Realignment talk not going away

[Satchel 6,983]

3 hours ago, Alot said:

I know one of each, old timer and former player. This is exactly what they are saying. Their money is now back in play. Much how many of us at Texas are feeling.  We can finally fully leverage our financial advantage.

He may have been speaking hyperbolically, but I just heard Urban Meyer pick Texas to be in the CFP, “because they are loaded with 5* athletes at every position.” Isn’t this evidence of UT fully leveraging its financial advantage?

[ztejas 44,286]

@ButtFumble repped for bringing some good info to the table but I'm going to nitpick a couple things.

31 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

TCU has 100% of their facilities built out especially football, basketball, and baseball.....SMU has basketball built out, no baseball and no room for a baseball stajium, and football needs a lot of work at this point

SMU is in the middle of a $100M stadium and facilities renovation. We're going to stack up just fine. And you sort of hinted at this but SMU has a much better basketball arena and facilities. It's going to look even better when ACC schools come play in it. 

35 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

the TCU endowment is $2,400,814,000 and SMU is $1,958,460,000

https://www.nacubo.org/-/media/Nacubo/Documents/research/2022-NTSE-Public-Tables--Endowment-Market-Values--FINAL.ashx?la=en&hash=362DC3F9BDEB1DF0C22B05D544AD24D1C44E318D

both are in the middle of capital campaigns with a $1.5 billion goal for SMU and $1 billion for TCU....in the last few SMU tends to set the goal and get just past it while TCU tends to set the goal and go well past it for both of them to end with similar dollars (says something about the overall style differences of TCU vs SMU)

I would say that TCU has more of their overall campus built out while SMU still has some major building projects they are doing (somehow) and that is probably related to SMU being even more squeezed for space than TCU

SMU has the law school and a school of engineering while TCU has their new medical school (that needs to be built out) and their engineering is still only a department.....SMU is about $49 million in research with TCU $15.3.......both are putting a lot more emphasis on that

I would say that overall TCU has spent their money better and they are in a better position, but SMU is making some noise......but TCU has plenty left to pull from and TCU has shown the ability to do that and to deploy those resources more effectively IMO 

TCU has been around for 150 years now. SMU for just over a hundred. I'm not sure what the endowment really has to do with anything - especially when you consider how much SMU spends that doesn’t go into that number.

SMU is a better school in a better city with a much nicer campus. If you take the football programs away it's honestly a joke of a comparison. 

But, you know, I'll give them credit. They've been an awesome program for 20 years now. We have a lot of catching up to do. It remains to be seen whether SMU can mirror some of that success. This is a big step in the right direction. 

[statsman 5,698]

24 minutes ago, Satchel said:

He may have been speaking hyperbolically, but I just heard Urban Meyer pick Texas to be in the CFP, “because they are loaded with 5* athletes at every position.” Isn’t this evidence of UT fully leveraging its financial advantage?

That’s evidence of Meyer trying to set up his next job. 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,908]

31 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

lets be honest this is a bit like jumbo fisher talking shit about TCU getting beat badly by UGA after beating Michigan and playing in the NC and ending the season ranked #2 with a head coach in his first year there (that took over a program with a ton or resources) while jumbo is one of the highest paid coaches in the game, has unlimited resources, and is in the SEC SEC SEC.....and shit the bed and missed a bowl game and lost to App State at home in his 5th season after taking over a program that was hardly on life support and after having the highest priced freshman class in the history of evAR

you can't talk about the conference you are in while only concentrating on the best programs and ignoring the rest and you also can't talk about a conference you are in without paying attention to your own program (unless you are 85% of the Big 10 and aggy)

and if Texas was not shitting the bed in the Big 12 and OU was not "big gaming it" perhaps the Big 12 would be a bit better in those stats.....it was the big boys in the Big 12 that let the Big 12 down if you want to look at what Clemson did for the ACC

and with basketball it was mostly historically strong programs winning those NCs while in the Big 12 you have Baylor getting one and you also have Tech about 10 seconds and an unfortunate touch of an out of bounds ball from winning one

 

What the fuck are you babbling about? If Texas and OU didn't shit the bed? Yeah maybe the Big 12 would have been better, and still they would be losing the teams that carried them. It comes down to the bellcows and the Big 12 are losing their two biggest ones. Are you honestly trying to argue that TCU or Okie Lite are going to forge ahead and win a college football national championship? Shit, I'd love it, but it's not happening. But Clemson might, FSU might, Miami might. 

And in college basketball it was the historically strong programs winning national championships? Well no shit, and UNC, Duke, Cuse, Ville etc are going to keep winning.....will Baylor and Tech? Fucking doubt it

[Steel Shank 9,563]

1 hour ago, cochamps said:

ACC schools get to keep SMU's money plus the discounts given by the Bay Area Bombers.

I prefer the Kansas City Bombers.

[ButtFumble 5,291]

46 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

 

What the fuck are you babbling about? If Texas and OU didn't shit the bed? Yeah maybe the Big 12 would have been better, and still they would be losing the teams that carried them. It comes down to the bellcows and the Big 12 are losing their two biggest ones. Are you honestly trying to argue that TCU or Okie Lite are going to forge ahead and win a college football national championship? Shit, I'd love it, but it's not happening. But Clemson might, FSU might, Miami might. 

