telling me that if the four bluebloods of the conference played nice, that the conference STILL would have blown up?

Highly highly doubtful.

And I said that the bulk of the blame clearly lies with Nebraska/Aggy, but as part of the original 4-headed blueblood monster of the league, Texas (and Oklahoma) obviously share *some* blame.  Don’t tell me that Texas was the innocent babe in the woods as the conference slowly imploded over a decade. Texas was/is the biggest, most powerful school in the conference; with that goes a position of leadership within the conference….

And if you’re telling me that Texas did *nothing* as the conference crumbled around it, then that is just as bad as specific actions that cause it to crumble.

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by oSuJeff97

[Tomatillo 354]

6 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

You act like Deloss was the only swinging big dick.  I can assure you from Donnie Duncan to Joe Castiglione, OU was at least an equal in all these talks between the two schools.  OU and Texas hate eachother in Dallas but when it comes to big boy negotiations there was always a very high level of respect.  And there’s the rub, aggy and corn aggy never had and never will have that respect.  
 

Texas obviously gets too much hate but they get most of the money too…that’s life.  

Who is corn aggy? 

[DFW Horn 6123]

4 minutes ago, Tomatillo said:

Who is corn aggy? 

Nebraska

[camel at sea 589]

6 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

You act like Deloss was the only swinging big dick.  I can assure you from Donnie Duncan to Joe Castiglione, OU was at least an equal in all these talks between the two schools.  OU and Texas hate eachother in Dallas but when it comes to big boy negotiations there was always a very high level of respect.  And there’s the rub, aggy and corn aggy never had and never will have that respect.  
 

Texas obviously gets too much hate but they get most of the money too…that’s life.  

Yep.  The Texas and Oklahoma relationship was the inverse of the Nebraska and Oklahoma relationship.  OU brass respects Texas brass behind the scenes, and the two sides work well together, even while the two sides hate each other on the field.  The leadership at OU and NU didn't like each other, even in the latter days of the Big 8, even though there's this perception that the two fanbases have great respect for each other.

In fact, a lot of the old Big 8 didn't particularly like NU's leadership.  That played a role in NU getting outvoted on contentious issues in the early days of the Big 12.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

When the ND-Big12 flirtation was occurring in 2012, ND AD Savvy Jack Swarbrick spoke to Dodds, not whoever was Big12 Commissioner.  That should answer all your questions on why the other schools did not like Texas. 

Dodds and Swarbrick were friends.

This works the same way everywhere. It's been reported that every president of the leftover Big 12 is talking to the presidents of the PAC. 

This is more excuse making.

[RoyalBevo21 767]

1 hour ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Ergo fuck yourself.

(LOL sorry couldn’t resist.)

Seriously though, you’re telling me that if the four bluebloods of the conference played nice, that the conference STILL would have blown up?

Highly highly doubtful.

And I said that the bulk of the blame clearly lies with Nebraska/Aggy, but as part of the original 4-headed blueblood monster of the league, Texas (and Oklahoma) obviously share *some* blame.  Don’t tell me that Texas was the innocent babe in the woods as the conference slowly imploded over a decade. Texas was/is the biggest, most powerful school in the conference; with that goes a position of leadership within the conference….

And if you’re telling me that Texas did *nothing* as the conference crumbled around it, then that is just as bad as specific actions that cause it to crumble.

 

The problem is, again, penis envy by the pip squeaks that seem to just exist to try and take down big bad Texas (aggy, Tech, Baylor, etc) 

Leadership = Texas made moves that were consistent and aligned with the mission of bettering itself and by proxy the conference. But again, the constant in fighting by envious peer universities to "keep Texas in check" 

It's like the little brothers always asking "stick around and save us, but we're going to meddle in your ability to make money which would make us more money" here's a prime example.

Texas: trying to rally everyone and be the leader of not only the Big 12 but college football by being the first conference to have its own network. But here's the result of the limp dicks stepping on their own nuts because they just gotta stick it to the Longhorns

Well, then why did they, along with 10 other Big 12 teams (minus Texas), vote against a joint Big 12 TV network in 2006-2007?

