Realignment talk not going away

[Al_4_ISU 12,631]

12 hours ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

Let my athletic subscription lapse but this might get me back for a month 

edit: free details 

Perfect.

So it will never happen.

[Al_4_ISU 12,631]

The conference model as we know it has become so god damn stupid.

Blow up conferences, centralize leadership under a single commissioner, and do it on geographical basis just like this model is proposing.  I realize that's no fun to the "you can't play in our treehouse" side of college sports, but this will return the game to what made it popular in the first place while also giving us the legitimate, proven champion we've wanted out of the playoff system.  You play schools close by during the regular season, and if you win, you meet other powers in games that actually matter towards a universally recognized championship.

[statsman 5,693]

So, the presidents of Syracuse and West Virginia say, “This isn’t working! We need a new set up where we are in the top tier!”

mmmm-okay….

['stache 22,145]

Football should have broken off at least 20 years ago, or at least when the questions arose about UCLA having to send its volleyball team to New Jersey for conference matches. It’s like nobody thought that maybe the money making sport that can justify travel costs should be different. Make a billion dollars with Oregon v. Penn State in football, whatever, but don’t make the diving team do that just because. Let everything else play geographically. You would think that two schools from the Pacific Coast joining the Atlantic Coast Conference would finally make people step back and figure out a better way, but nope. Just mind numbingly stupid.

[Vertigo 20,499]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The conference model as we know it has become so god damn stupid.

Blow up conferences, centralize leadership under a single commissioner, and do it on geographical basis just like this model is proposing.  I realize that's no fun to the "you can't play in our treehouse" side of college sports, but this will return the game to what made it popular in the first place while also giving us the legitimate, proven champion we've wanted out of the playoff system.  You play schools close by during the regular season, and if you win, you meet other powers in games that actually matter towards a universally recognized championship.

[Al_4_ISU 12,631]

3 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Exactly.  When I think of Greg Sankey and whoever is in charge of the Big 10 at any given moment, I imagine the Forrest Gump school bus scene.

And in the sports world, this mentality is so specific to American college football.

Edited April 4 by Al_4_ISU

[Vertigo 20,499]

23 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Football should have broken off at least 20 years ago, or at least when the questions arose about UCLA having to send its volleyball team to New Jersey for conference matches. It’s like nobody thought that maybe the money making sport that can justify travel costs should be different. Make a billion dollars with Oregon v. Penn State in football, whatever, but don’t make the diving team do that just because. Let everything else play geographically. You would think that two schools from the Pacific Coast joining the Atlantic Coast Conference would finally make people step back and figure out a better way, but nope. Just mind numbingly stupid.

I really want to like this proposal, but at the same time I hate it just simply for the regionality aspect. I really don't want to have gone to all of the trouble of the SEC move and all associated ass pain just to wind back up in a "Texas/Oklahoma region" with the same group of teams we just left plus SMU and aggy.  

[Al_4_ISU 12,631]

1 minute ago, Vertigo said:

I really want to like this proposal, but at the same time I hate it just simply for the regionality aspect. I really don't want to have gone to all of the trouble of the SEC move and all associated ass pain just to wind back up in a "Texas/Oklahoma region" with the same group of teams we just left plus SMU and aggy.  

It would probably have Piggy and LSU too.

And the Kansas schools and ISU would be in some northern plains division with Nebraska, Mizzou, Colorado and whoever else is up that way.

Edited April 4 by Al_4_ISU

[Vertigo 20,499]

Just now, Al_4_ISU said:

It would probably have Arky and LSU too.

Or Kansas/Kansas State depending on which way you are drawing lines. Maybe we can engage in gerrymandering and cut out TCU, Baylor, Houston, and SMU. I am sure they would understand.  

[TrashMaster G 18,103]

4 hours ago, bolverk said:

Full article:

 

So, what's the difference between a "division" and a conference?

Nothing, in practical terms, from what I see.