And in college basketball it was the historically strong programs winning national championships? Well no shit, and UNC, Duke, Cuse, Ville etc are going to keep winning.....will Baylor and Tech? Fucking doubt it

yea and you are trying to argue that a conference overall is much better because one bellcow in football performed better than Texas and OU and a couple of basketball programs did so 5+ years back at this point.....and you are somehow pretending that those bellcows in the ACC are not doing anything and everything they can to GTFOO the ACC ASAP

and you are pretending that the bellcows in your conference talking weekly about how they want to GTFO is not harmful to those bellcows and even more harmful to the other programs in the conference

you are also arguing about the strength of a conference that just "strengthened" themselves by adding two programs 3 time zones away that suck in all the major sports, hate the NIL, and that agreed to take shit money for 7 years just to get in and another program that basically paid their way in

at least the Big 12 was able to add 4 PAC programs in a package at a full distribution and they have a 6 year contract to prove something before they go to market again while the ACC will still have FSU and Clemson and now UNC crying to get out ASAP and playing Olympic sports in Dallas

neither conference is sitting pretty, but at least one stabilized themselves, found out they are still competitive market wise with the other even after losing their top programs, and added programs in a way that brings stability while the other is just entering the "we want out" shit storm from the bellweathers (one of which FSU has not done shit recently) and they are locked into a long term shit contract and added dead weight across the country to try and fleece them along with SMU (that we are all suppose to pretend will immediately perform like TCU when they have not even used their vast resources to dominate the shit conferences they have been in)

Edited September 2, 2023 by ButtFumble

[ztejas 44,286]

4 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

yea and you are trying to argue that a conference overall is much better because one bellcow in football performed better than Texas and OU and a couple of basketball programs did so 5+ years back at this point.....and you are somehow pretending that those bellcows in the ACC are not doing anything and everything they can to GTFOO the ACC ASAP

and you are not pretending that the bellcows in your conference talking weekly about how they want to GTFO is not harmful to those bellcows and even more harmful to the other programs in the conference

you are also arguing about the strength of a conference that just "strengthened" themselves by adding two programs 3 time zones away that suck in all the major sports, hate the NIL, and that agreed to take shit money for 7 years just to get in and another program that basically paid their way in

at least the Big 12 was able to add 4 PAC programs in a package at a full distribution and they have a 6 year contract to prove something before they go to market again while the ACC will still have FSU and Clemson and now UNC crying to get out ASAP and playing Olympic sports in Dallas

neither conference is sitting pretty, but at least one stabilized themselves, found out they are still competitive market wise with the other even after losing their top programs, and added programs in a way that brings stability while the other is just entering the "we want out" shit storm from the bellweathers (one of which FSU has not done shit recently) and they are locked into a long term shit contract and added dead weight across the country to try and fleece them along with SMU (that we are all suppose to pretend will immediately perform like TCU when they have not even used their vast resources to dominate the shit conferences they have been in)

I don't agree entirely with Doc's stance - I think they will be very comparable leagues between both sports - but let's keep in mind that there is going to be a lot more unknown going forward with the B12 than the ACC. 

For starters - Texas and OU have dragged that conference for years now. We'll see what happens with $ and recruiting once they leave but I guarantee you it isn't going to be positive. 

Second - the new B12 consists of a lot of flash in the pan-y type success over recent years while the ACC has much more traditional power in both sports. That isn't to say that history is a great predictor of future success, but it does cast some doubt on whether, say - Baylor basketball and TCU football can keep winning at the clip they have been. I'd feel much more confident in predicting that Louisville basketball and SMU football get back to respectable levels pretty fucking quickly than assuming that Texas Tech will ever make another basketball title game or Okie lite will ever be a national football contender again. 

But we'll see how it shakes out. I do think the B12 should be poised for more stability in the next 5, 10 years and that may be worth more than I think. 

[ButtFumble 5,291]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

@ButtFumble repped for bringing some good info to the table but I'm going to nitpick a couple things.

SMU is in the middle of a $100M stadium and facilities renovation. We're going to stack up just fine. And you sort of hinted at this but SMU has a much better basketball arena and facilities. It's going to look even better when ACC schools come play in it. 

TCU has been around for 150 years now. SMU for just over a hundred. I'm not sure what the endowment really has to do with anything - especially when you consider how much SMU spends that doesn’t go into that number.

SMU is a better school in a better city with a much nicer campus. If you take the football programs away it's honestly a joke of a comparison. 

But, you know, I'll give them credit. They've been an awesome program for 20 years now. We have a lot of catching up to do. It remains to be seen whether SMU can mirror some of that success. This is a big step in the right direction. 

I understand that SMU is expanding their stajium, but it will never match TCU and TCU is done with theirs and it is paid for and has been for a while

and the TCU basketball arena had a very nice renovation done to it....SMU is extremely nice as well, but I would not give an edge to either and I would give a big edge to the performance of TCU and I am sure TCU is happy with who comes to play in theirs

and I bring up endowments because that is what pays a lot of bills for a lot of things at private schools and people seem to be implying that TCU is tapped out or maxed out and that SMU is just getting started tapping their donors.....but that is not true TCU has been tapping their for sports for a lot longer and their major projects are done and more importantly TCU has not been doing that to the detriment of academics they have supported both at a very high level and nothing suggest that will change.....and in fact I would say that TCU has overall done a better job of supporting both

https://www.nacubo.org/-/media/Nacubo/Documents/research/FY02-Institutional-Listing.ashx?la=en&hash=4CF4497E018E3DF361FA13B2078ED7BCB8F1D8DF