I'm sure Texas leadership grew tired of being hamstrung by other universities that seemed to have the mission of "screw Texas" rather than working with UT to better the conference. 

Aggy:

A&M's issues with the Longhorn Network could only be taken seriously if it hadn't turned down an offer from DeLoss Dodds to be a part of the network at the time of its inception.  At the time, A&M's president Bill Byrne didn't see the venture as profitable.

When he realized the project was picking up steam, he wanted on board, but Dodds thumbed his nose at him instead, stating they were already too far along in production.

Bad business forced A&M's move, not unfairness.

Nebraska: 

Nebraska was perfectly content with the power structure of the Big 12 when it sat in the driver's seat.  Do you suppose a 1-9 record against a certain Texas team, and a tumultuous downfall from power, caused a bit of anxiety in Lincoln?  I thought so, too.

Nebraska was also adamantly opposed to the creation of the Longhorn Network.  Well, then why did they, along with 10 other Big 12 teams (minus Texas), vote against a joint Big 12 TV network in 2006-2007?  Nebraska and the others didn't want to put the necessary resources is in to create such a network, so Texas did it by itself.

If Tom Osborne's arrogance hadn't gotten the best of him and his program, the Big 12 would still be standing on two legs.  

This is from Nebraska leadership in 2007:

On 810 today, both chancellor Perlman and AD Weiser noted, idly, the possibility of schools leaving the conference. Perlman noted that Nebraska wouldn't rule out the possibility of leaving the Big 12 (presumably to go to the Big 10) if forced to share revenue. 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by RoyalBevo21

[bullet 1596]

36 minutes ago, RoyalBevo21 said:

The problem is, again, penis envy by the pip squeaks that seem to just exist to try and take down big bad Texas (aggy, Tech, Baylor, etc) 

Leadership = Texas made moves that were consistent and aligned with the mission of bettering itself and by proxy the conference. But again, the constant in fighting by envious peer universities to "keep Texas in check" 

It's like the little brothers always asking "stick around and save us, but we're going to meddle in your ability to make money which would make us more money" here's a prime example.

Texas: trying to rally everyone and be the leader of not only the Big 12 but college football by being the first conference to have its own network. But here's the result of the limp dicks stepping on their own nuts because they just gotta stick it to the Longhorns

Well, then why did they, along with 10 other Big 12 teams (minus Texas), vote against a joint Big 12 TV network in 2006-2007?

I'm sure Texas leadership grew tired of being hamstrung by other universities that seemed to have the mission of "screw Texas" rather than working with UT to better the conference. 

Aggy:

A&M's issues with the Longhorn Network could only be taken seriously if it hadn't turned down an offer from DeLoss Dodds to be a part of the network at the time of its inception.  At the time, A&M's president Bill Byrne didn't see the venture as profitable.

When he realized the project was picking up steam, he wanted on board, but Dodds thumbed his nose at him instead, stating they were already too far along in production.

Bad business forced A&M's move, not unfairness.

Nebraska: 

Nebraska was perfectly content with the power structure of the Big 12 when it sat in the driver's seat.  Do you suppose a 1-9 record against a certain Texas team, and a tumultuous downfall from power, caused a bit of anxiety in Lincoln?  I thought so, too.

Nebraska was also adamantly opposed to the creation of the Longhorn Network.  Well, then why did they, along with 10 other Big 12 teams (minus Texas), vote against a joint Big 12 TV network in 2006-2007?  Nebraska and the others didn't want to put the necessary resources is in to create such a network, so Texas did it by itself.

If Tom Osborne's arrogance hadn't gotten the best of him and his program, the Big 12 would still be standing on two legs.  

This is from Nebraska leadership in 2007:

On 810 today, both chancellor Perlman and AD Weiser noted, idly, the possibility of schools leaving the conference. Perlman noted that Nebraska wouldn't rule out the possibility of leaving the Big 12 (presumably to go to the Big 10) if forced to share revenue. 

 

 

You don't have your facts straight on Nebraska & networks.  The vote on the conference network was 10-2 against with Texas and Nebraska being for.  Texas and Nebraska jointly funded a study since nobody else would participate.  Nebraska, at the time they joined the Big 10, were closer to having a school network than Texas was.

