CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big XII => Topic started by: TexasFan on December 30, 2018, 09:24:32 AM
-
U of H still trying to get into the BIG 12.
https://sports.yahoo.com/major-applewhites-job-limbo-reveals-administrative-clown-show-houston-233551453.html (https://sports.yahoo.com/major-applewhites-job-limbo-reveals-administrative-clown-show-houston-233551453.html)
-
And Dana in.
-
Man, tough crowd over there. Maybe we can fire Tim Beck and get Major back as our OC.
-
Man, tough crowd over there. Maybe we can fire Tim Beck and get Major back as our OC.
Major not happening. After going senorita you never go back.
-
Major not happening. After going senorita you never go back.
I don't believe that to be true for a second. Folks have a short memory when winning football games is a desired outcome.
-
was he oc at texas?
he was oc at bama saban's first season. granted he didn't have the players we got now, but tbh he wasn't great. he was really young then, too, so i'm guessing he's matured as a play caller too. wish him well.
-
was he oc at texas?
he was oc at bama saban's first season. granted he didn't have the players we got now, but tbh he wasn't great. he was really young then, too, so i'm guessing he's matured as a play caller too. wish him well.
There's a long list of OCs whose styles haven't meshed well with Saban's, that's about all I'll say about that.
He was an offensive assistant and sort of a co-OC at Texas for a few years, then he was the sole OC in Mack Brown's final year here. The wheels had long since come off that wagon, so it wasn't really much of a role.
Mostly I really liked what Applewhite's offenses under Tom Herman looked like at Houston-- they were far, far better than what Tom Herman has fielded at Texas thus far, and with mostly inferior athletes to what we have on campus in Austin. Our current OC is a bit of a lost cause. Watching him run Sam Ehlinger directly into the center of Georgia's defense 5 times in a row right at the goal line was mind-boggling and depressing. It eventually worked simply because Ehlinger is a badass, but it was horrifyingly awful play-calling. And we get that type of thing a lot with our current OC.
-
IIRC Major was OC at Syracuse, Rice, Alabama. RB coach, then co-OC (non-playcalling), then OC at Texas. Then OC, then HC at UofH.
Hey may end up on Manny Diaz's staff at the U.
As for bringing him back to Texas, I like the alignment and trajectory of the program at the moment so I'd hate to see anybody tinker with it.
-
I think Major was one of the best field generals UT has ever had and Ive seen a lot of UT QBs
-
IIRC Major was OC at Syracuse, Rice, Alabama. RB coach, then co-OC (non-playcalling), then OC at Texas. Then OC, then HC at UofH.
Hey may end up on Manny Diaz's staff at the U.
As for bringing him back to Texas, I like the alignment and trajectory of the program at the moment so I'd hate to see anybody tinker with it.
Conversely, I loathe Tim Beck and would love to see just about anyone replace him.
-
Mostly I really liked what Applewhite's offenses under Tom Herman looked like at Houston-- they were far, far better than what Tom Herman has fielded at Texas thus far, and with mostly inferior athletes to what we have on campus in Austin.
And against inferior opposition too. Let's not forget that.
Say what you will about Beck. It's Herman's offense and I like that there's been some stability for the first time in a decade.
-
Conversely, I loathe Tim Beck and would love to see just about anyone replace him.
You do know it's fine for us to have differing opinions? Makes life interesting.
It's not like we need to have a duel in the parking lot of Ojos Locos tomorrow. I'm fine with you being wrong. Doesn't bother me at all.
-
And against inferior opposition too. Let's not forget that.
Say what you will about Beck. It's Herman's offense and I like that there's been some stability for the first time in a decade.
Eh, when he played top-level teams his offenses still got top-level results.
And make no mistake, I'll say exactly what I want about Tim Beck. He's incredibly awful and his inept play-calling in the 4th quarter of the Sugar Bowl just about cost us a game we had easily in hand. He's just lucky that Sam and the WRs are total bad-asses and out-athleted Georgia's defense all night long, because that's the only reason Texas scored points two nights ago.
-
Ok, nice guy. Hate Beck all you want. He ain't my father, brother or son.
-
You do know it's fine for us to have differing opinions? Makes life interesting.
It's not like we need to have a duel in the parking lot of Ojos Locos tomorrow. I'm fine with you being wrong. Doesn't bother me at all.
Well, yeah. I didn't feel like we were about to come to fisticuffs or something. Did you?
I'm pretty sure that the conversation we were having was all about discussing our differing opinions. Especially your completely wrong opinions.
If that's not true and we need to fight this out inside the octagon, well, let me know. It might take me a few months to train up for it, but I assure you I'll do my best to be ready.
-
There's a long list of OCs whose styles haven't meshed well with Saban's, that's about all I'll say about that.
He was an offensive assistant and sort of a co-OC at Texas for a few years, then he was the sole OC in Mack Brown's final year here. The wheels had long since come off that wagon, so it wasn't really much of a role.
Mostly I really liked what Applewhite's offenses under Tom Herman looked like at Houston-- they were far, far better than what Tom Herman has fielded at Texas thus far, and with mostly inferior athletes to what we have on campus in Austin. Our current OC is a bit of a lost cause. Watching him run Sam Ehlinger directly into the center of Georgia's defense 5 times in a row right at the goal line was mind-boggling and depressing. It eventually worked simply because Ehlinger is a badass, but it was horrifyingly awful play-calling. And we get that type of thing a lot with our current OC.
saban gets a bad rap with his offenses, i guess because he's known for his stellar defenses.
but he's put out some great offenses (or allowed his oc to do so, however you want to look at it).
his offenses produced 2 of the top 5 all time passers for a season for lsu (and recruited and coached a 3rd before leaving for nfl) (all diff players), 6 top 10 career and 3 of top 6 single season receivers.
at msu, he had 1 top 10 career passer, 2 top 10 career rushers, and 2 top 10 career receivers.
at bama he has 3 top 5 and 5 top 10 career passers, 9 of the top 10 single season passer records (7 diff players), 2 top 5 and 6 top 10 career rushers, 3 top 5 and 6 top 10 single season rushers (6 diff players), 3 top 5 and 5 top 10 (could be 7 if you count 2 sr in his first year) receivers career, and 9 of the top 10 single seasons receiving (6 diff players).
granted none of these teams were ever really juggernauts on offense, mostly building their reps on d, but saban doesn't get near enough credit for his offenses. especially his passing offense.
-
Man, it's not enough that Alabama has won every single national championship for the past decade, Now their fans have to come over to our pathetic little conference's message board and spend 6 paragraphs rubbing in how superior Saban's offenses have been, in addition to his defenses?
Can't you just leave us alone, to wallow in our own self-pity? Aren't we insignificant enough that we don't even deserve a response????