that is the 2002 endowment numbers, but they have 2001 on there as well

2001 for TCU $913,072,000.....SMU $872,388,000........2002 TCU $829,516,000.....SMU $831,116,000 so bad year of returns for TCU.....but still 20 years later TCU is not $442,354,000 ahead after a year of good returns for both

just for fun tossing in Baylor 2001 $614,480,000 and 2002 $584,333,000 and now 2022 Baylor $1,970,511,000

and Baylor has the better football facilities, has baseball, and they are in the process of building a new arena

and in the highly flawed US News Baylor and SMU are very close and TCU is not far behind and I have seem some past business rankings that have TCU equal or better than SMU I would hardly say that one is miles ahead of the other academically (I will say that I think the ACC will help SMU academically because they can recruit more from the east while currently SMU actually recruits the west coast much better than the east)....I feel once the TCU Medical School gets built out that will help them a great deal and as they focus more on research they will probably go with a full engineering school and that will also help them

 

[ztejas 44,286]

7 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

I understand that SMU is expanding their stajium, but it will never match TCU and TCU is done with theirs and it is paid for and has been for a while

and the TCU basketball arena had a very nice renovation done to it....SMU is extremely nice as well, but I would not give an edge to either and I would give a big edge to the performance of TCU and I am sure TCU is happy with who comes to play in theirs

and I bring up endowments because that is what pays a lot of bills for a lot of things at private schools and people seem to be implying that TCU is tapped out or maxed out and that SMU is just getting started tapping their donors.....but that is not true TCU has been tapping their for sports for a lot longer and their major projects are done and more importantly TCU has not been doing that to the detriment of academics they have supported both at a very high level and nothing suggest that will change.....and in fact I would say that TCU has overall done a better job of supporting both

https://www.nacubo.org/-/media/Nacubo/Documents/research/FY02-Institutional-Listing.ashx?la=en&hash=4CF4497E018E3DF361FA13B2078ED7BCB8F1D8DF

that is the 2002 endowment numbers, but they have 2001 on there as well

2001 for TCU $913,072,000.....SMU $872,388,000........2002 TCU $829,516,000.....SMU $831,116,000 so bad year of returns for TCU.....but still 20 years later TCU is not $442,354,000 ahead after a year of good returns for both

just for fun tossing in Baylor 2001 $614,480,000 and 2002 $584,333,000 and now 2022 Baylor $1,970,511,000

and Baylor has the better football facilities, has baseball, and they are in the process of building a new arena

and in the highly flawed US News Baylor and SMU are very close and TCU is not far behind and I have seem some past business rankings that have TCU equal or better than SMU I would hardly say that one is miles ahead of the other academically (I will say that I think the ACC will help SMU academically because they can recruit more from the east while currently SMU actually recruits the west coast much better than the east)....I feel once the TCU Medical School gets built out that will help them a great deal and as they focus more on research they will probably go with a full engineering school and that will also help them

 

I'm just curious - when is the last time you walked around either campus?

[ztejas 44,286]

Btw, here's a fun, quick one:

Edited September 2, 2023 by ztejas

[LTtxfan 50,036]

SAT talk...  Yuk

[statsman 5,698]

49 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

yea and you are trying to argue that a conference overall is much better because one bellcow in football performed better than Texas and OU and a couple of basketball programs did so 5+ years back at this point.....and you are somehow pretending that those bellcows in the ACC are not doing anything and everything they can to GTFOO the ACC ASAP

and you are pretending that the bellcows in your conference talking weekly about how they want to GTFO is not harmful to those bellcows and even more harmful to the other programs in the conference

you are also arguing about the strength of a conference that just "strengthened" themselves by adding two programs 3 time zones away that suck in all the major sports, hate the NIL, and that agreed to take shit money for 7 years just to get in and another program that basically paid their way in

at least the Big 12 was able to add 4 PAC programs in a package at a full distribution and they have a 6 year contract to prove something before they go to market again while the ACC will still have FSU and Clemson and now UNC crying to get out ASAP and playing Olympic sports in Dallas

neither conference is sitting pretty, but at least one stabilized themselves, found out they are still competitive market wise with the other even after losing their top programs, and added programs in a way that brings stability while the other is just entering the "we want out" shit storm from the bellweathers (one of which FSU has not done shit recently) and they are locked into a long term shit contract and added dead weight across the country to try and fleece them along with SMU (that we are all suppose to pretend will immediately perform like TCU when they have not even used their vast resources to dominate the shit conferences they have been in)

As far as Cal and Stanford not figuring NIL out…

I don’t know what your university allegiance is, but is there any B12 school, past or present, that you would recommend your child go to for a big NIL deal, if they also have a full ride, no NIL offer from Stanford? None for me. 

[ButtFumble 5,291]

16 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I don't agree entirely with Doc's stance - I think they will be very comparable leagues between both sports - but let's keep in mind that there is going to be a lot more unknown going forward with the B12 than the ACC. 

For starters - Texas and OU have dragged that conference for years now. We'll see what happens with $ and recruiting once they leave but I guarantee you it isn't going to be positive. 

Second - the new B12 consists of a lot of flash in the pan-y type success over recent years while the ACC has much more traditional power in both sports. That isn't to say that history is a great predictor of future success, but it does cast some doubt on whether, say - Baylor basketball and TCU football can keep winning at the clip they have been. I'd feel much more confident in predicting that Louisville basketball and SMU football get back to respectable levels pretty fucking quickly than assuming that Texas Tech will ever make another basketball title game or Okie lite will ever be a national football contender again. 