[RoyalBevo21 767]

6 minutes ago, bullet said:

You don't have your facts straight on Nebraska & networks.  The vote on the conference network was 10-2 against with Texas and Nebraska being for.  Texas and Nebraska jointly funded a study since nobody else would participate.  Nebraska, at the time they joined the Big 10, were closer to having a school network than Texas was.

This info was pulled directly from a 2011 article.... 

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

11 minutes ago, bullet said:

You don't have your facts straight on Nebraska & networks.  The vote on the conference network was 10-2 against with Texas and Nebraska being for.  Texas and Nebraska jointly funded a study since nobody else would participate.  Nebraska, at the time they joined the Big 10, were closer to having a school network than Texas was.

I mean I have a network too.  If 10 people watch what’s that?

[RoyalBevo21 767]

13 minutes ago, bullet said:

You don't have your facts straight on Nebraska & networks.  The vote on the conference network was 10-2 against with Texas and Nebraska being for.  Texas and Nebraska jointly funded a study since nobody else would participate.  Nebraska, at the time they joined the Big 10, were closer to having a school network than Texas was.

https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/857322-family-feud-who-is-to-blame-for-the-collapse-of-the-big-12.amp.html

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

3 minutes ago, RoyalBevo21 said:

https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/857322-family-feud-who-is-to-blame-for-the-collapse-of-the-big-12.amp.html

‘In particular, the Big 12, already having to deal with the probable loss of A&M, could potentially lose the four other big shots in the conference (Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech).’

bro   🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

 

 

[mdmost 43001]

Quote

What complicated matters even more was the creation of the Longhorn Network in association with ESPN.  A 20-year, $300-million deal with sport's biggest brand was the first of its kind and left many schools pondering the possible unfair advantages it gave to the already powerful Texas.

The Pac-10, and the other conferences courting Texas, saw the network as unsustainable and unfair.  

In short, a deal breaker.

Hey Pac 12!

[closetohumping 17440]

4 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Hey Pac 12!

In hindsight it was 15 mil a year, kind of chump change now

Edited July 31, 2022 by closetohumping

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

1 hour ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Ergo fuck yourself.

(LOL sorry couldn’t resist.)

Seriously though, you’re telling me that if the four bluebloods of the conference played nice, that the conference STILL would have blown up?

Highly highly doubtful.

And I said that the bulk of the blame clearly lies with Nebraska/Aggy, but as part of the original 4-headed blueblood monster of the league, Texas (and Oklahoma) obviously share *some* blame.  Don’t tell me that Texas was the innocent babe in the woods as the conference slowly imploded over a decade. Texas was/is the biggest, most powerful school in the conference; with that goes a position of leadership within the conference….

And if you’re telling me that Texas did *nothing* as the conference crumbled around it, then that is just as bad as specific actions that cause it to crumble.

 

Big 12 Conference was never going to survive. There was never enough viewers to keep up with the B1G/SEC. It was only matter of when the B1G/SEC/PAC were ready to expand again. Everyone knew at some point the NCAA was going to lose and kids would get paid. Revenue generation is a driving force in business.

The only somewhat surprising move in the history of conference realignment the past 30+ years was Missouri to the SEC. But if the B1G was going to turn them down, and ATM needed a partner, it made sense in real time.

This has all been a slow progress because the NCAA is a mess. All of this should have happened 30 to 40 years ago.

Once basketball lost its title as the breadwinner, the ACC has been doomed. Every team in that conference has had a wandering eye for nearly two decades now. 

Every member of the Big 8 not named Colorado has begged for entrance into the B1G for over half a century or longer. Colorado has begged for entrance into the PAC for the same time period. 

Every time Texas and Texas ATM tried to leave the SWC, either the other conference couldn't get the votes for Texas/ATM, wasn't ready to expand just yet or Texas politics got in the way.

ATM has wanted to be in the SEC for generations. The SWC could never lure LSU and it was doomed. Texas couldn't figure out where they wanted to land, but there was a time period where the PAC was the landing spot but Stanford is the fucking weirdo we know they are...