(Just kidding man, your input is always appreciated. I was just more focused on Applewhite, than I was on Saban, in my post. ;) )
-
And speaking of Applewhite, looks like he's probably headed to Miami to be the OC under Manny Diaz. That's probably a good move for him, get out of Texas, expand his network, and do it in one of the real talent hotbeds of college football.
-
I think Applewhites main HC problem is that he isnt a very good politician
Mack Brown excelled at it for example
I think Applewhite will find his place with a few more years of experience
-
Man, it's not enough that Alabama has won every single national championship for the past decade, Now their fans have to come over to our pathetic little conference's message board and spend 6 paragraphs rubbing in how superior Saban's offenses have been, in addition to his defenses?
Can't you just leave us alone, to wallow in our own self-pity? Aren't we insignificant enough that we don't even deserve a response????
(Just kidding man, your input is always appreciated. I was just more focused on Applewhite, than I was on Saban, in my post. ;) )
yes, but you mentioned saban in a bad light, and this is the interwebz and i can't allow that. gump rule. :)
i like applewhite, but was unimpressed with him at bama. he was inconsistent in his playcalling. but that was 12 years ago and he's worked under quite a few good coaches since then. i also didn't know he made it to oc at texas. i knew he was at houston and then got the hc job after herman. looking like he might be headed to miami, which will be another good offensive mind he works under in holgerson.
-
Holgo is going to Houston to replace Major.
Major would be working under HC Manny Diaz at Miami.
-
Why would Dana go from a P5 conference to U of H
Looks like a step down to me
-
Why would Dana go from a P5 conference to U of H
Looks like a step down to me
Money. UH has tons of it. Not UT-like money, but there are plenty of Houston-based oil and business interests that support UH.
It'd been rumored for a while that Holgo was asking WVU for more, and they either weren't willing, or weren't able, to produce it.
-
Holgo is going to Houston to replace Major.
Major would be working under HC Manny Diaz at Miami.
:-[ i knew that.
-
If that's not true and we need to fight this out inside the octagon, well, let me know. It might take me a few months to train up for it, but I assure you I'll do my best to be ready.
Since I'm like 12 or 13 years older than you, I get to bring a 2x4 into the octagon with me. Right?
-
Money. UH has tons of it. Not UT-like money, but there are plenty of Houston-based oil and business interests that support UH.
It'd been rumored for a while that Holgo was asking WVU for more, and they either weren't willing, or weren't able, to produce it.
Oh, and also, as our resident WVU fan Kris pointed out on the B1G threads (sure which he'd post over here more), there's a faction of the WVU administration and fans that aren't too sad to see him go. They think he's done well there but has probably hit his ceiling. So I don't think they tried too hard to hold onto him. With him leaving, they avoided having to pay his buyout and, apparently, Houston even had to pay WVU some money to buy him out.
If WVU really got the next up-and-comer they wanted, then I think this is probably one of those rare win-wins when it comes to the coaching carousel.
-
Money. UH has tons of it. Not UT-like money, but there are plenty of Houston-based oil and business interests that support UH.
It'd been rumored for a while that Holgo was asking WVU for more, and they either weren't willing, or weren't able, to produce it.
I’m not sure of that. I think it’s more like Tillman Fertita has lots of money, which may be about the same thing. I know a few years ago UH was pouring massive amounts of money into its athletic dept as opposed to schools like A&M and UT whose athletic dept is self sustaining. They are probably on much better footing now than 10 years ago. I’m curious how y’all feel about the big 12 snubbing UH and if they should eventually be accepted into the conference.
-
I’m curious how y’all feel about the big 12 snubbing UH and if they should eventually be accepted into the conference.
I have no feelings about it all really.
I was a most ardent football fan in about 1974 before I discovered girls so that’s my template for college football and everything differing from that pains me.
Plus the whole arbitrariness of it. For years we were told there was no value in adding TCU, then we added them. For the same reasons we were told the was no value in adding UofH for the same reasons. Then we heard the Texas public schools supported their entry.
So I have no idea what’s what.
I also hear OU & Texas will go to the B1G in 2025.
-
I'm curious why you would suggest the B12 is "snubbing" Houston.
Do you similarly think the SEC is "snubbing" Houston?
What an odd comment.
-
From his comments, evidently Dana really loves living in Houston. Apparently about 5 million people do it, so I guess it's just inevitable that some of them enjoy the experience.
-
Lots to love in Htown. I could move there. It’s got more people than the ATX but the infrastructure is better, not every old neighborhood is being gentrified so it’s much more affordable in places.
-
I'm curious why you would suggest the B12 is "snubbing" Houston.
Do you similarly think the SEC is "snubbing" Houston?
What an odd comment.
Well, frankly they didn't apply to the SEC (AFAIK) and they did apply to, and were turned down by, the Big 12. I think it's spot on, and I also think that UH will eventually be accepted into the Big 12.
-
How much more of the Htown market that the 12 does not already own could UofH deliver? Enough to cover UofH’s share of Big 12 revenue at today’s payouts per share?
-
Oh, and also, as our resident WVU fan Kris pointed out on the B1G threads (sure which he'd post over here more), there's a faction of the WVU administration and fans that aren't too sad to see him go. They think he's done well there but has probably hit his ceiling. So I don't think they tried too hard to hold onto him. With him leaving, they avoided having to pay his buyout and, apparently, Houston even had to pay WVU some money to buy him out.
If WVU really got the next up-and-comer they wanted, then I think this is probably one of those rare win-wins when it comes to the coaching carousel.
I don't know how much money UH has, other than "a lot," but I think your last part is right on. I don't think that there were any tears shed in Morgantown. I don't think there will be tears shed in Houston when Holgorsen moves on to his next gig either. I think he's a guy who wears out his welcome.
-
I also hear OU & Texas will go to the B1G in 2025.
I hope that what you hear is true, CharleyHorse.
-
Well, frankly they didn't apply to the SEC (AFAIK) and they did apply to, and were turned down by, the Big 12. I think it's spot on, and I also think that UH will eventually be accepted into the Big 12.
Several dozen schools applied to join the B12. All were turned down. Were they all "snubbed?
-
From his comments, evidently Dana really loves living in Houston. Apparently about 5 million people do it, so I guess it's just inevitable that some of them enjoy the experience.
Like all places, there's good & bad qualities with Houston but I can say as someone born & raised here, the abrasive, hustling, unpretty concrete jungle of a city has ways of feeling like 'home' in a very special way, even after traveling to some of the most beautiful destinations in the world that put it to shame in appeal. It has more to do with the people in it than any landscape, culture scene, or tourist attraction, and if you don't know why then it's okay, we're used to being misunderstood.