But we'll see how it shakes out. I do think the B12 should be poised for more stability in the next 5, 10 years and that may be worth more than I think. 

to the first sentence I see the complete opposite

I think the Big 12 is the most stable it has been in 8 or more years.....that does not mean they are in a great position by any stretch, but here is how I see it

1. the new TV contract for the Big 12 is basically about a $1 to $2 million dollar immediate bump in TV money over the final years of what the current Big 12 deal pays.....this means that the Big 12 which paid more than the ACC in 2022 per member will have a blip up in TV money and then scale up from there for the next 6 years of that deal (that starts after next year)....so the the Big 12 without Texas and OU should remain competitive money wise with the ACC which is a pretty big accomplishment

2. unfortunately I do not see that Texas has dragged the Big 12 for the last few years....if they had Texas would not have churned through coaches and lost to Kansas several times

3. I feel that the instability of Texas and OU always having one foot out the door hurt both and especially Texas, but it hurt the rest of the Big 12 more.....you know Tech, Baylor, TCU, and OkState were constantly having recruits asking them if they came to those schools would they be playing Texas and OU in the future and what would happen to those programs and the conference of those schools left.....there is not a fucking chance that is healthy....no matter what those questions have now been answered....we all will await to see how those answers play into future recruiting for the Big 12

but on the flip side the ACC is just getting into that shit storm.....you know damn well that 50% plus of the ACC is now having to answer those same questions and that looks to be poised to drag out a hell of a lot longer than it did for the Big 12.....that is not a good thing for the conference overall

and so far the answer for the Big 12 was a competitive TV contract with the ACC, 3 G5 programs and BYU....and then the ability to take 4 programs from the PAC 12.....while the answer for the ACC is to fleece Stanford and Cal and to give SMU a major opportunity 

4. we are in a new era of the playoffs as well and I think that will help the Big 12 more than the ACC.....I think the ACC will still get Clemson in of course, but FSU had 4 losing seasons in a row prior to last year and they would have missed the playoffs last year as #13

I think the Big 12 has a better chance to get a 2nd team in the playoffs more consistently and they also will benefit from the fact that they should get one in every year no matter what (barring a disaster that could happen).....I think this is where the more consistent strength of the Big 12 in the middle of the conference will pay off....I think that Utah will be a big benefit there as well that could even help the Big 12 get 3 teams in occasionally

5. I think the more spread out recruiting will help the Big 12.....California IMO is wide open I am not sure that recruits will be flocking to USC and UCLA to freeze their asses off in the Big 10 playing "cement shoes" football that puts people to sleep more than MLB baseball

I think Cal and Stanford are dead in football.....so that means that AU, ASU, BYU, and Utah have come real opportunities and perhaps even Colorado especially of Colorado can get a few out of Texas

6. I will 100% agree that Big 12 basketball is not blue bloods other than Kansas and there are consistency issues, but Utah and Arizona can help with that and perhaps UH can manage to not fuck something up 

 

overall I think the shit storm and instability for the ACC is just kicking in while it has been settled and settled a lot better than about anyone thought it would be for the Big 12....I think SMU has a chance to help the ACC and they can't help but help themselves, but I also think that Cal and Stanford just add to the shit storm that the ACC is about to face

[statsman 5,698]

31 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

I understand that SMU is expanding their stajium, but it will never match TCU and TCU is done with theirs and it is paid for and has been for a while

and the TCU basketball arena had a very nice renovation done to it....SMU is extremely nice as well, but I would not give an edge to either and I would give a big edge to the performance of TCU and I am sure TCU is happy with who comes to play in theirs

and I bring up endowments because that is what pays a lot of bills for a lot of things at private schools and people seem to be implying that TCU is tapped out or maxed out and that SMU is just getting started tapping their donors.....but that is not true TCU has been tapping their for sports for a lot longer and their major projects are done and more importantly TCU has not been doing that to the detriment of academics they have supported both at a very high level and nothing suggest that will change.....and in fact I would say that TCU has overall done a better job of supporting both

https://www.nacubo.org/-/media/Nacubo/Documents/research/FY02-Institutional-Listing.ashx?la=en&hash=4CF4497E018E3DF361FA13B2078ED7BCB8F1D8DF

that is the 2002 endowment numbers, but they have 2001 on there as well

2001 for TCU $913,072,000.....SMU $872,388,000........2002 TCU $829,516,000.....SMU $831,116,000 so bad year of returns for TCU.....but still 20 years later TCU is not $442,354,000 ahead after a year of good returns for both

just for fun tossing in Baylor 2001 $614,480,000 and 2002 $584,333,000 and now 2022 Baylor $1,970,511,000

and Baylor has the better football facilities, has baseball, and they are in the process of building a new arena

and in the highly flawed US News Baylor and SMU are very close and TCU is not far behind and I have seem some past business rankings that have TCU equal or better than SMU I would hardly say that one is miles ahead of the other academically (I will say that I think the ACC will help SMU academically because they can recruit more from the east while currently SMU actually recruits the west coast much better than the east)....I feel once the TCU Medical School gets built out that will help them a great deal and as they focus more on research they will probably go with a full engineering school and that will also help them

 

I have been to TCU’s Stadium several times. It sucks. They amplify the sound from the band, because they want more noise than the band and crowd can generate. Just a shitty scene. 