Texas has always had more in common with the SEC as a state, athletics-wise and from a geographical standpoint. Academics and administrators were the holdup. 

USC has never liked the PAC but had nowhere else to go because of geography. USC/Texas was always a rumor of starting a conference or expanding the PAC, but it never happened. Once Texas/OU landed in the SEC, it was no-brainer, with planes and no cross country drives/trains of yesteryear, that USC/UCLA would be heading to the B1G at some point. It's no surprise they're trying their hardest to block some other PAC members. They all hate each other, for generations. It's always been that way. I don't think it's going to work though.

I don't get the continued anger and pissing contest. If OSU got an offer to the B1G at any point, they would have jumped in a heartbeat. Iowa State would have jumped in a heartbeat. Big 12 was not a long term solution. It was a placeholder until the stars aligned perfectly for the teams that were wanted. ACC, the past 15 years, has turned into the same story on the East Coast. You can't sit here and act holy. OSU wasn't getting along any more than the other programs in the Big 12. There's no one to blame for the breakup. There should be no hate from anyone. It's simply business. It's a game of survival.

 

 

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

Well, I forgot Rutgers landed in the B1G. Definitely a surprise, although I think everyone understands what they were trying to accomplish at the time.

[clapclapclap 9000]

1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I mean I have a network too.  If 10 people watch what’s that?

MonkeypoxNet?

[Deej 76767]

“It’s not totally Texas’ fault, but a Texas board is the only one I’m going to go on and bitch about how our school is getting fucked over.”

[Okie State 3818]

Who the fuck would go on an OU or Aggy board?

I don't think I've ever blamed Texas for any of this. Or maybe I did at some point, but that's not really my opinion today. All of it was inevitable and I've already said it's bad for college football, but maybe my opinion would be different if we were included. I've slowly lost interest over the years and this will likely accelerate that. I'll just spend my time on something else.

[Deej 76767]

C’mon, spread your venom where it belongs. 

Texas and OU propped you guys up much longer than they needed to.

Edited July 31, 2022 by Deej

[Okie State 3818]

C’mon, spread your venom where it belongs. 

A handful of posters in this thread have been dickheads through this whole thing. I've made a few smartass comments directed at them. Not sure what else you're referring to. I guess that's venom? Pretty tame for this board.

[Deej 76767]

It’s not just you. 

[Vertigo 20283]

46 minutes ago, Okie State said:

48 minutes ago, Deej said:

C’mon, spread your venom where it belongs. 

A handful of posters in this thread have been dickheads through this whole thing. I've made a few smartass comments directed at them. Not sure what else you're referring to. I guess that's venom? Pretty tame for this board.

Honestly I think you can do better. Hit us again Ike! And put some stank on it!

[bullet 1596]

2 hours ago, RoyalBevo21 said:

https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/857322-family-feud-who-is-to-blame-for-the-collapse-of-the-big-12.amp.html

Its Bleacher report.  That's basically no different than quoting Greg Swaim (which I got all kind of negs for quoting him just for fun while saying he was always fos).

My information was from an interview with the Nebraska president and Alcalde interviews with Deloss Dodds when the LHN first came out.

I did still have a copy of the July/August 2011 Alcalde for some reason.  Didn't see it on the website to link.  Website only goes back to 2013.  So from the hard copy, P. 36:  "in 2006, with the Big 12 nearing the end of its television contract with ABC, Texas and Nebraska hired Prince (Chicago TV consultant, not the guy from Minnesota) to study the feasibility of an all-Big 12 network similar to the Big Ten Network, which the league had just launched in partnership with Fox.  When that study indicated in fall 2007 that Texas would be better served going it alone,...."

The interviews told how everyone but Texas and Nebraska were uninterested so that is why they funded the study.  The Nebraska president claimed (I think in that Omaha News article about a year after the Big Ten move) that they were further along on their network than Texas.

 

 

 

[camel at sea 589]

2 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

Big 12 Conference was never going to survive.

It's fun to imagine an alternative universe where the Huskers stay in 2010 and the Big Ten settles for Missouri.  