 

18 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

I really want to like this proposal, but at the same time I hate it just simply for the regionality aspect. I really don't want to have gone to all of the trouble of the SEC move and all associated ass pain just to wind back up in a "Texas/Oklahoma region" with the same group of teams we just left plus SMU and aggy.  

This. 💯

[Al_4_ISU 12,631]

Or Kansas/Kansas State depending on which way you are drawing lines. Maybe we can engage in gerrymandering and cut out TCU, Baylor, Houston, and SMU. I am sure they would understand.  

I just threw this together in 5 minutes off the top of my head.

Seems pretty balanced, and any rivalry not in division play (like Red River) can be harmlessly scheduled in the non-conference, because playoff access would come down to winning the division

[TrashMaster G 18,103]

4 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I just threw this together in 5 minutes off the top of my head.

Seems pretty balanced, and any rivalry not in division play (like Red River) can be harmlessly scheduled in the non-conference, because playoff access would come down to winning the division

Any "reasonable" setup will have us back in with Baylor, so....

[Al_4_ISU 12,631]

Just now, TrashMaster G said:

Any "reasonable" setup will have us back in with Baylor, so....

Well, in this proposal you're only playing them.  You aren't in some kind of alleged brotherhood of shared values, culture, academia, etc.  That's part of the idiocy of the whole conference thing.

[LTbear 4,213]

10 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I just threw this together in 5 minutes off the top of my head.

Seems pretty balanced, and any rivalry not in division play (like Red River) can be harmlessly scheduled in the non-conference, because playoff access would come down to winning the division

Is that Tennessee in with the Texas schools?

[TrashMaster G 18,103]

3 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Well, in this proposal you're only playing them.  You aren't in some kind of alleged brotherhood of shared values, culture, academia, etc.  That's part of the idiocy of the whole conference thing.

Well, in that case.... No thanks.

[Al_4_ISU 12,631]

Just now, LTbear said:

Is that Tennessee in with the Texas schools?

Yeah.  Just trying to keep some competitive balance.  I thought about putting one of the Mississippi schools in that division and the other in the old SEC division.

Kentucky would probably make more geographic sense, but like I said, I didn't spend much time on this thought experiment.  I just went from west to east and tried to keep some balance.

[BurntOrange&White 41,896]

37 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I just threw this together in 5 minutes off the top of my head.

Seems pretty balanced, and any rivalry not in division play (like Red River) can be harmlessly scheduled in the non-conference, because playoff access would come down to winning the division

bro out here taking a picture with his phone to upload to surly instead of using snipping tool. 

[TrashMaster G 18,103]

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

bro out here taking a picture with his phone to upload to surly instead of using snipping tool. 

That's high tech out there in the corn fields.

[Al_4_ISU 12,631]

3 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

bro out here taking a picture with his phone to upload to surly instead of using snipping tool. 

Usually when I hear someone say "snipping tool" they're castrating hogs.

[TKthunder2 5,059]

6 hours ago, JFKFC said:

I agree, but I think both leagues need to be at 24 teams each.

20.

SEC adds FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA = 20 (if you go to 24 that’s likely Kansas, Duke, VA Tech, and WVU which isn’t very appealing for football/expansion)

B1G adds ND and Miami (or Stanford)= 20

From the B12 point of view, if they take the best ACC leftovers in Pitt, Louisville, NCSU, and VA Tech they will clearly have the best fb brands remaining at 20, and if they overextend to 24 (which they probably would if those+Miami is available and if the rumor that BY is already talking with Duke are true) to get the stretch/basketball brands like Duke, Syracuse, GA Tech and maybe UConn or in their dream scenario ND’s nonfb sports then that’s really all they need.

Why add in SMU and their 30k seat stadium who you already turned down and when you have 4 schools in TX? Why add Cal/Stanford who have never wanted to join and were too prideful and overbearing when in the PAC? Why add legacy leeches like Wake or BC (it’s not like they extended that olive branch to WSU/OrSU)?

[Huckleberry 34,669]

This idea is light years better for the long term health of college football than the calls for 40-48 teams in a two conference competition. 

