Read this post, and then re-read his, and you’ll see the arrogance I’m talking about from UT people that Aggies have to deal with, and why we want the fuck away from them. This condescensing shit has to go, one way or another.
Geez, it’s a game room thread about college football. Lighten up, Francis. 
So the a&m thing… Like most Texans I have good friends who went there, I’ve snuck into bonfire and of course joined all Texans in mourning the loss of life after the bonfire tragedy.
But… athletically, I despise a&m, and Arky, as it should be. Keep in mind I was in school in the early 90s, when the Wrecking Crew made life miserable for those of us in Austin. Texas being a juggernaut is a relatively new phenomenon. You of course know that our AD invited Bill Byrne to discuss a Texas tv network but he said no… Texas had the foresight to do the hard work and a&m bailed… so I dont feel sorry one bit for the folks in College Station.
Every aggy I’ve ever known can give it as well as take it… How many times have I been greeted with “saw em off” or called a tea sip, have someone flash me the upside down horns, or have my school referred to as t.u.? Too many to count. Maybe if every other line of your fight song didn’t reference UT I’d be a little more compassionate.
Absolutely. I get this from Big 11 and PAC 12 honks all the time. The prestige card, suggesting Texas doesn’t have enough. I’m okay with it though, especially with the admission of the former AAU member, Nebraska. My Michigan friends had a hard time explaining that one.
It’s also true in the Big 12, as one impediment to the U of Houston’s admission is their academic reputation (which in fact has improved significantly over the past 20 years, but old memes die hard).
Well, I don’t think that there are any victims in big time college athletics. Texas’ athletic department has been relentless in turning the programs around - after Fred Akers, the prestige of Texas sports was at an all time low. Deloss Dodds hired the right coaches - namely Conradt, Brown, Garrido, and Barnes - and leveraged the brand into one of the most profitable collegiate programs in the nation.
You can blame Arkansas for all of this. They broke up the Southwest Conference, which forced us to partner with the Big 8 and make the Big 12. We didn’t really have a history with any of the Big 8 schools except Oklahoma. Nebraska never liked us much, and punching them in the mouth every time we played 'em didn’t help either.
I have no idea why Nebraska conceded so much to Texas contractually when they were in the same conference room hammering out all the details, and then came out all bitter about it afterwards. In the early days of the conference Nebraska was in the heyday of the Osbourne era winning MNCs left and right. They were negotiating from a position of strength but still couldn’t work out terms in their favor.
Colorado… let’s be honest, spent the last several years in the basement of the Big 12. The official reason they gave is that the PAC 10 was a better fit geographically and academically. I do think they’ll do better in football at least in the new conference.
Ever since the massive tv contracts hit the collegiate landscape, it’s all about doing the best for your institution. All schools are operating under this directive. Texas offered A&M the opportunity to partner to form a Lone Star Network but they said no… and we took the risk and paid off. When it started to heat up and looked to be a lock, Aggy tried to get back in the negotiations but were turned down. That’s why it’s the Longhorn Network.
There are no altruists in this story. Colorado and Nebraska would have done the same thing if they had thought of it first (and had the alumni base to pull it off).
The Longhorn Network launch has been a debacle, but in five years no one will remember the growing pains.
I haven’t personally heard anyone slam UT’s academics; quite the contrary, in fact: always on the list of top 10 public U’s. The Oklahomas, on the other hand…
I certainly agree with you; that’s from not only an alum perspective but also objectively from a higher ed research background. But when I was in grad school my profs highlighted the Michigans, Virginias, SUNYs, and Cals as the great state schools.
I know a Michigan guy and a Wisconsin guy that always bring this up. I know a Northwestern alum whom I never discuss sports with, but I’m sure he’d say something like that. The tOSU and Michigan State alums I know never bring this up for some reason.
There’s a lot of good ol’ fashioned Northeastern insularity out there too. A classmate once asked me which UT school I attended. Not an altogether bad question, as there are 9 UT system schools. When I said I went to Austin, the guy said, “oh, I thought you went to the Ag one.” He was completely serious. :facepalm:
Unless the Big12 implodes and UT tries to go solo (rather than going PacXX), then the growing pains will be quickly followed by the death pains and ESPN will have pissed away a bunch of money.
Excuse me, but ALL of the Big 10 schools are in the AAU, excepting Nebraska which was ousted, perhaps in reprisal for bucking the Big 12. Michigan State has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of academically and is now home to the number one nuclear physics program in the nation.