A ten team Big 12 with Texas, OU, Nebraska, A&M, and two fewer middle weights to dilute payouts could have been very financially formidable on a "per team" basis. 

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

59 minutes ago, Okie State said:

Who the fuck would go on an OU or Aggy board?

I don't think I've ever blamed Texas for any of this. Or maybe I did at some point, but that's not really my opinion today. All of it was inevitable and I've already said it's bad for college football, but maybe my opinion would be different if we were included. I've slowly lost interest over the years and this will likely accelerate that. I'll just spend my time on something else.

I don't think you should lose interest. Your team is going to be in the third conference. You'll still have a shot at the playoffs. Did you have a shot before this? Only if they were forced to take you. I honestly believe OSU and TCU had the best teams in the country about a decade ago and were left out for no other reason than fan size. You will have a better shot now, with an expanded playoff, than in the current format. You will still play everyone but Texas, unless your administration turns down a chance to play OU.

You won't make as much money. Well, is your team a threat to even sign and outbid Bluebloods for top recruits? if not, it shouldn't matter to you. 

As with the dickheads, there are some OSU (I don't recall which ones), TT and Iowa State fans blaming everyone for conference realignment, including Texas. I think that's why some of the Texas fans started being dickheads. After what seems like at least a hundred pages of the same, it's getting a little tiring to keep reading the same whining and blame game from Al and a few others. LTBear is a great example of how you should handle your team in expansion.

My mom lived in Oregon while growing up, so the Ducks have always been my second team. Texas will always have my heart, but I've been a diehard Ducks fan since the 80s. I lived through some tough times as a fan. I'm not an alum, but I've always had a connection to the program. You won't see me here whining about their current state of affairs, even though Oregon and Washington probably have the best case for Power 2 admittance out of the leftover PAC/Big12 programs. It's no one's fault they are in this position. It's just business. And I think they will be just fine wherever they end up. I think the geography is one of the hardest things for them to overcome. I do think they will get over it at some point, but it's just business one way or another.

Geography is an issue in athletics, but for me there's no better place to spend a summer than California/Oregon/Washington. I wouldn't trade the mix of the outdoors and world class cities in California, Oregon and Washington. We can talk about politics. I typically don't let politics get in my way. I live my life and stay out of it. If geography keeps them out of the Big 2, so be it. I'll still enjoy Ducks football, unless they're playing Texas.

 

 

[Hagbard Celine 10859]

5 hours ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Ergo fuck yourself.

(LOL sorry couldn’t resist.)

Seriously though, you’re telling me

i'm not telling you anything

i stopped reading right there

/broken record

what specifically did texas do or say that broke up the conference?

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

6 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

It's fun to imagine an alternative universe where the Huskers stay in 2010 and the Big Ten settles for Missouri.  

A ten team Big 12 with Texas, OU, Nebraska, A&M, and two fewer middle weights to dilute payouts could have been very financially formidable on a "per team" basis. 

It would have been fun for a time.

I don't see that small a conference lasting long term when you need to expand the eyeballs across the country. The Dallas Cowboys became America's team because they got the chance to play the NY Giants, Philadelphia Eagles and Washington Redskins. Playing in those big markets is a very big deal.  The revenue is getting too big to remain so marginal in viewership. Add to it NIL and the impending formation of a players' union, and I don't see that conference lasting long term.

A&M would still have looked for any excuse to join the SEC. It's where they've always wanted to be. Nebraska would have one leg out the door. Texas and OU would now be worried about additional revenue with NIL/unions.

I think in the end we are going to get more competitive national games with most of our regional rivalries back in the fold. It's just chaotic getting there. 

 

[Hagbard Celine 10859]

4 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

Dodds and Swarbrick were friends.

This works the same way everywhere. It's been reported that every president of the leftover Big 12 is talking to the presidents of the PAC. 

This is more excuse making.

i like how domer can take an argument without evidence and make it about them

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

39 minutes ago, bullet said:

Its Bleacher report.  That's basically no different than quoting Greg Swaim (which I got all kind of negs for quoting him just for fun while saying he was always fos).

My information was from an interview with the Nebraska president and Alcalde interviews with Deloss Dodds when the LHN first came out.