[thunderlounge 8,415]

It has potential, but hinges on alignments, IMO. 

[Evil Bill Obrien 3,510]

5 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Why add in SMU and their 30k seat stadium who you already turned down and when you have 4 schools in TX? 

 

['stache 22,145]

1 hour ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

 

They work for free these days, right?

[bullet 1,630]

5 hours ago, thunderlounge said:

It has potential, but hinges on alignments, IMO. 

It has zero potential.  It puts the SEC and Big 10 on a par with the M2.

Now if you could set something up where the SEC and Big 10 are 3 twelve team conferences or 4 ten team conferences and the M2 realign into 3 twelve team or 3 ten team, then you might get someone to listen.

Wouldn't be pretty for the 3rd conference, but you could have the 2005 Big 10 (11) + Rutgers, the 2005 SEC minus Arkansas + Maryland for  twelve and a 3rd conference with UT, aggy, OU, Arkansas Mizzou, Nebraska, UCLA, USC, UW, Oregon, FSU and Clemson.  Then the other 3 would be WSU/Or St./Cal/Stanford/BYU/Utah/AZ/ASU/CU/ISU/KU/KSU + BC/SU/Pitt/UVA/VT/UNC/NCSU/Wake/Duke/GT/Miami/ND + WVU/Cincy/Louisville/UH/SMU/TCU/TT/Baylor/Okie St./UCF/USF/UConn

If you stick with 7 of 10, then you add FSU, Clemson, ND, Miami, UNC, UVA to the P2.  #1 1990 Big 10, #2 1990 SEC, #3 FSU, Clemson, ND, Miami, UNC, UVA, S. Carolina, Penn St., Rutgers, Maryland, #4 UT, aggy, OU, Arkansas, Mizzou, Nebraska, UCLA, USC, UW, Oregon.  The other 3 are #5 BC, SU, Pitt, VT, NCSU, Wake, Duke, GT, UL, UCF; #6 WVU, Cincy, UH, TT, TCU, Baylor, Okie St., KU, KSU, ISU; #7 Stanford, Cal, SMU, Utah, BYU, ASU, Arizona, CU, WSU, Or St.

 

 

[bullet 1,630]

On 3/30/2024 at 1:03 PM, utee94 said:

SEC scheduling has always been wonky.  As I recall, back before the expansion to 12 teams in 1991/92, there were years when LSU might only play 6 or 7 of the other 9 teams.

It was 7 games in the 80s.  Prior to that, some schools (notably LSU) might play only 5 conference games and others might play 8.  Below is 1965 before Tulane left but after Georgia Tech.  Looked up 1966 and Ole Miss played the most-7 games, while Georgia, Tennessee and Vandy played 5.  LSU was the 1970 champ at 5-0.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:1965_Southeastern_Conference_football_standings

Team	W		L		T			W		L		T
No. 1 Alabama $	6	–	1	–	1			9	–	1	–	1
Auburn	4	–	1	–	1			5	–	5	–	1
Florida	4	–	2	–	0			7	–	4	–	0
No. 7 Tennessee	2	–	1	–	2			8	–	1	–	2
Ole Miss	5	–	3	–	0			7	–	4	–	0
No. 8 LSU	3	–	3	–	0			8	–	3	–	0
Kentucky	3	–	3	–	0			6	–	4	–	0
Georgia	2	–	3	–	0			6	–	4	–	0
Vanderbilt	1	–	5	–	0			2	–	7	–	1
Tulane	1	–	5	–	0			2	–	8	–	0
Mississippi State	1	–	5	–	0			4	–	6	–	0

[Bill Lumbergh 7,351]

13 hours ago, thunderlounge said:

It has potential, but hinges on alignments, IMO. 

It hinges on two things, I think.

First, how do you sell it to members of the big 10 and sec, where fans really are fanatical about their conference affiliation.  This idea only works if members of those two conferences get onboard, and that feels like a big task.