-
Ive lived in Houston for 48 years
Got no problem with H Town except their school system
But to be fair you could say that about most any big city
We moved to northwest Houston in 1990 mainly to get into the Cy Fair
school dist which is better then most IMHO
anyway just my 2 cents worth
-
Several dozen schools applied to join the B12. All were turned down. Were they all "snubbed?
Well, I know that several schools were interviewed, but my view from here was that Houston was the best among that group of candidates and the Houston media/talk was that UH was going to be invited. I feel that not only was UH surprised they weren't invited most of the country was surprised. Maybe there was a different spin put on things in Austin.
I feel that the reason UH was really spurned was because there wasn't a decent "school 12" to bring in at the same time.
We can make arguments for and against including UH into the Big 12 (tv market, exposure, recruiting) but I feel sooner or later the Big 12 will either have to expand or disband. If UCF can continue to play well for 5 or more years I think they will be invited along with UH. Just my own personal opinion, and I know there are a lot of hard feelings about the way the "original" conference fell apart but I truly loved our time in the conference even if we didn't have a lot of success in the later years. It's kind of the "old neighborhood" analogy. We may have moved out of the old neighborhood but it doesn't mean that we don't keep up with our old neighbors from time to time.
-
Well, I know that several schools were interviewed, but my view from here was that Houston was the best among that group of candidates and the Houston media/talk was that UH was going to be invited. I feel that not only was UH surprised they weren't invited most of the country was surprised. Maybe there was a different spin put on things in Austin.
I feel that the reason UH was really spurned was because there wasn't a decent "school 12" to bring in at the same time.
We can make arguments for and against including UH into the Big 12 (tv market, exposure, recruiting) but I feel sooner or later the Big 12 will either have to expand or disband. If UCF can continue to play well for 5 or more years I think they will be invited along with UH. Just my own personal opinion, and I know there are a lot of hard feelings about the way the "original" conference fell apart but I truly loved our time in the conference even if we didn't have a lot of success in the later years. It's kind of the "old neighborhood" analogy. We may have moved out of the old neighborhood but it doesn't mean that we don't keep up with our old neighbors from time to time.
Why do you believe this?
-
Why do you believe this?
Hard to elaborate, just more of a general feeling. Part of me believes that no matter what the XII will eventually disband, the only thing holding it together is UT and OU. Lose either of those two schools and you've got the Big East redux.
-
Hard to elaborate, just more of a general feeling. Part of me believes that no matter what the XII will eventually disband, the only thing holding it together is UT and OU. Lose either of those two schools and you've got the Big East redux.
Well that's certainly true, but then the next question is, why do you think Texas or OU would leave the B12? And where would they go?
-
The competitive fortunes of the Big 12 ebb and flow just like any other league. Having Nebraska and (to a MUCH lesser extent) Mizzou around kind of insulated it from proximity problems. However, without moving Texas to the east coast, it's about as stable as any league could hope for. "Without Texas and OU" is a big statement, because the Big 12 is uniquely qualified to host Texas' status as (monetarily) one of the most powerful athletic departments out there. Simply having that kind of clout in the league makes it inherently stable.
Of course, the Big 12 isn't immune to the disease all leagues have contracted - TV money. We're all no longer based off competitive interest, but rather how much revenue we command from broadcasters. When the money flowed freely, it was easy living. When the money got tighter, it made sense as an investment. There's every reason to believe that world won't last much longer.
What happens when the corporations responsible for these broadcasters (most with huge financial interests outside of sports broadcasting) decide it simply isn't worth defending market share in college athletics? Texas loves its money, but could survive with 20% less revenue from TV. They're extremely fortunate in that regard, and extremely rare. Almost every athletic department out there is leveraged to its bottom dollar, and is depending on TV football to make the next payment. I'm wondering what happens when TV quits growing the pie?
Either on purpose or by accident, the Big 12 is fortunate not to have tied itself to a conference network nor expanded needlessly. It's currently as healthy as college football is in general.
-
Right.
The B12 generates more revenue per school than the ACC or PAC, and that's not even counting the 3rd tier rights which are included in ACC and PAC distributions, but not in B12 distributions.
So if money isn't the driver, then what WOULD be the compelling reason for Texas or OU to want to leave the B12?
-
Right.
The B12 generates more revenue per school than the ACC or PAC, and that's not even counting the 3rd tier rights which are included in ACC and PAC distributions, but not in B12 distributions.
So if money isn't the driver, then what WOULD be the compelling reason for Texas or OU to want to leave the B12?
Why did Texas try to leave the first time?
We can argue about why A&M did leave but what was the driver for Texas to leave?
-
Why did Texas try to leave the first time?
We can argue about why A&M did leave but what was the driver for Texas to leave?
When did Texas try to leave?
Are you referring to when Nebraska bailed on the conference, and everyone was scrambling to see if they needed to go somewhere else?
When everyone knew the Huskers were leaving (which was many months before they announced it), there was a ton of instability. All of the various B12 schools were desperately trying to figure out where to go, given the expectation that the diminished B12 sans Nebraska might not carry the same financial weight it had previously. That's when UT (and A&M and OU and 3 other B12 schools) entered serious talks with the PAC.
But then when A&M decided they didn't really want the PAC, and the B12 media partners came in with guarantees tot the B12 that the television money would not decrease and would remain competitive with the other major conferences, Texas was able to stand pat with its preferred option, sitting tight in the B12.
-
Why did Texas try to leave the first time?
We can argue about why A&M did leave but what was the driver for Texas to leave?
We weren't part of the decision-making process, so we don't know. In other words we have no facts. Just speculation. And maybe some quotes from the time - if you can believe them. All we can do is conjecture.
I think hubris had a lot to do with it.
The president of UT as the time, William Powers, was a Berkeley guy. I think he imagined it would enhance UT's academic reputation if it could rub elbows with Stanford and Cal instead of some of the Big 12 schools with less prestigious reputations.
Meanwhile, DeLoss Dodds was full of himself. He was making the most outrageous comments. Saying things like "we are the Jones" and "we didn't start realignment but we'll end it."
I mean, my goodness. Even if you honestly think such things, you shouldn't say them aloud. But he did and I think that sheds light into where he thought he was in relation to everybody else.
Dodds was going to parlay the Texas brand into a bigger payout. As it turns out, the LHN was an even sweeter deal for Texas than anything the Pac-12 offered.
I'd like to think the new guys at Texas - Fenves and Del Conte - are nicer guys and better team players. Maybe they are. Maybe they're not. Who knows?
As a fan, I was thoroughly intrigued by the notion of an Arizona, Arizona St, Texas, Oklahoma, Tech, oSu, Colorado, and somebody else division with cross-divisional games with Washington, WSU, Oregon, Oregon St, Cal, Stanford, USC and UCLA.
But in hindsight, so many games on Pacific time would probably get old real fast. That's kind of the main appeal of the B1G. They're in our timezone.