I did still have a copy of the July/August 2011 Alcalde for some reason.  Didn't see it on the website to link.  Website only goes back to 2013.  So from the hard copy, P. 36:  "in 2006, with the Big 12 nearing the end of its television contract with ABC, Texas and Nebraska hired Prince (Chicago TV consultant, not the guy from Minnesota) to study the feasibility of an all-Big 12 network similar to the Big Ten Network, which the league had just launched in partnership with Fox.  When that study indicated in fall 2007 that Texas would be better served going it alone,...."

The interviews told how everyone but Texas and Nebraska were uninterested so that is why they funded the study.  The Nebraska president claimed (I think in that Omaha News article about a year after the Big Ten move) that they were further along on their network than Texas.

 

 

 

And didn't Big 12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg basically leave to help start the Big 10 Network because most of the Big 12 laughed at the idea of starting a conference network? Texas and Nebraska were the only two with interest. I'm not sure if I'm remembering that correctly.  The Big 12 also has the rights to the Big 14 and the Big 16. BYU was supposed to be an addition but Baylor didn't want another private school in the conference. 

Kevin Weiberg was a good commissioner dealing with a bunch of out of date presidents from small programs that just didn't understand where college football was heading. And then they blamed Texas for all their problems.

I still don't think the league would have made it. 

[RoyalBevo21 767]

2 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

And didn't Big 12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg basically leave to help start the Big 10 Network because most of the Big 12 laughed at the idea of starting a conference network? Texas and Nebraska were the only two with interest. I'm not sure if I'm remembering that correctly.  The Big 12 also has the rights to the Big 14 and the Big 16. BYU was supposed to be an addition but Baylor didn't want another private school in the conference. 

Kevin Weiberg was a good commissioner dealing with a bunch of out of date presidents from small programs that just didn't understand where college football was heading. And then they blamed Texas for all their problems.

I still don't think the league would have made it. 

That's 100% correct. 

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

I don't think you should lose interest. Your team is going to be in the third conference. You'll still have a shot at the playoffs. Did you have a shot before this? Only if they were forced to take you. I honestly believe OSU and TCU had the best teams in the country about a decade ago and were left out for no other reason than fan size. You will have a better shot now, with an expanded playoff, than in the current format. You will still play everyone but Texas, unless your administration turns down a chance to play OU.

You won't make as much money. Well, is your team a threat to even sign and outbid Bluebloods for top recruits? if not, it shouldn't matter to you. 

As with the dickheads, there are some OSU (I don't recall which ones), TT and Iowa State fans blaming everyone for conference realignment, including Texas. I think that's why some of the Texas fans started being dickheads. After what seems like at least a hundred pages of the same, it's getting a little tiring to keep reading the same whining and blame game from Al and a few others. LTBear is a great example of how you should handle your team in expansion.

My mom lived in Oregon while growing up, so the Ducks have always been my second team. Texas will always have my heart, but I've been a diehard Ducks fan since the 80s. I lived through some tough times as a fan. I'm not an alum, but I've always had a connection to the program. You won't see me here whining about their current state of affairs, even though Oregon and Washington probably have the best case for Power 2 admittance out of the leftover PAC/Big12 programs. It's no one's fault they are in this position. It's just business. And I think they will be just fine wherever they end up. I think the geography is one of the hardest things for them to overcome. I do think they will get over it at some point, but it's just business one way or another.

Geography is an issue in athletics, but for me there's no better place to spend a summer than California/Oregon/Washington. I wouldn't trade the mix of the outdoors and world class cities in California, Oregon and Washington. We can talk about politics. I typically don't let politics get in my way. I live my life and stay out of it. If geography keeps them out of the Big 2, so be it. I'll still enjoy Ducks football, unless they're playing Texas.

 

 

A while back I was looking at a listing of the final polls by year and noticed how the same teams were at the very top.  Did an analysis going back to 1984 (when BYU won) and later extended it to 1968.  There are 20 teams that have won 52 of the 54 AP titles in that period (Pitt and BYU the outliers) and have 148 of the 162 top 3 finishes in that period and 227 of the 270 top 5 finishes.  Each has at least 5 top 5s (nobody else has more than 3) and at least 2 top 3 (only Tennessee has only 2-only TCU and Pitt outside the group have more than 1-each has 2).  18 of the 20 have a AP MNC and 1 of the others has a coaches poll MNC.