Second, and directly tied to point one, the idea only works if members of the big 10 and sec can make more money under this model.  Likely considerably more.  That will help them get over their conference pride issues pretty quickly.  I'm just not sure that's possible when those two conferences already own most of the programs who add value in media negotiations.

[Al_4_ISU 12,631]

8 minutes ago, Bill Lumbergh said:

It hinges on two things, I think.

First, how do you sell it to members of the big 10 and sec, where fans really are fanatical about their conference affiliation.  This idea only works if members of those two conferences get onboard, and that feels like a big task.

Second, and directly tied to point one, the idea only works if members of the big 10 and sec can make more money under this model.  Likely considerably more.  That will help them get over their conference pride issues pretty quickly.  I'm just not sure that's possible when those two conferences already own most of the programs who add value in media negotiations.

You collectively bargain, and then pay out based on ratings.  Better ratings = more money.  That's how you sell the blue bloods on it.  Financial reward becomes merit based, not about being lucky as to who you hooked up with 150 years ago.  The whole conference model goes away completely in this system.  There is no Big 10 or SEC, there is just the 70 schools that were part of the major conferences, and they all have varying levels of value in this equation.

This model we've been heading towards where Purdue and Northwestern get to make as much money as Ohio State and Michigan while Oklahoma State and West Virginia don't even get to participate is so mind-numbingly stupid, and this model would end that immediately.

[Bill Lumbergh 7,351]

17 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

You collectively bargain, and then pay out based on ratings.  Better ratings = more money.  That's how you sell the blue bloods on it.  Financial reward becomes merit based, not about being lucky as to who you hooked up with 150 years ago.  The whole conference model goes away completely in this system.  There is no Big 10 or SEC, there is just the 70 schools that were part of the major conferences, and they all have varying levels of value in this equation.

This model we've been heading towards where Purdue and Northwestern get to make as much money as Ohio State and Michigan while Oklahoma State and West Virginia don't even get to participate is so mind-numbingly stupid, and this model would end that immediately.

This makes sense.

It especially makes sense because immediately after everyone happily agrees to this value-based revenue sharing model that brings more teams into the "big league" of cfb, those same teams can immediately turn around and blame Texas and our greed for ruining the sport through demanding uneven revenue distribution.

[Al_4_ISU 12,631]

3 minutes ago, Bill Lumbergh said:

This makes sense.

It especially makes sense because immediately after everyone happily agrees to this value-based revenue sharing model that brings more teams into the "big league" of cfb, those same teams can immediately turn around and blame Texas and our greed for ruining the sport through demanding uneven revenue distribution.

But those schools can't really do anything to Texas in this model either.  That's part of the genius of getting away from conferences.

As a fan of a smaller brand school that's historically been part of the bigger leagues, I can say that most of us don't have a problem with schools like Texas, Ohio State, etc making more money than we do.  They have more fans, draw bigger ratings, etc.  Is this not America? Are we not a capitalist society?  

What pisses us off is schools that aren't any different than us getting massive pay days and being part of the club because they hooked up with the oddly benevolent financial juggernauts 150 years ago.  It's Purdue, Northwestern, Indiana, Mississippi State, etc getting to roll around in piles of cash that were generated by others that chaps our ass.

[Bill Lumbergh 7,351]

2 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

As a fan of a smaller brand school that's historically been part of the bigger leagues, I can say that most of us don't have a problem with schools like Texas, Ohio State, etc making more money than we do.  

I appreciate your sentiment here and believe that you believe it, but as a fan of the school most commonly villainized by smaller brand schools for acting in our own interest and wanting to maximize our value, this is false.

[Evil Bill Obrien 3,510]

10 hours ago, 'stache said:

They work for free these days, right?

I mean they had to have enough money to bribe their way into a new seat at the “big boy” table first 

[Al_4_ISU 12,631]

30 minutes ago, Bill Lumbergh said:

I appreciate your sentiment here and believe that you believe it, but as a fan of the school most commonly villainized by smaller brand schools for acting in our own interest and wanting to maximize our value, this is false.

