header pic

The B12 (XII) Forum, home of the 'Front Porch, y'all' at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Texas vs TCU

 (Read 8365 times)

BrownCounty

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3677
  • Liked:
Re: Texas vs TCU
« Reply #140 on: December 05, 2019, 01:50:38 PM »
Yeah, no.  The LHN has absolutely nothing to do with A&M's "100-year decision."

Yeah huh.  It just "looked" that way.  ESPN announces, A&M leaves.  No relation.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 5463
  • Liked:
Re: Texas vs TCU
« Reply #141 on: December 05, 2019, 03:53:25 PM »
Yeah huh.  It just "looked" that way.  ESPN announces, A&M leaves.  No relation.
Dream on, dream on, dream on, dream until your dreams come true.

A large faction of Ags had been trying to get to the SEC since 1991 (and at that time a large faction of Longhorns wanted to split alongside them).  It didn't happen for either school in 1991 as a result of political pressure within the state, but the Ags continued to look that direction for the next two decades.  Ultimately they got their wish.

But you keep banging that simpleton LHN drum if you want to.

BrownCounty

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3677
  • Liked:
Re: Texas vs TCU
« Reply #142 on: December 05, 2019, 04:07:54 PM »

Forget it dood.  I'm not placating you anymore on this.  We both lived thru it.  How you gather some other interpretation from bam (LHN) to bam (A&M gone) is your business.

A&M could have gone to the SEC years before.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 5463
  • Liked:
Re: Texas vs TCU
« Reply #143 on: December 05, 2019, 05:21:48 PM »
No they really couldn't have.  You're just making shit up now.  Your self-loathing is showing again.

The primary reason the SEC wanted them, was because the BTN was finally showing signs of success, and the SEC wanted to copy the business model.  So they wanted new cable/satellite television markets for their subscriber-based money grab.  Even just two years earlier, the cable conference networks weren't generating revenue which is why the B12 voted down a conference network.  The value wasn't there yet. 

The SEC would have taken Texas just the same as Texas A&M, the offer was certainly there, but Texas had decided to forge its own path.  I'm not disagreeing that the LHN caused consternation amongst the conference and personally I wish the B12 had gone forward with a conference network.  But the LHN wasn't the reason the Ags left, not even close-- it was simply their bullshit excuse to bad-mouth Texas and show their asses all the way out the door. 

And for some reason, you bought their bullshit propaganda.  I guess because you hate yourself and Texas so much. *shrug*

Gigem

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Posts: 420
  • Liked:
Re: Texas vs TCU
« Reply #144 on: December 05, 2019, 07:09:53 PM »
The reason we left is because the Big 12 ceased to exist as we knew it. Nebraska, a true blue blood program by most accounts, was the first dominoe to fall. CU panicked and bolted. Mizzou wanted to bolt but didn’t have enough juice on its own to make a move. Remember, A&M stuck around for the last real season of the Big 12 and actually was co-champs of the South and beat OU in the h2h. OU of course got the nod to the ccg due to the tie breaker. 

We needed options, and we had options. Mizzou was picked because the sec needed a 14th team and they brought just enough market. 

Utee is right.  UT probably could have went to the SEC but I think hubris blinded them. I mean seriously UT to the pac? 

A&M is and was a good cultural fit, we brought the right markets, and had just enough gravitas to get the invite.  
« Last Edit: December 05, 2019, 07:15:10 PM by Gigem »

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 5463
  • Liked:
Re: Texas vs TCU
« Reply #145 on: December 05, 2019, 09:49:40 PM »
The reason we left is because the Big 12 ceased to exist as we knew it. Nebraska, a true blue blood program by most accounts, was the first dominoe to fall. CU panicked and bolted. Mizzou wanted to bolt but didn’t have enough juice on its own to make a move. Remember, A&M stuck around for the last real season of the Big 12 and actually was co-champs of the South and beat OU in the h2h. OU of course got the nod to the ccg due to the tie breaker. 

We needed options, and we had options. Mizzou was picked because the sec needed a 14th team and they brought just enough market.

Utee is right.  UT probably could have went to the SEC but I think hubris blinded them. I mean seriously UT to the pac? 

A&M is and was a good cultural fit, we brought the right markets, and had just enough gravitas to get the invite. 

Agree, A&M was a good fit in the SEC for sure.  And Texas wasn't, for any number of reasons.  That was true in the 80s when it first floated, it was true in 1991 when it came close to happening anyway, and it was true in 2010.

Texas has plenty of "hubris" no doubt-- but that's not to blame for Texas declining the SEC's invitation in 2010/2011.  It simply wasn't a good fit.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2019, 10:05:53 PM by utee94 »

CWSooner

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3991
  • Liked:
Re: Texas vs TCU
« Reply #146 on: December 05, 2019, 09:58:03 PM »
I suppose that it's interesting to speculate on how things might have gone had UT and OU gone to the SEC when A&M and Mizzou did.

But I was opposed to OU going then and I would still be opposed now.

A lot of OU fans think that the SEC would have been a great cultural fit, and they might be right.  But the SEC is the home of the "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'" mentality.  In that environment, some/many? OU boosters would have felt compelled to join right in.  There have certainly been times in the history of the OU football program where there has been blatant and effective cheating.  What OU cheaters haven't been good at is the not-getting-caught part of cheating.  In the SEC, OU would have cheated and gotten caught.  Probably be sitting on probation right now.

I like the idea of being in a 10-team (even better would be a 9-team) conference.  You play a full round-robin schedule and you don't need no stinkin' rematch-CCG.