[ButtFumble 5,291]

8 minutes ago, statsman said:

As far as Cal and Stanford not figuring NIL out…

I don’t know what your university allegiance is, but is there any B12 school, past or present, that you would recommend your child go to for a big NIL deal, if they also have a full ride, no NIL offer from Stanford? None for me. 

well perhaps you and I understand that idea that college athletes rarely go pro.....but players that get heavily recruited do not go to college to play academics they go to play sports

that is the sad reality that has us in a 684 page thread with 34152  replies talking about Stanford and Cal in the ATLANTIC COAST conference for $15 million per year and SMU in there giving up TV money for 9 years

if athletes gave a shit about education the Ivy League would still be kicking the shit out of everyone and Cal and Stanford would be some of the top programs in the USA along with GaTech, Vandy, Duke, and Northwestern

Edited September 2, 2023 by ButtFumble

[Al_4_ISU 12,665]

The ACC has its 3 top programs screaming that they’re out the door. They’ve set up 15 different revenue side deals. Half of the league can’t get 40K people to a game. Nothing about this league is stable.

The Big 12 is nowhere near the SEC or Big 10, but they’re in markedly better shape than the ACC.

SMU would take the Big 12 over the ACC every day.

[statsman 5,698]

5 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

 

2. unfortunately I do not see that Texas has dragged the Big 12 for the last few years....if they had Texas would not have churned through coaches and lost to Kansas several times

Tell me- how many B12 ESPN game days and Fox Big Noons didn’t involve Texas and/or OU?

[statsman 5,698]

3 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The ACC has its 3 top programs screaming that they’re out the door. They’ve set up 15 different revenue side deals. Half of the league can’t get 40K people to a game. Nothing about this league is stable.

The Big 12 is nowhere near the SEC or Big 10, but they’re in markedly better shape than the ACC.

SMU would take the Big 12 over the ACC every day.

Yep, they sure would. But the B12 would never invite them, because TCU, BU and UH want to keep the recruits and exposure to themselves. So, SMU joined the ACC and will program games against FSU, UNC, Clemson, etc. against B12 games, and all those ACC schools now get to recruit the state, just like all the B12 schools. 
 
Well done, Big 12, well done. 

[ztejas 44,286]

6 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

2. unfortunately I do not see that Texas has dragged the Big 12 for the last few years....if they had Texas would not have churned through coaches and lost to Kansas several times

I'm not taking you seriously if you're going to make comments like this on a Texas board. 

"Several times"

Get a fucking grip, dude. Then again you think that TCU has a better campus than SMU.

I asked you when the last time you had been to either campus was and you ignored me. That tells me that you haven't been to either recently and as such you probably are unaware that SMU blows TCU out of the fucking water.

Maybe you're also unaware that SMU is in the heart of the city that is the driving force behind the 4th biggest MSA in the United States. 

[Blotto 24,044]

16 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

SAT talk...  Yuk

This entire catfight is something. they should just skip to the pay stub portion of the argument.

[ztejas 44,286]

11 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The ACC has its 3 top programs screaming that they’re out the door. They’ve set up 15 different revenue side deals. Half of the league can’t get 40K people to a game. Nothing about this league is stable.

The Big 12 is nowhere near the SEC or Big 10, but they’re in markedly better shape than the ACC.

SMU would take the Big 12 over the ACC every day.

One conference has two absolute powerhouses leaving one doesn't.

Good luck. 

[ButtFumble 5,291]

4 minutes ago, statsman said:

Tell me- how many B12 ESPN game days and Fox Big Noons didn’t involve Texas and/or OU?

 

2010	Mack Brown	5–7	2–6	6th (South)
2011	Mack Brown	8–5	4–5	T–6th	W Holiday
2012	Mack Brown	9–4	5–4	T–3rd	W Alamo	18	19
2013	Mack Brown	8–5	7–2	T–2nd	L Alamo
Charlie Strong (Big 12 Conference) (2014–2016)
2014	Charlie Strong	6–7	5–4	T–6th	L Texas
2015	Charlie Strong	5–7	4–5	T–5th
2016	Charlie Strong	5–7	3–6	T–6th
Tom Herman (Big 12 Conference) (2017–2020)
2017	Tom Herman	7–6	5–4	T–4th	W Texas
2018	Tom Herman	10–4	7–2	2nd	W Sugar†	9	9
2019	Tom Herman	8–5	5–4	T–3rd	W Alamo		25
2020	Tom Herman	7–3	5–3	3rd	W Alamo	20	19
Steve Sarkisian (Big 12 Conference) (2021–present)
2021	Steve Sarkisian	5–7	3–6	7th
2022	Steve Sarkisian	8–5	6–3	3rd	L Alamo	25	25

 

only someone with an aggy ring thinks the above is "dragging  a conference"

the only thing dragging for not winning the conference one time in 13 fucking years is ASS....having at least two conference losses every year for 13 years sucks cocks when you have what Texas has to offer.....it is not like Texas has money and is in college station wearing overalls, milk man uniforms, and toy soldier garb with dudes for cheerleaders and jizz jars......if the above is the Texas standard for dragging a conference then Texas is fucked in the SEC SEC SEC

fucking shit have some fucking standards

 

 

 

 

[Al_4_ISU 12,665]

Yep, they sure would. But the B12 would never invite them, because TCU, BU and UH want to keep the recruits and exposure to themselves. So, SMU joined the ACC and will program games against FSU, UNC, Clemson, etc. against B12 games, and all those ACC schools now get to recruit the state, just like all the B12 schools. 
 