But you have to remember that villainization was done in the context of the conference system, where "Texas's greed" was an existential threat to these schools being part of major college sports.  If Texas wanted more money and left the conference, they were in a position to possibly be de facto relegated.  That existential fear/threat can create a whole lot of animosity among the threatened.  This is basic human nature.

With that threat removed, I strongly doubt that there will be much give a shit about schools with better ratings getting bigger checks.  That sentiment might still exist among some, but so what?  They can't do anything to cause negative repercussions to Texas.  They can't use conference refs to call bad penalties.  They can't use conference rules and votes to keep you out of a championship game.  Any avenue for their pettiness to result in some kind of tangible negative has been removed in the proposed conference-less system.

Edited April 5 by Al_4_ISU

[statsman 5,693]

23 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

But those schools can't really do anything to Texas in this model either.  That's part of the genius of getting away from conferences.

As a fan of a smaller brand school that's historically been part of the bigger leagues, I can say that most of us don't have a problem with schools like Texas, Ohio State, etc making more money than we do.  They have more fans, draw bigger ratings, etc.  Is this not America? Are we not a capitalist society?  

What pisses us off is schools that aren't any different than us getting massive pay days and being part of the club because they hooked up with the oddly benevolent financial juggernauts 150 years ago.  It's Purdue, Northwestern, Indiana, Mississippi State, etc getting to roll around in piles of cash that were generated by others that chaps our ass.

I think you have to realize that Northwestern, Vandy, etc. understand that they get a benefit from the bell cows doing well. ISU was in a similar position, in the Big 8, which used to be nicknamed “The Big 2 and Little 6”. ISU understood that it benefited from OU and NU doing great. 
 
The SWC, and to a similar extent, the PAC were different. Those conferences were configured where the big schools (Texas, TAMU) considered the little schools’ locations their recruiting territory, breeding resentment at the little schools. Baylor fans, for example, resent Texas in a way foreign to ISU fans feelings about OU. Texas recruits Waco, and when Texas is doing well, Waco stores sell more Texas stuff than Baylor stuff. The small SWC schools have a shared interest in Texas being down. In the SWC, this manifested in the conference being OK with massive cheating, leaving it to the NCAA to clean up. 
 
A similar dynamic resulted in the Big 12. ISU may not have resented Texas, but Baylor, TCU and TT sure did. ISU and OSU certainly saw the opportunity to take advantage of with Texas down, circling those dates on the schedule. 
 
I’m sure some is Texas’ fault, primarily for allowing itself to falter, but the larger point remains- Northwestern doesn’t hate Michigan and Mississippi State doesn’t hate Alabama the way the Left Behinds hate Texas. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,631]

16 minutes ago, statsman said:

I think you have to realize that Northwestern, Vandy, etc. understand that they get a benefit from the bell cows doing well. ISU was in a similar position, in the Big 8, which used to be nicknamed “The Big 2 and Little 6”. ISU understood that it benefited from OU and NU doing great. 
 
The SWC, and to a similar extent, the PAC were different. Those conferences were configured where the big schools (Texas, TAMU) considered the little schools’ locations their recruiting territory, breeding resentment at the little schools. Baylor fans, for example, resent Texas in a way foreign to ISU fans feelings about OU. Texas recruits Waco, and when Texas is doing well, Waco stores sell more Texas stuff than Baylor stuff. The small SWC schools have a shared interest in Texas being down. In the SWC, this manifested in the conference being OK with massive cheating, leaving it to the NCAA to clean up. 
 
A similar dynamic resulted in the Big 12. ISU may not have resented Texas, but Baylor, TCU and TT sure did. ISU and OSU certainly saw the opportunity to take advantage of with Texas down, circling those dates on the schedule. 
 
I’m sure some is Texas’ fault, primarily for allowing itself to falter, but the larger point remains- Northwestern doesn’t hate Michigan and Mississippi State doesn’t hate Alabama the way the Left Behinds hate Texas. 

Right, but how much of those good feelings are due to their continued beneficiary status?

If Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and the SEC powers broke off to form Prestige Worldwide, I guarantee that Northwestern and Mississippi State would feel the same way about those blue bloods that the I8 feel about Texas.  I live among and am close friends with many Iowa fans.  They absolutely hate Ohio State and Michigan despite the financial security afforded them due to their association.  Every big dog is hated by whoever is below them in the pecking order.

Texas didn't leave the Big 12/USC didn't leave the Pac 12 because of how the other schools viewed them.  They left because of concerns that they wouldn't be able to compete at the top level without the financial benefit of being in the SEC or Big 10.  In the NIL world, you have to maximize your revenue to compete at the highest level, and they all made extremely rational choices to that end.  Same as the schools that left the Pac 12 for the Big 12.

The conference model has been the source of a lot of that resentment, IMO.  Eliminating that would go a long ways in changing those dynamics.

Edited April 5 by Al_4_ISU

['stache 22,145]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

I think you have to realize that Northwestern, Vandy, etc. understand that they get a benefit from the bell cows doing well. ISU was in a similar position, in the Big 8, which used to be nicknamed “The Big 2 and Little 6”. ISU understood that it benefited from OU and NU doing great. 
 
The SWC, and to a similar extent, the PAC were different. Those conferences were configured where the big schools (Texas, TAMU) considered the little schools’ locations their recruiting territory, breeding resentment at the little schools. Baylor fans, for example, resent Texas in a way foreign to ISU fans feelings about OU. Texas recruits Waco, and when Texas is doing well, Waco stores sell more Texas stuff than Baylor stuff. The small SWC schools have a shared interest in Texas being down. In the SWC, this manifested in the conference being OK with massive cheating, leaving it to the NCAA to clean up. 
 
A similar dynamic resulted in the Big 12. ISU may not have resented Texas, but Baylor, TCU and TT sure did. ISU and OSU certainly saw the opportunity to take advantage of with Texas down, circling those dates on the schedule. 
 
I’m sure some is Texas’ fault, primarily for allowing itself to falter, but the larger point remains- Northwestern doesn’t hate Michigan and Mississippi State doesn’t hate Alabama the way the Left Behinds hate Texas. 

Isn’t a lot of that about Texas being Texas? The big dog, the Jones’, the Yankees, etc? Embrace the hate, it means you’re good enough to be with hating, a tale as old as sports. Al is spot on, Northwestern and Purdue have never faced relegation by Ohio State and Michigan threatening to leave. When ratings based payouts are proposed (and it’s gonna happen) they’ll grumble as fans will do, but when the alternative is “we can just leave and start a new super conference” they’ll accept it as necessary to stay in the club. The ISU and OSU fans that are paying attention know the financial realities, but there will always be factions that aren’t digging into the details and will default to “Texas is so greedy.” It is what it is, you still have better athletes and more money, we just don’t want to be CUSA.

Edited April 5 by 'stache

[statsman 5,693]

There’s a little more. Texas is a “big dog”,…that had its state elected leaders tell it when it could move conferences and who it had to take with it (leaving the B12 was a fluke of timing- Texas legislature being out of session, media contract winding down, Texas Ex as governor). 
 
Texas is a “big dog”,…that was in a conference led by haters. Which makes sense, because most of the members hated and resented Texas. 
 
Back to the above proposal- Al mentions that revenue could be split unevenly. OK, there is one more problem- UT is done playing games in state, where it is only allotted 6,000 seats for fans (when it could easily sell 40,000 seats to Longhorn fans). 

['stache 22,145]

23 minutes ago, statsman said:

There’s a little more. Texas is a “big dog”,…that had its state elected leaders tell it when it could move conferences and who it had to take with it (leaving the B12 was a fluke of timing- Texas legislature being out of session, media contract winding down, Texas Ex as governor). 
 
Texas is a “big dog”,…that was in a conference led by haters. Which makes sense, because most of the members hated and resented Texas. 
 