-
When did Texas try to leave?
Are you referring to when Nebraska bailed on the conference, and everyone was scrambling to see if they needed to go somewhere else?
When everyone knew the Huskers were leaving (which was many months before they announced it)...
If I remember correctly, Missouri openly begged the B1G for a spot but Nebraska did not entertain the notion of moving to the B1G until it caught wind (thank you, Chip Brown) of the Pac-12's power play.
I'm not defending Nebraska or throwing Texas under the bus. I just seem to remember everything playing out within about 10 days in June of 2010 (or some year like that).
Clearly Nebraska and the B1G could not have moved so quickly unless there had been earlier interest and vetting, but I can't recall it being public info. Maybe you were more attune to the murmurs than I was, Junior. Wouldn't surprise me. You know a guy.
-
If I remember correctly, Missouri openly begged the B1G for a spot but Nebraska did not entertain the notion of moving to the B1G until it caught wind (thank you, Chip Brown) of the Pac-12's power play.
I'm not defending Nebraska or throwing Texas under the bus. I just seem to remember everything playing out within about 10 days in June of 2010 (or some year like that).
Clearly Nebraska and the B1G could not have moved so quickly unless there had been earlier interest and vetting, but I can't recall it being public info. Maybe you were more attune to the murmurs than I was, Junior. Wouldn't surprise me. You know a guy.
Yeah, I definitely know a guy. And his sources back then were a lot more clued-in than they are now.
Missouri was certainly the first to throw its hat in the pot. But when the B1G realized Nebraska was interested, they wanted the Huskers far more than Missouri.
Nebraska "announced" it was going to the B1G around the same time as the "PAC 16" story broke, but that was well after it was decided. Just think about the sheer number of "yes" votes required for Nebraska to make such a move? AD, school president, university Board of Directors, and even the Nebraska state legislature, all had to know and in some form sign off on the change. Then of course the B1G itself had to gain approval from its member schools, although I think at the time they'd given the B1G conference commissioner pretty comprehensive abilities to make that decision and negotiate on their behalf. Still, after all of that, the lawyers from both parties, still needed to completely vet it, before any announcement could possibly be made.
It was widely known months ahead of time that Nebraska was bolting, at least among the circles of university presidents and athletic directors that would need to make decisions for their own universities' well being.
-
Anyway, all that aside, Texas under DeLoss Dodds was certainly guilty of extreme hubris. I won't allow Texas to take all of the blame for the inequality in the original B12, since both Texas A&M and Nebraska voted alongside Texas for unequal revenue sharing every single time it ever came up for a vote. But Texas at the very least partly responsible for the animosity among conference mates.
I, too, hope that Fenves and del Conte show better leadership and more holistic, comprehensive forward-thinking.
-
I believe the Big 12's ability to individually monetize 3rd tier rights should add a measure of resiliency not found in other conferences.
Every conference gets a decent cut of the top layer - the Tier 1 rights. Those are the CBS, ABC, and Foxes that want first pick. They pay big to get in line first (and second sometimes) and select the best games that week across all sports for their viewers. The next pickers are the Tier 2 guys. That's when ESPNU and Fox Sports Southwest come calling for their early or off time games. They don't pay as much for that right as do the Tier 1 contracts, but they're still hefty. Every conference gets these. Leagues that reach big audiences get slightly more (see the "unless Texas moves to the East Coast" comment earlier).
Where the Big 12 differs is with the Tier 3 rights. Those are the "not picked up" games. After TV fills out its schedule, these are the games not claimed by anyone. In every other conference, those rights fall to the conference itself and typically go nowhere. In the Big 12, those rights stay with the individual universities themselves. Texas famously sold that cluster to ESPN for use on the "Longhorn Network".
ESPN is contracted to the LHN for a while. After that contract runs out, who knows its fate, but that's largely irrelevant. The fact is, any school can sell those rights to anyone. It's obviously gonna be rare for a school to have the reach of Texas and draw interest from a national cable level broadcaster, but that's likely not a future proof concept anyhow.
Personally, I'd investigate Amazon Video or (why not) Netflix. Create, say, the Baylor Sports Channel. The school has an Broadcast Journalism school and a CS school. If nothing else, they should be able to get together and student manage a programming schedule. Sell it for $4.99/mo to the faithful.
-
Yeah, I don't know if the B12 is better off with this model, but it's certainly poised to be more flexible if/when the subscriber model gets completely killed off.
-
Expansion depends on the permission of the networks else the same size pie gets cut into smaller pieces
When the networks like the idea of Big12 expansion is the day it will happen
-
Expansion depends on the permission of the networks else the same size pie gets cut into smaller pieces
When the networks like the idea of Big12 expansion is the day it will happen
And that was the main issue with admitting UH to the B12. The network media partners didn't consider it to be a net gain of any kind, so it was a non-starter from the beginning. It's not personal toward Houston, the networks didn't consider ANY of the applicants to be sufficient to increase the size of the pie.
At this point, there's nothing to be gained from adding any teams at all, so why would the B12 do something not in its best interest?
The only schools that would move the needle, are highly unlikely to leave their current conferences. And so we're frozen right here where we are.
-
I also hear OU & Texas will go to the B1G in 2025.
I really don't want to be the B1G's West Virginia.
-
better than being the B1G's Rutgers
-
All very good points gentlemen, I'm glad that somebody in American can have a civil discussion about a hot topic.
Did you see that Fox is dropping the Big 12 CCG from their TV packages? Where will it land? Would it be on the LHN?
-
probably ESPN
It was Fox not ABC that dropped the game
-
All very good points gentlemen, I'm glad that somebody in American can have a civil discussion about a hot topic.
Did you see that Fox is dropping the Big 12 CCG from their TV packages? Where will it land? Would it be on the LHN?
I don't know exactly what they mean by "dropping". They had the rights to even numbered years, so next year makes no difference. I haven't checked to see if Fox as a company still retains the rights, and they just propose making it regional, or if they're relinquishing it altogether - in which case I'd expect ESPN/ABC to throw in a couple of pennies to buy up the missing years before then.
It may be dawning on them that a CCG for a round robin league is a flawed idea, and that no one outside of the immediate fan base is interested.
-
why do you think Texas or OU would leave the B12? And where would they go?
Exactly...
* The PAC idea is losing stock every year. Arizona schools would likely come this way first.
* The SEC is likely the most sensible for money and geography, but the competition would be brutal.
* The B1G is fine for academic elitists, and easier for Texas to dominate on the field - but we play baseball, not hockey. And so much for neighboring rivalries.
* The ACC. Uh, no. We're not going to fly over the SEC.
So that's leaves staying with the B12. Which seems more likely now that before. If Nebbie and Arky would defect and come over, I would be fine. If it stays the way it is now, yawn.