But I don't love OU being in the 10-team Big 12 as it is currently organized and as it currently operates.  The disconnect between the name and the reality is jarring.  Playing the CCG is an obvious money-grab.  Texas and (to a somewhat lesser extent) OU have too much power.  And WVU (against which I have no beef) sits out there a thousand miles away from the rest of the conference.  I wish we could trade WVU to the SEC for Mizzou.  I wish we could drop the CCG.  We voted down the Big 12 Network like a bunch of dumbass institutions (and that's my charitable interpretation).

The conference is not operating as it should and it seems evident that we are in a holding pattern waiting for the next realignment shoe to drop.
Play Like a Champion Today

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 5463
  • Liked:
Re: Texas vs TCU
« Reply #147 on: December 06, 2019, 08:34:31 AM »
I don't think OU really has any need to...errr... "bend the rules"... as much as they have in the past.  Good coaching and a lot of stability will work wonders for you.

But you might be right the pressure to "compete" in the SEC might have been too much to resist for a few boosters.

And I totally agree the conference is in a holding pattern, I'm just not sure there will be any pressures to make a change when the current contracts are up.  Let's be honest, if we're talking about teams leaving the B12, the only two that would have options, would be OU and Texas.  And financially there isn't, and won't be, some huge gap between other conference payouts, and what Texas and OU are making.  All B12 members are currently making more money than anyone in the ACC or PAC.  And that's not even counting whatever they might have negotiated for their Tier3 rights.

So then, what's the advantage to leaving, if it's not money?  OU has had plenty of fortune in getting to the CFP in the B12.  Although I don't necessarily agree, most folks would argue that OU's path the CFP in either the B1G or SEC would be much more difficult.  And of course the travel/scheduling would be many times more difficult, especially for the Olympic sports.  The logistical disadvantages to going to a more distant, more far-flung conference, are sizable.  

Now that the dust has settled, and everyone has stopped panicking, and the "animal spirits" have subsided, I think Texas and OU are likely to have a much deeper understanding of the advantages of their current conference affiliation.

And yes, there are plenty of fans at both schools that dream of the sexy matchups agaist Alabama and LSU or Michigan and Ohio State or even USC and... well... really just USC in the PAC.  Personally, I can't say I hate the idea of Oklahoma and Texas going to the SEC West, and the Horns being reunited with traditional rivals Arkansas and Texas A&M, whilst still getting to play OU as a conference game.  But in reality that would also likely end up pushing Alabama and Auburn to the SEC East, so LSU would be the only real interesting new "SEC" team added to our schedule, and we'd just be trading out Iowa State and Kansas State for Ole Miss and Miss State.  

But the administrators at these large universities aren't looking at it that way, anyway.  They're looking at the top line revenue first and foremost, then they're looking at the bottom line profits (which would diminish if travel/logistical expenses increased), and since it's football-driven, they're looking at ability to make the CFP.  And without some REALLY large financial incentive to change conferences, the impetus for a switch really doesn't seem to be there.

Just my own speculation of course. 

Gigem

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Posts: 420
  • Liked:
Re: Texas vs TCU
« Reply #148 on: December 06, 2019, 09:48:11 AM »
I just don’t see the sec or any other conference expanding. 14 members is already unwieldy enough.  Maybe the PAC 12 since they only have 12. You would’ve thought that they would have just called themselves the PAC and dropped the numbers just in case. 

I see the next big thing as athlete compensation.  That’s going to be the driver. It will start off with the endorsements and escalate from there. 

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 5463
  • Liked:
Re: Texas vs TCU
« Reply #149 on: December 06, 2019, 10:50:27 AM »
I just don’t see the sec or any other conference expanding. 14 members is already unwieldy enough.  Maybe the PAC 12 since they only have 12. You would’ve thought that they would have just called themselves the PAC and dropped the numbers just in case.

I see the next big thing as athlete compensation.  That’s going to be the driver. It will start off with the endorsements and escalate from there.
16 is no worse than 14, which is already effectively 2 separate conferences aside from a couple crossovers.  Moving to 16 wouldn't change that at all.

Unless a conference decides to ditch members to get down to 12 (or even better, 10) then there's really no reason NOT to expand to 16 if you're already at 14. 

Other than dilution of profit, of course.  It wouldn't make sense for the B1G or the SEC to add a MAC or C-USA school that detracts value rather than adds it, but if the additions are Texas and OU, then the net revenue increase for ALL teams would be sizable.

Athlete compensation will definitely be a big thing, but I don't see it affecting the conference alignment discussion all that much.


Gigem

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Posts: 420
  • Liked:
Re: Texas vs TCU
« Reply #150 on: December 06, 2019, 10:53:50 AM »
Well I’ve been in a 12 team conference and a 14 team. If the sec would change its current rotation 14 would work out very well playing all 14 teams home and away every 4 years I believe. 

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 5463
  • Liked:
Re: Texas vs TCU
« Reply #151 on: December 06, 2019, 10:57:48 AM »
Well I’ve been in a 12 team conference and a 14 team. If the sec would change its current rotation 14 would work out very well playing all 14 teams home and away every 4 years I believe.

The SEC is in its current rotation in order to protect its traditional rivalries.  I don't see any reason why they'd change that.

If anything, adding two new teams in the West going to 16, and moving Alabama and Auburn over to the East would actually eliminate the need for two of those protected rivalries (Auburn-Georgia and Alabama-Tennessee) which would free up their schedule to enter a better cycle of rotation.

 

Associate Links/Search