 

 Point being, Washington and Oregon are in that group of 20.  Of course, UW is the one with a coaches MNC and Oregon is the one without an MNC.  Colorado is also in that group of 20.  Those 3 along with Tennessee are at the bottom of that group of 20, but are a clear step ahead of the rest of college football over that time frame.  The others who aren't going to be in the Big 10 or SEC are Notre Dame, FSU, Clemson and Miami.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

28 minutes ago, bullet said:

A while back I was looking at a listing of the final polls by year and noticed how the same teams were at the very top.  Did an analysis going back to 1984 (when BYU won) and later extended it to 1968.  There are 20 teams that have won 52 of the 54 AP titles in that period (Pitt and BYU the outliers) and have 148 of the 162 top 3 finishes in that period and 227 of the 270 top 5 finishes.  Each has at least 5 top 5s (nobody else has more than 3) and at least 2 top 3 (only Tennessee has only 2-only TCU and Pitt outside the group have more than 1-each has 2).  18 of the 20 have a AP MNC and 1 of the others has a coaches poll MNC.

 

 Point being, Washington and Oregon are in that group of 20.  Of course, UW is the one with a coaches MNC and Oregon is the one without an MNC.  Colorado is also in that group of 20.  Those 3 along with Tennessee are at the bottom of that group of 20, but are a clear step ahead of the rest of college football over that time frame.  The others who aren't going to be in the Big 10 or SEC are Notre Dame, FSU, Clemson and Miami.

Good post. If sports journalists would look at realignment this way, and add other factors to the equation, they'd write much better articles.

It's why these top programs need to play each other more often. There's too many OOC games with teams outside the P5 and then a few weak teams within the P5 that are taking away from the competitiveness of the sport. It's getting worse because the internet has allowed the cheaters to recruit everyone else's recruiting territory with much more success, which has weakened some of the P5 programs.

Back in the day, a conference mate had a much better chance of pulling off an upset over a top ranked Blueblood. And then there's the fact that teams used to play a tough OOC schedule. Nowadays it's mostly cupcakes.

The viewers are fed up with it.

If they want more revenue and more butts in the seats then line up and play teams your own size. It has to be the standard across the board or it won't work. I'm in favor of going to more conference games to help accomplish this. I don't think college football needs a 16 team playoff. Increase the number of regular season games, the number of conference games per season and limit the playoffs to somewhere between 4 and 8 teams. If you increase the number of games for every team, with much more competitive games, you'll get a much more proven title winner and you'll probably make as much or more money than a 16-team playoff.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

 

As with the dickheads, there are some OSU (I don't recall which ones), TT and Iowa State fans blaming everyone for conference realignment, including Texas. I think that's why some of the Texas fans started being dickheads. After what seems like at least a hundred pages of the same, it's getting a little tiring to keep reading the same whining and blame game from Al and a few others. LTBear is a great example of how you should handle your team in expansion.

"The purity of Texas" talk never gets old and  is always entertaining.  Such talk  has been repeated as nauseum until it has become "the truth" as far as this board is concerned, and then a heaping scoop of "Texas is so fucking benevolent" is thrown in for good measure.  It's your version of "We are the best fans those people have ever seen" that we get from aggy.  Even the tone right now of "This is how good little boys and girls should handle expansion/ realignment' is condescending AF.

UT never paid players, even through the 80's and 90's when everyone was doing it. UT's "Jonesing" everyone never existed. LHN never really happened...well it happened, but only in an innocent manner which all of UT's opponents should have embraced. Aggy is oblivious to what they represent to the rest of the universe.  Texas Longhorns athletics is much the same, even if for very different reasons.  None of this means there aren't great fans and discussions on this board.  It's actually part of the charm.