Well done, Big 12, well done. 

Those schools are gonna be in the ACC for 5 years, maybe. Once they joined the SEC they’d have the same opportunity. Even if they stay in the ACC they go to Dallas maybe twice a decade.

You really don’t believe this changes anything, you’re just trying to shit on the Big 12. If the Big 12 had added SMU you’d be ripping the league for adding a school that has no fanbase, hasn’t been relevant since the Reagan administration, and adds nothing in terms of new markets.

The act is very transparent

[JBJ 3,830]

11 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I asked you when the last time you had been to either campus was and you ignored me. That tells me that you haven't been to either recently and as such you probably are unaware that SMU blows TCU out of the fucking water.

It's been about 3 years since I've been to TCU and more like 5 years for SMU, but this statement is hilariously wrong.

Are you comparing UP to south FtW, or campus to campus?

Edited September 2, 2023 by JBJ

[Mitch Cumsteen 19,001]

Is butt fumble a helobious sock? 

[ztejas 44,286]

2 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

 

2010	Mack Brown	5–7	2–6	6th (South)
2011	Mack Brown	8–5	4–5	T–6th	W Holiday
2012	Mack Brown	9–4	5–4	T–3rd	W Alamo	18	19
2013	Mack Brown	8–5	7–2	T–2nd	L Alamo
Charlie Strong (Big 12 Conference) (2014–2016)
2014	Charlie Strong	6–7	5–4	T–6th	L Texas
2015	Charlie Strong	5–7	4–5	T–5th
2016	Charlie Strong	5–7	3–6	T–6th
Tom Herman (Big 12 Conference) (2017–2020)
2017	Tom Herman	7–6	5–4	T–4th	W Texas
2018	Tom Herman	10–4	7–2	2nd	W Sugar†	9	9
2019	Tom Herman	8–5	5–4	T–3rd	W Alamo		25
2020	Tom Herman	7–3	5–3	3rd	W Alamo	20	19
Steve Sarkisian (Big 12 Conference) (2021–present)
2021	Steve Sarkisian	5–7	3–6	7th
2022	Steve Sarkisian	8–5	6–3	3rd	L Alamo	25	25

 

only someone with an aggy ring thinks the above is "dragging  a conference"

the only thing dragging for not winning the conference one time in 13 fucking years is ASS....having at least two conference losses every year for 13 years sucks cocks when you have what Texas has to offer.....it is not like Texas has money and is in college station wearing overalls, milk man uniforms, and toy soldier garb with dudes for cheerleaders and jizz jars......if the above is the Texas standard for dragging a conference then Texas is fucked in the SEC SEC SEC

fucking shit have some fucking standards

 

 

 

 

Are you having like a full fucking mental breakdown right now dude? 

I hope you're doing okay, man - get some help or log off or pass out for the night or something. 

I don't think anyone here is attacking you, we were just trying to talk ball. 

I don't know you but I hope you're doing okay as a person. I hope everyone here is doing well. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,665]

One conference has two absolute powerhouses leaving one doesn't.
Good luck. 

As of today. If you think Clemson and FSU are long for the ACC, I have some ocean front property in Howard County, Iowa to sell you.

I get it, you’re an SMU guy and this is a great move for them. The idea that adding SMU to the ACC is some kind of genius stroke is silly.

I think the ACC can survive a few losses if the second tier schools don’t get nervous. But it’s gonna be the 4th place conference. Which is a viable existence and a huge upgrade for the Ponies, but this was not a missed opportunity by the Big 12 in any sense.

[ztejas 44,286]

4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It's been about 3 years since I've been to TCU and more like 5 years for SMU, but this statement is hilariously wrong.

Are you comparing UP to south FtW, or campus to campus?

You're taking a brave stance by aligning yourself with this guy. 

[ButtFumble 5,291]

Just now, ztejas said:

Are you having like a full fucking mental breakdown right now dude? 

I hope you're doing okay, man - get some help or log off or pass out for the night or something. 

I don't think anyone here is attacking you, we were just trying to talk ball. 

I don't know you but I hope you're doing okay as a person. I hope everyone here is doing well. 

why would I be having a mental break down?

I am not feeling attacked at all although I am a bit embarrassed that apparently the standard for Texas football is to talk shit about "dragging a conference" while having at least two conference losses every year for 13 straight years and never winning the conference once....worse yet lacking any objectivity at all that not only has TCU destroyed anything that SMU has done athletically for over two decades, but trying to shit on TCU when TCU has done more recently than Texas has.....or acting like SMU is suddenly going to wake up and dominate because they got in the ACC where the top programs are talking about leaving daily and in addition because "SMU has money" while Texas as much as anyone should know that money does not equal wins.....I mean fuck even if it did for Texas we can still point to aggy and se it doesn't

or now some claiming that Baylor, TCU an UH should feel bad for not wanting SMU in the conference....when we know the answer from Texas to UH being in the conference much less SMU was a massive FUCK NO....and of course that answer of FUCK NO was the 100% correct answer and it should have remained that even after Texas and OU left.....because recreating the SWC is just recreating a conference waiting to die a sad slow death

[nnm 38,004]

13 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It's been about 3 years since I've been to TCU and more like 5 years for SMU, but this statement is hilariously wrong.

I’ve been to both this year. You are correct. 