Back to the above proposal- Al mentions that revenue could be split unevenly. OK, there is one more problem- UT is done playing games in state, where it is only allotted 6,000 seats for fans (when it could easily sell 40,000 seats to Longhorn fans). 

Are you seriously suggesting that Baylor and Tech should be required to allot half their stadium for UT fans? That's not how it works, the closest thing is to move those games to neutral NFL sites. If those schools don't sell out to their own fans, UT fans can eat them up. The University of Tulsa doesn't have to allot OSU fans 25,000 seats for their stadium to be 3/4 orange when we play there. I know you have some serious hatred for everyone who isn't UT, but there are more legitimate gripes than "they should give us more tickets." That one is super weird.

[statsman 5,693]

11 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Are you seriously suggesting that Baylor and Tech should be required to allot half their stadium for UT fans? That's not how it works, the closest thing is to move those games to neutral NFL sites.

No. Baylor (a school 90 minutes from Austin, and 90 minutes from DFW) and TT have stadiums that only hold about 50k. Texas needs at least 40k tickets. 
 
“that’s not how it works” because that’s how it never worked before. TT fans could be all kinds of asses in Lubbock, because Texas was required to play there every other year. These are “rivalries” created because of geographic convenience for scheduling over 100 years ago. If Hardin Simmons joined the SWC instead of Baylor, we would have been schlepping out to Abilene every other year. 
 
A proposal for a new realignment was offered upthread. Texas isn’t agreeing to anything like that unless its needs are met, or it is forced to.

 Ticket availability isn’t a good reason? Well, what is a good reason for TT and Texas, or Texas and TCU to play every year? 

Edited April 5 by statsman

['stache 22,145]

Such a weird rant, but okay I guess. I can assure you the athletic department doesn't think that way. I know there are more politics among the Texas schools than in other areas, and that would be a way more prominent reason if UT decides not to schedule in-state schools for a while.

Edited April 5 by 'stache

[BurntOrange&White 41,896]

7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Such a weird rant, but okay I guess. I can assure you the athletic department doesn't think that way. I know there are more politics among the Texas schools than in other areas, and that would be a way more prominent reason if UT decides not to schedule in-state schools for a while.

Texas won't be scheduling Texas based big 12 teams for the foreseeable future. There are 7 other FBS teams in Texas plus the annual game vs A&M coming back so there is no need. 

 

 

Edited April 5 by BurntOrange&White

['stache 22,145]

14 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Texas won't be scheduling Texas based big 12 teams for the foreseeable future. There are 7 other FBS teams in Texas plus the annual game vs A&M coming back so there is no need. 

 

 

That's fine, and I'm sure there are a dozen legitimate reasons (or no reason, play who you want to play), but "they only allotted our fans 6,000 tickets" is a super weird reason to cite.

[BurntOrange&White 41,896]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

That's fine, and I'm sure there are a dozen legitimate reasons (or no reason, play who you want to play), but "they only allotted our fans 6,000 tickets" is a super weird reason to cite.

I'm just citing what bobby said from a high ranking admin in the AD that texas has no plans to schedule big 12 teams from texas.

[statsman 5,693]

7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

That's fine, and I'm sure there are a dozen legitimate reasons (or no reason, play who you want to play), but "they only allotted our fans 6,000 tickets" is a super weird reason to cite.

It’s just one of several boxes to check or not check. 
 
When Texas was in the same conference, the answer to the question, “Why does Texas play home and away every year with Baylor, TCU, TT, Rice, UH and SMU?” was “Because Texas has to”. 
 
That answer is gone. Now, the question is “Why would Texas schedule any of those schools? What does Texas get out of it?”

I’m struggling to think of a reason…

[John80 160]

At the institutional level the Big Ten and SEC have a cohesion that isn't going away and is largely responsible for the success of the conference. The athletics departments of Ohio State and Alabama don't need money and they haven't and won't try to squeeze a few extra dollars from Northwestern and Vanderbilt. The fans of Iowa may hate Ohio State but the fans aren't making the decisions.

[Vertigo 20,499]

3 hours ago, statsman said:

It’s just one of several boxes to check or not check. 
 