The point I was making is that tOSU alums and MSU alums I know never raise the argument about academics when discussing expansion with Texas. Not that those schools are poor.
Guess I misjudged this thread - I thought it was Game Room not Great Debates.
I’m just saying that Spartans have as much reason to be condescending to Texas as Wolverines do.
When I was at Northwestern we were academically condescending toward everyone, even in our own conference, so neither UT nor Nebraska are any different.
No, you can’t blame Arkansas, that’s ridiculous. This really sounds like waaambulance territory.
The conf was dying and so they left.
While this is true, the teams in the pac12, big 10 and SEC (and probably others) all figured out that being part of a stable conference has positive benefits and the only way to do that is equal revenue sharing.
This is the trade-off Texas has chosen…they prefer to take more money and the downside is instability in the conference. It might be a good gamble for Texas, we don’t know yet. If they end up in the pac 12 and have to concede their network then it seems like it wasn’t a great choice. If they stay in the Big 12 and add schools and continue to make their money then it was a good gamble.
And both are ridiculous, as we’re all members of the AAU. Fortunately for Spartys I know, they don’t take that tone.
Of course we can. Arky leaving led to the other schools looking out for their best interests and the breakup of the conference. That’s precisely what Texas is being accused of, but we weren’t the first to do it.
And I don’t even necessarily have a problem with what they did…but own it.
The reality is that Nebraska was opposed to equal revenue sharing, not just Texas. The instability was caused by Nebraska and Colorado, and now A&M. Texas had an opportunity to go to the Pac-10 in the mid 90s with Colorado but elected to stay with the remaining (larger) SWC and created the Big 12 with the former Big 8 schools. We’re pretty much the definition of stability.
The SWC was doomed from the moment that SMU got the death penalty. At that Texas and A&M started searching for a conference to join. Even if Arkansas stayed, the SWC was likely doomed. The original article doesn’t appear to be on line, but this copy of an article from the San Antonio Express-News from about 4 years back indicates that UT and A&M started considering leaving the SWC before Arkansas announced its departure. At that point, UT was rejected by both the Pac 10 and the Big 10. UT may not have left at that time, but they sure wanted to.
The quality of the school is very much a factor in the Big 10 and the PAC 12, and Texas Oklahoma would be considered “quality” enough for sure. Also of importance is how big your stadium is, which is one of the big things that would keep Boise State out of either conference. Their stadium would be the smallest in each conference, although not by much. But I think they would not want to make that their addition.
Without getting into “who was thinking about it first”, here’s a rough sequence of events:
1987: SMU gets the death penalty
1990: Arkansas announces it will move to the SEC
1991: The SEC adds South Carolina, and splits into 2 divisions with the first-ever conference championship game
1994: Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor and Texas Tech announce they will join the Big 8, forming the Big XII
1994: SMU, TCU and Rice announce they will join the WAC
1994: Houston joins Conference-USA
1996: SWC officially disbands
1996: WAC adds SMU, TCU and Rice from the SWC, plus San Jose State and UNLV (from the Big West) and Tulsa (Missouri Valley) and splits into 2 divisions
1999: Seven members of the WAC decide it’s become too big, and leave to found the Mountain West Conference
2000: Nevada leaves the Big West for the WAC.
2001: Big West announces it will drop football. Boise State moves from the Big West to the WAC
2001: TCU leaves the WAC for Conference-USA
2005: TCU leaves Conference-USA and joins the Mountain West
Talk about Law of Unintended Consequences…the SMU death penalty killed the SWC, the Big West, created the 2-division mega conference concept and spawned the Mountain West.
I can see why the NCAA hasn’t used it since.
Good points.
I don’t really understand why Texas and the Oklahomas are considering the Pac10. Well, I’m sure there it’s because of money and an easier path to the BCS. But realistically, those three schools are much culturally and geographically closer to the SEC. You’ve gotta wonder why they don’t just make it an even 16 for the SEC.
I can’t “own” it because I am an unbiased Washington fan enjoying the chaos and analysis of the chaos. It’s entertaining.
It’s true, it’s not all Texas’ fault - I didn’t realize it until I read articles from the past, before everything started falling apart.
Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas A&M all wanted unequal revenue sharing for as long as the Big12 has existed - they were the ones getting the most money.