[ztejas 44,286]

5 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

As of today. If you think Clemson and FSU are long for the ACC, I have some ocean front property in Howard County, Iowa to sell you.

I get it, you’re an SMU guy and this is a great move for them. The idea that adding SMU to the ACC is some kind of genius stroke is silly.

I think the ACC can survive a few losses if the second tier schools don’t get nervous. But it’s gonna be the 4th place conference. Which is a viable existence and a huge upgrade for the Ponies, but this was not a missed opportunity by the Big 12 in any sense.

Texas and OU are gone from the B12 after this season. We'll see how long Clemson and FSU stick around but their exit is more problematic and will likely take awhile to manufacture.

I'm actually double biased because I'm a die hard Texas fan that went to SMU. So you should really hate me. 

We'll see what happens in further realignment. Like I said - you are entering uncharted waters with Texas and OU leaving. I think that is going to fuck up your conference a lot more than you think it's going to, but we'll see.

As it stands we have 2/2 and the rest. We may wind up with a power 3 or we may settle in to a power 4. 

[ztejas 44,286]

2 minutes ago, nnm said:

I’ve been to both this year. You are correct. 

Again, pretty sure you're a TCU fan. 

[JBJ 3,830]

15 minutes ago, ztejas said:

You're taking a brave stance by aligning yourself with this guy. 

I see bullshit and I call bullshit.  Nothing more.   

I think the move is good for SMU and the ACC is potentially an overall better conference if they can keep the band together.  I do think the B12 is more stable for now.   But I'm not sure how Kansas feels about that and things can change quickly.  And I'm not even sure who the #2 media brand in the Big 12 is behind them, which is kind if a scary thought when media contracts come back around.

Edited September 2, 2023 by JBJ

[Al_4_ISU 12,665]

Texas and OU are gone from the B12 after this season. We'll see how long Clemson and FSU stick around but their exit is more problematic and will likely take awhile to manufacture.
I'm actually double biased because I'm a die hard Texas fan that went to SMU. So you should really hate me. 
We'll see what happens in further realignment. Like I said - you are entering uncharted waters with Texas and OU leaving. I think that is going to fuck up your conference a lot more than you think it's going to, but we'll see.
As it stands we have 2/2 and the rest. We may wind up with a power 3 or we may settle in to a power 4. 

If it’s 3, it’s the ACC breaking up. But I think SMU could play their way in to the Big 12. I do think 4 AQ leagues is more likely after today because the ACC has built some critical mass.

Also, this is a phenomenal move for SMU.

That said, ACC is currently a train wreck. The Big 12 has already lost their blue bloods and has built their life in the aftermath. The ACC is waiting for that axe to fall. That’s a huge advantage for the Big 12.

[nnm 38,004]

2 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Again, pretty sure you're a TCU fan. 

I used to be a TCU fan. 
The TCU campus has had massive upgrades in every corner over the last 20 years, fueled by the increased attention from football. It certainly does not take a back seat to SMU. SMU’s campus is nice, but not any better than TCU’S.

I like SMU. I spent half my undergrad there because I dated a SMU girl all 4 years. This was during the death penalty years. It’s a nice school, nice campus. I have reason to be on campus at both schools a couple of times a year for events or recruiting. I’m extremely skeptical that it can have a football resurgence, even with ACC membership  

As a side note, both TCU and SMU are massively overpriced these days. 

[ztejas 44,286]

7 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If it’s 3, it’s the ACC breaking up. But I think SMU could play their way in to the Big 12. I do think 4 AQ leagues is more likely after today because the ACC has built some critical mass.

Also, this is a phenomenal move for SMU.

That said, ACC is currently a train wreck. The Big 12 has already lost their blue bloods and has built their life in the aftermath. The ACC is waiting for that axe to fall. That’s a huge advantage for the Big 12.

I totally agree that if it's 3 the ACC is the first to fall. But SMU had to make the jump - and this should put us in a better bargaining position if it turns into a bidding war to join the P3.

That said - I think as currently constructed the ACC has a higher ceiling across both sports. 

We'll see what happens. Idk. I think it's gonna be fun as fuck. 

[ztejas 44,286]

6 minutes ago, nnm said:

SMU’s campus is nice, but not any better than TCU’S.

I can't come to terms with this. This is so off the mark. Understand I have nothing against you as a poster on a personal level but this makes me think extremely less of you intelligence-wise.

Granted I'm not really sure where you went to school. Texas - I guess? Doesn't matter. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,665]

I totally agree that if it's 3 the ACC is the first to fall. But SMU had to make the jump - and this should put us in a better bargaining position if it turns into a bidding war to join the P3.
That said - I think as currently constructed the ACC has a higher ceiling across both sports. 
We'll see what happens. Idk. I think it's gonna be fun as fuck. 

It’s undeniably the right move for SMU.

[nnm 38,004]

4 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I can't come to terms with this. This is so off the mark. Understand I have nothing against you as a poster on a personal level but this makes me think extremely less of you intelligence-wise.

Granted I'm not really sure where you went to school. Texas - I guess? Doesn't matter. 

It was markedly better in the 80s. Not these days. And I personally like FW a lot more than Dallas. Even though I now live in ETX and spend more time in Dallas.

Having the 43 presidential library is a major plus with no counter in FW. Otherwise red brick vs. yellow brick. Criminally overpriced tuition. Same Greek-dominated student life. Religious affiliation/name with completely secular educational experience. Tomato tomahto. 