Texas leaving the B12 is not a done deal like we used to think. But I do trust Del Conte.
-
For some related reasons, I don't see Oklahoma leaving the XII any time soon either. Of course, I'm just some fan over here on the east coast and have no idea what the OU brass are thinking, but this is just how it occurs to me. The Sooners continue to have competitive matchups with several XII rivals, and they are either old Big 8 rivals or newer SWC rivals (that were always kind of in the background, e.g. all those games with TCU prior to the Frogs joining the XII). So, that's nice; it's always good to keep those rivalries alive. But ... what's really important is how well OU has done lately overall.
I mean, let's face it, OU has won four straight conference titles in the XII and been in the playoffs now 3 times out of 5 years that CFP has been going. It'd be nice to see them actually win one of these playoff games of course, but at least they've played them competitively (if one overlooks the 2nd half vs Clemson 3 years ago, and the 1st quarter vs Bama this time). Last year was probably the biggest miss. We had Baker and were every bit as good as any of the other playoff teams - but just didn't win the UGa OT, durn it all.
The salient point is - would OU fare better than this in a different conference? Highly doubtful. I think that's the main metric. I don't really think keeping rivalries with OSU or Texas are the main concern any more. It would be a shame to lose either, but I think if Oklahoma saw a better option in another conference, I believe they would go, either with or without Texas or OSU. It's just that at the moment, there are no better options, and in fact most options look worse.
-
The assumption was always, that the B12's financial distributions would lag, and therefore Texas and OU would want to leave. In reality that hasn't played out. The B12 financial distributions actually lead both the PAC and the ACC. They lag behind the B1G and SEC, but as the cable subscriber model erodes and diminishes, that gap will narrow. And even if it doesn't narrow significantly from where it is today, the switching costs and increased costs of logistics involved in going to ANY other conference, will always make it difficult for Texas to leave, and at least somewhat similarly difficult for OU as well.
If ever the football programs at all schools were decoupled from the other sports, I think we'd probably see some major changes in the conference landscape. But unless/until that happens, we've likely reached a pretty stable point. The financial bubble is bursting, cable subscriber model is dying, so the financial incentives for making moves are decreasing pretty quickly.
-
I don't know exactly what they mean by "dropping". They had the rights to even numbered years, so next year makes no difference. I haven't checked to see if Fox as a company still retains the rights, and they just propose making it regional, or if they're relinquishing it altogether - in which case I'd expect ESPN/ABC to throw in a couple of pennies to buy up the missing years before then.
It may be dawning on them that a CCG for a round robin league is a flawed idea, and that no one outside of the immediate fan base is interested.
The 2018 B12 CCG brought in the second-most viewers out of ALL of the CCGs, behind only the SEC. So I sincerely doubt it's going to a regional network. You'd have to think neither OU nor Texas are likely to make the game in the future to believe it won't receive good ratings.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
-
Nobody on this thread knows for sure how things will shake out. Some things to consider:
1. The Big 12 CCG did well this year because It was Texas-OU. 70% of the TVs in the Big 12 are in Texas, and the University of Texas is the most popular (and polarizing) Big 12 school in Texas. OU has a big following too. If Iowa State and Baylor are in the CCG, only a fraction of the Texas - OU audience is tuning in.
2. There’s no revenue gap for Texas and OU at the moment. The B1G hands out $51m. Texas gets $37m in 1st & 2nd Tier plus at least $15m in 3rd Tier. The SEC hands out $47m. OU gets $37m plus $9m. Not enough of a difference to worry about.
3. But what if the gap widens, the LHN contract ends, and the GORs binding the Big 12 goes away. Tell me Texas and OU wouldn't listen to the B1G.
-
1) The same is true of ANY conference championship game. The B1G CCG suffered in 2018 because it had Northwestern in it, but didn't completely tank because Ohio State was there. But imagine if it were Northwestern and Indiana? Imagine if the SEC CCG were Mississippi State and Vanderbilt? Ratings would suffer similarly.
2,3) The main driver for any "widening" of the revenue gap would come from the conference networks. But as the cable subscriber model erodes, there's no reason to think that gap will widen, and in fact plenty of reason to believe it will diminish.
-
1. A CCG after a round-robin season is an abomination. It's a guaranteed rematch (unlike what teams in the other four P5 conferences necessarily face), which means it devalues the regular-season game. And a rematch is a bummer for the winner of the first game. I hated seeing OU lose to Texas in October, but it would have been even worse to have won that one--the traditional rivalry game--only to lose to Texas in the CCG. I imagine Texas fans felt that way. I'm sure Nebraska fans felt that way back in '78 when Nebraska beat OU in Lincoln only to receive a rematch in the Orange Bowl as their reward. IIRC, with 2 weeks to go last November, OU, UT, WVU, and ISU were still in the running for the CCG. I think I remember that ISU-WVU was a possibility. And if WVU hadn't tanked, the 'Eers could have been in the CCG vs. either OU or UT. That would have been better than vs. ISU as a national attraction, but not nearly as good as OU-UT. As a national game, OU-Texas moves the needle like no other match-up in the Big 12.
2, 3. I don't have facts at hand to argue the revenue points, but I would hope that if the B1G came calling, or more likely hinting, OU at least would listen and respond with a request for membership. And not primarily for the football revenue.
It wouldn't kill me if OU and UT ended up in different conferences as long as they agreed to keep the annual game in Dallas. But I think the B1G would be more likely to hint non-AAU-member OU's way if the potential for a package deal were there.
It also wouldn't kill me if the Big 12 continued to bump along. But I think WVU is a point of instability. I'm sure when they joined the Big 12, they anticipated--or at least hoped for--another team or two in the Eastern time zone being added. Now that that seems to have been nothing but a pipe dream, if I were WVU, I'd be trying to find another home. Granted, their options seem to be nil, but that doesn't mean that they aren't dreaming of going elsewhere.
-
Oh I certainly agree with you on the CCG after a roundrobin, C-Dub. It's stupid and redundant,
But the B12 now fears that the committee doesn't care that a roundrobin creates a more difficult schedule, and doesn't care that playing nine conference games also produces a more difficult schedule than playing eight. The B12 believed that mumbo jumbo from a few years ago about the committee needing to see a "13th data point" when they actually just wanted to put a helmet school in over TCU or Baylor. Clearly the committee didn't care about the "13th data point" when they put OU into the CFP in 2015, nor did they care about it this year when they included Notre Dame. It only matters to them when they're trying to eliminate non-helmets from consideration.
Additionally, the B12 wants the money from a CCG.
So unfortunately it's here to stay.
-
Proximity is the bane and unfortunate fact of life in college football. We like stuff that happened recently, and weight it both consciously and unconsciously ahead of all other data points. The Big 12 needs something to get excited about at the end.