When Texas was in the same conference, the answer to the question, “Why does Texas play home and away every year with Baylor, TCU, TT, Rice, UH and SMU?” was “Because Texas has to”. 
 
That answer is gone. Now, the question is “Why would Texas schedule any of those schools? What does Texas get out of it?”

I’m struggling to think of a reason…

Not every B12 school is that way. I always enjoyed the Ok State game, and even WVU was a fun one that I wouldn't mind seeing again. But I will immediately be pissed to see Houston, Baylor, TCU, or K State on our schedule ever again. There is just zero upside to a game with those teams. To a lesser degree Tech, but they have shown their ass so much over the last 3 years I would hope it doesn't happen for at least 20 years. 

[LTbear 4,213]

49 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

Not every B12 school is that way. I always enjoyed the Ok State game, and even WVU was a fun one that I wouldn't mind seeing again. But I will immediately be pissed to see Houston, Baylor, TCU, or K State on our schedule ever again. There is just zero upside to a game with those teams. To a lesser degree Tech, but they have shown their ass so much over the last 3 years I would hope it doesn't happen for at least 20 years. 

Just as a Big XII fan who watches other Big XII games, the Texas vs Okie State series was damn fun for much of the last 15 years.

[Dnaguy 12,632]

On 4/4/2024 at 9:50 AM, Al_4_ISU said:

I just threw this together in 5 minutes off the top of my head.

Seems pretty balanced, and any rivalry not in division play (like Red River) can be harmlessly scheduled in the non-conference, because playoff access would come down to winning the division

 

Who will protect this mojo dojo casa house?!

[TKthunder2 5,059]

9 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

You collectively bargain, and then pay out based on ratings.  Better ratings = more money.  That's how you sell the blue bloods on it.  Financial reward becomes merit based, not about being lucky as to who you hooked up with 150 years ago.

Isn’t this similar to how the Big 12 was setup before everybody cried about mean old Texas back in 2010 and the unequal revenue sharing?

Back then you guys wanted equal revenue sharing because you thought you could run the same “lucky” scam as Vandy and Northwestern but it backfired spectacularly and now you want to try and put all the toothpaste back in the tube?

Shortsighted greed appears to have caused long term consequences.

[TKthunder2 5,059]

6 hours ago, 'stache said:

Are you seriously suggesting that Baylor and Tech should be required to allot half their stadium for UT fans? That's not how it works, the closest thing is to move those games to neutral NFL sites. If those schools don't sell out to their own fans, UT fans can eat them up. The University of Tulsa doesn't have to allot OSU fans 25,000 seats for their stadium to be 3/4 orange when we play there. I know you have some serious hatred for everyone who isn't UT, but there are more legitimate gripes than "they should give us more tickets." That one is super weird.

How about you just not ban our fans from buying tickets on the open market?

https://kslsports.com/500666/big-12-tcu-byu-tickets-single-game-keep-it-purple/

Quote

One Big 12 ticket office has concerns about BYU fans’ potential to overtake a road venue.

That would be the TCU Horned Frogs. TCU finished last season with a No. 2 ranking in the final AP Top 25.

Within TCU’s ticket options for the 2023 season, they offer a “Football Mini Plan” that they call a “Keep It Purple Plan.” The Keep It Purple Plan will be the only way to purchase tickets to the TCU game against BYU on October 14 at Amon G. Carter Stadium in Ft. Worth, Texas.

TCU is looking to keep the BYU game “purple”

As the name would suggest, the focus is to have TCU fans in the stands on that mid-October day.

The only other team TCU has this arrangement for is the University of Texas. TCU hosts Texas on November 11 in Ft. Worth one final time before the Longhorns go to the SEC.

TCU, Baylor, and Houston pull this type of bush league bullshit regularly (Tech too to a different extent but since nobody wants to travel to Lubbock they don’t do this). This happens regularly to Texas fans that I couldn’t easily find a UT site complaining about this since it’s fairly normal for us.

Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it ain’t real.