[ztejas 44,286]

3 minutes ago, nnm said:

It was markedly better in the 80s. Not these days. And I personally like FW a lot more than Dallas. Even though I now live in ETX and spend more time in Dallas.

Having the 43 presidential library is a major plus with no counter in FW. Otherwise red brick vs. yellow brick. Criminally overpriced tuition. Same Greek-dominated student life. Religious affiliation/name with completely secular educational experience. Tomato tomahto. 

Still waiting for you to tell me where you have a degree from.

[Lymanward 55]

14 hours ago, Napoleon said:

This aged well over 3 weeks.

 

This aged well over 3 weeks.

 

This still holds true.

 

 

Equestrian team at SMU is the second largest in the entire athletic department behind football.

TITLE IX

That is why schools in the south have added equestrian teams. Plus, if you are rich enough to compete, you are probably bringing your own horse to school and you are used to paying for the horse’s upkeep yourself, so the scholarships just cover tuition, room, & board.

Huh? My point was only that there was no large conference bidding war for SMU. They were there yesterday and would have been there 2 years from now if the ACC required their services. No aging well about it. BTW, this was a bold and savvy move by SMU and something they had to do and they found a way to do it. Certain risks involved but languishing in the AAC was death.

[Lou_Sassle 2,995]

8 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

why would I be having a mental break down?

I am not feeling attacked at all although I am a bit embarrassed that apparently the standard for Texas football is to talk shit about "dragging a conference" while having at least two conference losses every year for 13 straight years and never winning the conference once....worse yet lacking any objectivity at all that not only has TCU destroyed anything that SMU has done athletically for over two decades, but trying to shit on TCU when TCU has done more recently than Texas has.....or acting like SMU is suddenly going to wake up and dominate because they got in the ACC where the top programs are talking about leaving daily and in addition because "SMU has money" while Texas as much as anyone should know that money does not equal wins.....I mean fuck even if it did for Texas we can still point to aggy and se it doesn't

or now some claiming that Baylor, TCU an UH should feel bad for not wanting SMU in the conference....when we know the answer from Texas to UH being in the conference much less SMU was a massive FUCK NO....and of course that answer of FUCK NO was the 100% correct answer and it should have remained that even after Texas and OU left.....because recreating the SWC is just recreating a conference waiting to die a sad slow death

Buddy... you are just not getting this "dragging the conference" comment, and I'm not sure if it's because you're purposefully being obtuse or you're just a fucking tard. The comment has nothing to do with wins/losses... it's about conference exposure and monetary worth. 

[nnm 38,004]

9 hours ago, ztejas said:

Still waiting for you to tell me where you have a degree from.

One of my degrees is from TCU. I’m no longer a fan of the university, its leadership, or its sports teams. 

[ChickenSandwich 9,982]

14 hours ago, Steel Shank said:

If your women are running a little hot, let me know and I'll make a run up there and "address" things.

You know, for old time sakes.

 

[camel at sea 589]

11 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The ACC has its 3 top programs screaming that they’re out the door. They’ve set up 15 different revenue side deals. Half of the league can’t get 40K people to a game. Nothing about this league is stable.

The Big 12 is nowhere near the SEC or Big 10, but they’re in markedly better shape than the ACC.

SMU would take the Big 12 over the ACC every day.

Yeah, this argument reminds me of the Big 12 vs. PAC argument from about 2 years ago.  The ACC has the better brands at the very top.  Those better brands also want to leave.  The Big 12 has much better depth of quality 2nd tier programs.  We just saw how that type of head to head played out for the PAC.  So the comparison between the two leagues is and will remain close for now.  The Big 12 is on a stronger position longer term.  

I think the ACC is a great situation for SMU, though, at least short term, and 100% the right choice medium and long term.  They can sell something different to TX recruits, which will probably help them win some head to head recruiting battles.  The bottom of the ACC also offers a lot better opportunities for wins than they'd find in the Big 12.  So the table is set for SMU to win ~8 games per, be ranked occasionally, host ND/FSU/Clemson/etc., and elevate their brand and grow their fanbase.  If they can catch lightning in a bottle and win more than that, I think they'll see a lot of program growth.  After the big ACC brands leave for the SEC/B1G, maybe they've done enough by then to be on the list of programs that the Big 12 would consider poaching.  If not, then being in a reconstructed ACC - post raiding - is still better than the AAC.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,901]

I lived near SMU in the early 80s.  I think the campus was nice then but it really is very nice now.  Plus the areas around it (Know Henderson/Greenville) are MUCH better.

Trajectory has been up.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2023 by The Original Greaser Bob

[ztejas 44,286]

13 hours ago, nnm said:

One of my degrees is from TCU. I’m no longer a fan of the university, its leadership, or its sports teams. 

Yeah - so you're a TCU fan. Thanks. 

Man that loss to CU was amazing today. As was Baylor's loss to Tx St. 

It's ALMOST like SMU is a historical motherfucker when it comes to this shit. Like we have a history of elite college football. 

Let's see what happens. 

[closetohumping 17,830]

So the two alphas of the new big 12 lost today. One to an fcs tram as a 28 point favorite. The other to a pac 12 team that won 1 game last year. 

[mdmost 44,110]

3 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Like we have a history of elite college football. 

You do? You mean 4 years in the early 80s?

[ztejas 44,286]

5 minutes ago, mdmost said:

You do? You mean 4 years in the early 80s?

Texas has won a lot of Doak Walker awards.