Given the current weight of the Big 12's teams, playing TX/OU at the end would be ideal. Since a big part of that game is the Texas State Fair, that isn't an option (nor would I really want that to happen). OU still has Bedlam, and most years that game against oSu has the capability to realign the Big 12 standings. It's good to have it at the end. Really, Texas needs a team like that to play at the end - a decent sized rival with the capability of causing a shift in the standings.
Eliminate the Big 12 CCG and play those two games on "Championship Saturday" right before the final CFP poll. I guess you could extrapolate it out and put all 10 teams in action that day. You're almost certain to end with matchups that might move the needle.
-
Really, Texas needs a team like that to play at the end - a decent sized rival with the capability of causing a shift in the standings.
where are the Aggies when you need them?
-
where are the Aggies when you need them?
He specified, "with the capability of causing a shift in the standings," and not "a guaranteed win for the Longhorns" so the Aggies aren't really applicable.
-
duly noted
-
He specified, "with the capability of causing a shift in the standings," and not "a guaranteed win for the Longhorns" so the Aggies aren't really applicable.
I distinctly recall knocking the Longhorns out of the CCG more than once over the years. Yes, it was lopsided for awhile but utee as you are well aware there was a time when A&M took 9/10 from the horns. I think we would’ve taken at least 4 of the last 6 had we stayed.
-
I distinctly recall knocking the Longhorns out of the CCG more than once over the years. Yes, it was lopsided for awhile but utee as you are well aware there was a time when A&M took 9/10 from the horns. I think we would’ve taken at least 4 of the last 6 had we stayed.
so is that an aggie scoreboard
-
I distinctly recall knocking the Longhorns out of the CCG more than once over the years. Yes, it was lopsided for awhile but utee as you are well aware there was a time when A&M took 9/10 from the horns. I think we would’ve taken at least 4 of the last 6 had we stayed.
LOL. Of course you do. And yet your administration made its 100-year decision, and will have to live with it.
Also, 27-25. SCOREBOARD.
-
I distinctly recall knocking the Longhorns out of the CCG more than once over the years.
MORE than once????
Here’s a trivia question for you:
That happened in 2006 and... when else?
-
I think we would’ve taken at least 4 of the last 6 had we stayed.
See how that works? Avoid the Longhorns and assume a 67% winning percentage.
Much better than the results when actually playing.
-
And yet your administration made its 100-year decision
That whole "100-year decision" thing cracked me up.
As if college football will still exist in 100 years.
As if the same conference structure will exist in 100 years.
As if Texas A&M hasn't become an online degree factory and abandoned football in 100 years.
And other stuff.
-
See how that works? Avoid the Longhorns and assume a 67% winning percentage.
Much better than the results when actually playing.
see thats where Georgia made a huge mistake
they should have skipped the game and just assume they would beat a 4 loss team
-
Most recent post on the PAC board is November. Yes please, let's join this conference.
-
See how that works? Avoid the Longhorns and assume a 67% winning percentage.
Much better than the results when actually playing.
as the Horns should have done from 84-94
-
That whole "100-year decision" thing cracked me up.
As if college football will still exist in 100 years.
As if the same conference structure will exist in 100 years.
hey, we're 8 years in and the clock is still ticking
-
LOL. Of course you do. And yet your administration made its 100-year decision, and will have to live with it.
Also, 27-25. SCOREBOARD.
Bitter much? I’m not sure what you’re trying to say or convey but I think all parties will agree that moving to the SEC was a very good move for A&M even if results on the field have been mediocre at best.
Also, depending on who you want to believe A & M was willing, at first to play the game regardless of conference affiliations.
Personally, even though we would have probably won a majority of the fictional contests played during that time just based on overall records and the finish of the teams, I’m glad we put a hiatus on the game and I’d like to keep it that way for awhile yet.
-
Bitter? Lulz. Nope, I'm good. :)
A&M's administration did what it thought best, and most Aggie fans I know in real life are happy or at least content with the move, although my i s c & a aggie wife still doesn't much care about the SEC teams y'all now face, when she grew up with the Aggies playing all of the major Texas schools instead.
I miss the rivalry and would like to see the game played again, but I don't think the logistics are ever really going to set up for it to be played annually anymore. Eventually I'm sure it will pick back up as a semi-regular home-and-home series, played early in the season, maybe two years out of every 8 or 10. I'll look forward to it when that happens.
-
As if college football will still exist in 100 years.
Football facing growing insurance issue https://es.pn/2FygsVt (https://es.pn/2FygsVt)
-
Bitter? Lulz. Nope, I'm good. :)
A&M's administration did what it thought best, and most Aggie fans I know in real life are happy or at least content with the move, although my i s c & a aggie wife still doesn't much care about the SEC teams y'all now face, when she grew up with the Aggies playing all of the major Texas schools instead.
I miss the rivalry and would like to see the game played again, but I don't think the logistics are ever really going to set up for it to be played annually anymore. Eventually I'm sure it will pick back up as a semi-regular home-and-home series, played early in the season, maybe two years out of every 8 or 10. I'll look forward to it when that happens.
You just seem overly concerned about the supposed "100 year decision" any time conference realignment is mentioned. Of course it's mostly bullshit because 100 years is a lot of time for stuff to happen. Heck, I don't even think the SWC existed 100 years ago. But it will probably last through my lifetime and yours too. I think there is a lot of shock from the longhorn side that Texas didn't get hardly anything of what " they" wanted (PAC-10 or maybe even B1G) and A&M was able to make a move on their own recognizance compared to schools like oSu and Tech who had to toe the party line and do what they were told. Sure, they got the LHN but fast forward a few years who really cares? Pretty soon every school will have something similar all stream-able via whatever service of the day is the best.
Playing all the "major" Texas schools? Who is that exactly? Texas and ??? Baylor sucks and will probably always suck, Tech who has NEVER even once won a sole conference championship, TCU who will disappear into the crapper and play to their real identity once Patterson is gone?
Even though I was happy in the Big XII I think the matchups in the SEC are so much more meaningful. I would rather play Auburn or Miss St any day over Tech or Baylor. Yes, Alabama and LSU are murder but so was Texas and OU. Their turn in the gutter will come, sooner than later I suspect based on how long they've been playing at a high level. I don't miss playing Iowa St, Kansas, Colorado, or Baylor. I kinda miss playing Tech, those were some barn burners and probably more of a rivalry at times than Texas/A&M.
I think the game is on a 20 year hiatus and we're on year 8 so 12 to go unless we meet in a bowl game...
-
... Playing all the "major" Texas schools? Who is that exactly? Texas and ??? Baylor sucks and will probably always suck, Tech who has NEVER even once won a sole conference championship, TCU who will disappear into the crapper and play to their real identity once Patterson is gone?