 

Edited July 31, 2022 by slorch

[closetohumping 17440]

46 minutes ago, slorch said:

"The purity of Texas" talk never gets old and  is always entertaining.  Such talk  has been repeated as nauseum until it has become "the truth" as far as this board is concerned, and then a heaping scoop of "Texas is so fucking benevolent" is thrown in for good measure.  It's your version of "We are the best fans those people have ever seen" that we get from aggy.  Even the tone right now of "This is how good little boys and girls should handle expansion/ realignment' is condescending AF.

UT never paid players, even through the 80's and 90's when everyone was doing it. UT's "Jonesing" everyone never existed. LHN never really happened...well it happened, but only in an innocent manner which all of UT's opponents should have embraced. Aggy is oblivious to what they represent to the rest of the universe.  Texas Longhorns athletics is much the same, even if for very different reasons.  None of this means there aren't great fans and discussions on this board.  It's actually part of the charm.

 

If you looked at our rosters in the 80s and 90s it’s pretty clear we didn’t pay any players 

[utee94 15820]

14 hours ago, closetohumping said:

In hindsight it was 15 mil a year, kind of chump change now

It is definitely chump change and ESPN knew it at the time.  It was a small price to pay to persuade Texas to stay in the B12 while ESPN figured out its next moves. 

[Hank Chinaski 6314]

12 hours ago, Okie State said:

Who the fuck would go on an OU or Aggy board?

[Dewey 3286]

3 hours ago, closetohumping said:

If you looked at our rosters in the 80s and 90s it’s pretty clear we didn’t pay any players 

Our talent level was on par with Tech, yes players got 100 dollar handshakes and a few hundred extra under their plates, but we weren't giving out cars and houses, parents didn't find employment in Austin and whatever else was going on. The old boosters and AD were pretty strick that that shit wasn't going to happen at Texas. We also hired some really bad coaches. 

[closetohumping 17440]

16 minutes ago, utee94 said:

It is definitely chump change and ESPN knew it at the time.  It was a small price to pay to persuade Texas to stay in the B12 while ESPN figured out its next moves. 

Kept fox from owning everything west of the Mississippi 

[closetohumping 17440]

9 minutes ago, Dewey said:

Our talent level was on par with Tech, yes players got 100 dollar handshakes and a few hundred extra under their plates, but we weren't giving out cars and houses, parents didn't find employment in Austin and whatever else was going on. The old boosters and AD were pretty strick that that shit wasn't going to happen at Texas. We also hired some really bad coaches. 

We were recruiting against the likes of ou, smu, osu and Jackie sherrill.   Dark times

[Texzilla58 4735]

One thing no one has mentioned is possible expansion of schedule to 13 or 14 games. I’d like to see 10 game conf slates and the elimination of less than p5 chumps.

[Guest]

Now you want to add TWO conference games?

[LTtxfan 49184]

24 minutes ago, Texzilla58 said:

One thing no one has mentioned is possible expansion of schedule to 13 or 14 games. I’d like to see 10 game conf slates and the elimination of less than p5 chumps.

 

Big 12 Commissioner's response:

[Hagbard Celine 10859]

5 hours ago, slorch said:

"The purity of Texas" talk never gets old and  is always entertaining.  Such talk  has been repeated as nauseum until it has become "the truth" as far as this board is concerned, and then a heaping scoop of "Texas is so fucking benevolent" is thrown in for good measure.  It's your version of "We are the best fans those people have ever seen" that we get from aggy.  Even the tone right now of "This is how good little boys and girls should handle expansion/ realignment' is condescending AF.

UT never paid players, even through the 80's and 90's when everyone was doing it. UT's "Jonesing" everyone never existed. LHN never really happened...well it happened, but only in an innocent manner which all of UT's opponents should have embraced. Aggy is oblivious to what they represent to the rest of the universe.  Texas Longhorns athletics is much the same, even if for very different reasons.  None of this means there aren't great fans and discussions on this board.  It's actually part of the charm.

 

Your post reads like an aggy attempt at reality reconstruction in reverse to explain away cognitive dissonance.  What you describe as "Purity of Essence talk" we translate as asking specifically what we did or what we said, who said it, who did it, when, and why.

/judgesmails