Even though I was happy in the Big XII I think the matchups in the SEC are so much more meaningful. I would rather play Auburn or Miss St any day over Tech or Baylor. Yes, Alabama and LSU are murder but so was Texas and OU. Their turn in the gutter will come, sooner than later I suspect based on how long they've been playing at a high level...
You do realize, Gig’em, that Arkansas and South Carolina have not won SEC titles, despite being in that conference like 25 years. Mississippi State hasn’t won one since 1941 and Ole Miss since 1963. Add to that the 2 or 3 terrible G5 or FCS you guys have been playing every year since 2012 or so and there’s not a lot more substance to your schedule than you had in the SWC or Big 12. Unless there’s some dignity is losing to better teams.
-
You do realize, Gig’em, that Arkansas and South Carolina have not won SEC titles, despite being in that conference like 25 years. Mississippi State hasn’t won one since 1941 and Ole Miss since 1963. Add to that the 2 or 3 terrible G5 or FCS you guys have been playing every year since 2012 or so and there’s not a lot more substance to your schedule than you had in the SWC or Big 12. Unless there’s some dignity is losing to better teams.
No kidding. If anyone sounds bitter here, it's pretty clearly Gigem. What a weird take, getting offended that my Aggie wife would be more interested seeing her team playing old regional rivals, rather than Mississippi schools she doesn't give a crap about.
-
You do realize, Gig’em, that Arkansas and South Carolina have not won SEC titles, despite being in that conference like 25 years. Mississippi State hasn’t won one since 1941 and Ole Miss since 1963. Add to that the 2 or 3 terrible G5 or FCS you guys have been playing every year since 2012 or so and there’s not a lot more substance to your schedule than you had in the SWC or Big 12. Unless there’s some dignity is losing to better teams.
I'm perfectly aware of everything you have just listed, but I have faith. Arkansas has played for the title 4 times so they've been close. I believe A&M is in a much better position to compete for the title than each school you listed for obvious reasons.
-
Okaaaay, Gig’em. I will give you this: you’re not the only person in this world who imagines SEC competition is superior.
If OU loses to Iowa State the Sooners drop like a rock. If Alabama loses to Ole Miss, Ole Miss vaults into the Top Ten. This double standard without merit is irksome to say the least.
-
the only way to change it is with merit. Iowa State needs to schedule and beat Ole Miss on the field
but, as we know, this is impossible because Ole Miss and others in the SEC refuse to schedule such games
-
Okaaaay, Gig’em. I will give you this: you’re not the only person in this world who imagines SEC competition is superior.
If OU loses to Iowa State the Sooners drop like a rock. If Alabama loses to Ole Miss, Ole Miss vaults into the Top Ten. This double standard without merit is irksome to say the least.
I’m truly bewildered by your post. I don’t believe the SEC competition is superior and have avoided pushing that agenda. In fact by pointing out that Arkansas and USC have never won it you pretty much said it, not me. I think that each conference has great teams and as exhibited by Clemson whipping Bama each conference has teams that compare to the very best.
What I said was that I enjoy the matchups we have now better than most of the ones in the Big 12 and I specifically mentioned Baylor, TCU, Kansas, and Iowa State.
Seriously Longhorn fans complaining about poll bias is up there with ND fans complaining about it. It mostly shakes out in the end.
-
Longhorn helmet fans CAN'T be complaining about poll bias after finishing in the top 10 with 4 losses
-
I’m truly bewildered by your post. I don’t believe the SEC competition is superior and have avoided pushing that agenda. In fact by pointing out that Arkansas and USC have never won it you pretty much said it, not me. I think that each conference has great teams and as exhibited by Clemson whipping Bama each conference has teams that compare to the very best.
What I said was that I enjoy the matchups we have now better than most of the ones in the Big 12 and I specifically mentioned Baylor, TCU, Kansas, and Iowa State.
Seriously Longhorn fans complaining about poll bias is up there with ND fans complaining about it. It mostly shakes out in the end.
You’re generally quite tactful, Gig’em, and I commend for that but honestly, like three posts up, you denigrated A&M’s former SWC and Big 12 opposition. If that’s not an implication that you think you’re SEC competition is superior to your former competition, I don’t know what is. Why even disparage Baylor, Tech and Kansas St?
But when I say you’re not alone in thinking SEC competition is superior, I bewilder you.
Well, if that bewilders you, I guess we’re at an impasse.
Enjoy the SEC, enjoy disparaging SWC and Big 12 teams while denying that you think SEC competition is superior, enjoy being bewildered. I’ll take a time out from this particular wildly bewildering conversation.
-
Longhorn helmet fans CAN'T be complaining about poll bias after finishing in the top 10 with 4 losses
Oh yeah. That’s never happened before.
Except for well last year when Auburn did it but I guess the unfair perception of the SEC kept anybody from raising their eyebrows until Texas did it so thank you for proving my point.
-
Well Hooky everything you see is burnt orange tinted and everything I see is maroon tinted so I agree that we're at an impasse.
I enjoy our games in the SEC but I appreciate what you guys are saying about the regional rivalries. I hope we're all still kicking in a dozen or so years when A&M and UT take the field against each other again and then maybe we can really have something to argue about.
-
Oh yeah. That’s never happened before.
Except for well last year when Auburn did it but I guess the unfair perception of the SEC kept anybody from raising their eyebrows until Texas did it so thank you for proving my point.
you are welcome, sir
-
Well Hooky everything you see is burnt orange tinted and everything I see is maroon tinted so I agree that we're at an impasse.
I enjoy our games in the SEC but I appreciate what you guys are saying about the regional rivalries. I hope we're all still kicking in a dozen or so years when A&M and UT take the field against each other again and then maybe we can really have something to argue about.
You are a good guy, my friend. Always level-headed, never angered. Hope I can get down to Brazoria county this auditing season to buy you a beer. I may have to kick somebody out of the Angleton trip. That may be the closest I can get.
PS - I hate the Celtics, the Red Sox and the Patriots. Why can’t we build a wall around Boston?
-
That we can agree on my friend.
-
I don't have any reason to dislike the people of Boston or the fans of Boston sports teams.
But I absolutely loathe Philadelphia Eagles fans. They're the worst.
-
I like Boston and I hope they kick the Rams butt
-
I like Boston, I have Patriots gear I will be wearing to the Super Bowl party from my friends in Boston
but, I'll be rooting for the Rams
Brady has enough rings
-
I like Boston, I have Patriots gear I will be wearing to the Super Bowl party from my friends in Boston
but, I'll be rooting for the Rams
Brady has enough rings
how socialist of you
-
like last year, I will probably be the only person at the party that does not hate the Pats.
Works for me as I enjoy stirring things up and being contrary!
-
Oh yeah, I'm tired of the Pats winning so much simply because it's boring. I feel similarly about Nick Saban and Alabama. But I don't have any specific reasons to dislike the Pats or the Tide. Pats fans and Alabama fans I've met and known in real life have all been good people.
I'll be rooting for the Rams but doubt I'll watch much of the game. I tend to get my drinks and snacks during the game, and focus on the commercials for my Superbowl entertainment.
-
How much longer is Shaka Smart going to last? :smiley_confused1:
-
How much longer is Shaka Smart going to last? :smiley_confused1:
Who??
-
think hoops
-
think hoops
Schools that wear blue play that.
-
I understand, was just providing the clue
so, in other words, it's not worth looking into
-
Oh yeah, I'm tired of the Pats winning so much simply because it's boring. I feel similarly about Nick Saban and Alabama. But I don't have any specific reasons to dislike the Pats or the Tide. Pats fans and Alabama fans I've met and known in real life have all been good people.
I'll be rooting for the Rams but doubt I'll watch much of the game. I tend to get my drinks and snacks during the game, and focus on the commercials for my Superbowl entertainment.
that's just cause you haven't met me in person yet.
also, after all the shit i talked about applewhite earlier in this thread, looks like he might be back on bama staff, lol. he interviewed last week as an analyst apparently.
-
So, I have a friend who cheers for the Pats because in his own words, he "likes to support a winner" ... he was visiting not too long ago (he's actually the husband of a dear friend of my dear wife's, and they were visiting us all the way from Portland, which was a great boost for the morale of my precious wife, and it was darned nice of them) and talked about how great the NE dynasty, Brady, Belichick, etc all were, and basically just how fun it was to be alive while the Pats were doing so well. And, no, this is not Fearless.
It turns out he is from LA, and so during the SB, I texted them asking, okay, so is this the point where you actually break down and cheer for the home team? He's old enough to have a strong memory of Roman Gabriel etc from the earlier version of the LA Rams, and if I'm not mistaken grew up an LA fan. Then of course the Rams left LA, so I kind of get his need to find a new team, but you know the Rams are back now.
Anyway, it turns out, that, no, he was on the edge of his seat cheering for Brady to bring home their 6th trophy, with no thought about LA or the Rams.
Now, how should we classify my friend? The quintessential bandwagoner? I mean, he is loyal to the Pats since they started winning (but I don't know if he was a fan back when they were mediocre, i.e. pretty much all of their history in the 1900's) ... so my take is that he's picking the best team and cheering for them. It just seems too easy.
As a lifelong Cardinals (mlb), Sooners (cfb) and Cowboys (nfl) fan, I've never ever cheered for anyone else, including during the 70s and 90s for StL, the 90s for OU, and pretty much for the rest of time for the Boys. I don't care how good your team might be some of the time, there will be long periods in which they are at best mediocre. As Sundance would say Now that's a law.
So, for me, despite my friend otherwise being a pretty decent fellow, I can't respect this Pats thing he has.
But, am I being too hard on the guy?
-
to me, bandwagoners are defined by where they are when the team sucks.
just because you became a fan during an incredible run doesn't make you a bandwagoner, just lucky. if you stay a fan after the good times and through the bad ones, then you're a fan.
but if you drop that team for another or decide the sport is stupid or life has more important things to worry about that boring sports or whatever when that team starts sucking, then you're a bandwagoner.
your friends just hasn't been tested yet, though the la rams thing is a decent sign in his favor.
jmo
-
Yep. Being a fan isn't a yes/no thing. It's a spectrum, and the only way to move up on that spectrum is to be tested, like rolltidefan said.
I fell into college football in general and the Texas Longhorns in particular in 1990 as a freshman. Before that, I had other things to do. Of course, I didn't know it at the time, but the 1990 season was a bright point in an otherwise long stretch of relative mediocrity. However, I identified with my tribe, and felt a loyalty. I raged at the bad and reveled in the good. I was working when Dawson made his 98 yard FG into a fresh gale to beat UVa, but I ran outta my hole yelling. I stood there through every second of Route-66. I met the team after James Brown rolled left. I tried not to break the TV when the Sooners tossed TD passes at will for, like, 5 years in a row.
Even so, I'm a relative late comer and I know it. There's many Longhorn fans that have seen better and worse. That's just the way that is.
Jerry Jones ruined the NFL for me by pulling back the covers and showing me that no one really cares about records as long as the bank account is bigger at the end.
-
Myself I have a much more radical view of the whole thing. You see, I don't believe in rooting for any team at all until they are winning. Why would you waste all your time rooting for somebody like the Browns or Lions year after year while they're spinning their wheels stuck at 2-4 wins per season for decades? You don't buy a stock low and wait around for it to go lower do you? Eventually, even though the stock looks like a winner with potential, you realize you made a horrible mistake and you need to dump it to recoup at least some of your money.
I feel the same way about PRO sports teams. All the players are being paid millions of dollars (most of them), they aren't loyal to any one team (why should they be?), and sometimes it seems as if the team isn't even in step with their own fanbase. Oh of course then you get called a bandwagon fan or fair weather fan but damn how many of you guys want to play golf on a 100* deg day or 45 deg day?
Why should some sucky, mediocre team benefit from your support when they are terrible year after year? By not following or rooting for a team you're actually doing them a favor, forcing them to change.
:93:
-
How about Vince Young? Another bad decision. Will he still be employed by the LHN after this?
https://www.tmz.com/2019/02/05/vince-young-arrested-drunk-driving/ (https://www.tmz.com/2019/02/05/vince-young-arrested-drunk-driving/)
-
So, I have a friend who cheers for the Pats because in his own words, he "likes to support a winner" ...
So, for me, despite my friend otherwise being a pretty decent fellow, I can't respect this Pats thing he has.
But, am I being too hard on the guy?
he's obviously a bandwagon fan, he jumped on when the Pats started winning
now, he could redeem himself by continuing to root for the Pats after Brady and Belichick retire and the Pats struggle
I hope he stays with the Pats after the glory years and redeems himself, but I'd bet money that he bails on them and picks up another "winner"
-
My nephew became a Ravens fan when they won the Superbowl. He also briefly liked Tampa Bay. He went through a couple of Giants phases, too. You draw the conclusion.
But really for NFL teams (and other pro teams) I don't hold people too accountable for their allegiance. Pro sports are laundry leagues anyway. Does it make sense to like a team simply because of geographical proximity? Or similarly, to dislike one for the same reason?
College affiliation is a lot more deeply rooted and important in my observation and opinion.
-
Lose another three or four games and Texas won't be ncaa tournament bound. ~???
https://texassports.com/schedule.aspx?path=mbball (https://texassports.com/schedule.aspx?path=mbball)