Stinkin cheapshot steelers never change
-
Meanwhile, some things suealer never change. Seems that not only did they draft a cheapshot
artist db, but their LT is ...
all of a sudden.... bigger and stronger. Go figure. Reckon they are hard up to get back to
the superbowl? I wonder what the Vegas odds are of them injuring another qb or two to get there.
-
No, it was definitely A&M that you said would be better served. And I'm not sure how college football would be well served by giving small schools like Rice and Houston another chance in the big leagues.
From a competitive standpoint we'd be well served by joining the CUSA too.
We left for the SEC. Our president (who was the spokesman throughout the move) said repeatedly that he would like to keep Texas on the schedule and that he was open to the game "anytime, anywhere." That's an exact quote.
If anything, we are the ones that now don't want the game. And I think that's evidenced by the chancellor taking a shot on Twitter (I thought it was classless for a man of his stature, FTR) at the fact that Texas' schedule is so weak and boring (we would tremendously add to their schedule's substance, while A&M wouldn't have all that much to gain).
But they were definitely the ones that, at least publicly, didn't want the game at the outset.
They are historically the predominant program and I'm not one of the Aggies that are going to argue that. But with all the advantages Of the SEC, that is no longer the case. The best things going for them are A. easy path to conference championship, B. the fact that they are "THE" "flagship" program in the state.
They will be in another conference or independent before 2025. Book it.
-
David Ubben is an ESPN Big 12 writer. I've met him a couple times. He has zero to gain from making A&M or the SEC look good. Here is an article he wrote in 2011:
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/34658/ut-am-rivalry-playing-the-blame-game
"We want to make it abundantly clear we will play the game anywhere, any time," new Texas A&M chancellor John Sharp told the Austin American-Statesman last month. "If that game dies, it will not be on us. That game is bigger than Texas and bigger than A&M. That game belongs to the people of Texas, and if it goes away, it's not going to be on our watch."
Texas A&M president R. Bowen Loftin told the Associated Press on Sunday: "We're able to accommodate them anytime they want to make that happen. ... It's their choice, obviously."
And yeah, I'll grant you that Ubben puts some blame on A&M, but that blame pretty much extends solely to the fact that we left the conference, and the fact that maybe (he doesn't know for sure) we wouldn't be willing to pay for Texas to get out of future non-conference contracts, even though it's cheap, is done all the time, and would more than pay for itself.
-
True. The AD in college station wanted to keep the rivalry alive and UT pooned outYou said the Ags would be well served by the reconstitution of the SWC. Spare me the discussion on something you clearly know nothing about. And it's Texas that doesn't want to play. Shocker that you don't know that.
True. The AD in college station wanted to keep the rivalry alive and UT pooned out
That is not what I found.....A&M cancelled it, Texas now essentially refuses to revive it.
-
And that is only true in the sense that we cancelled it as a fixture by moving conferences (therefore it was no longer a set conference game). But we were willing to clear out non-con schedule to play it. Furthermore, IIRC, the league was willing to let us use our valuable Thanksgiving day/weekend spot on the game, despite the value of pairing us with LSU that weekend (which did not happen until our third season in the league, and would not have happened if Texas had taken the offer).
-
No, it was definitely A&M that you said would be better served. And I'm not sure how college football would be well served by giving small schools like Rice and Houston another chance in the big leagues.
From a competitive standpoint we'd be well served by joining the CUSA too.
We left for the SEC. Our president (who was the spokesman throughout the move) said repeatedly that he would like to keep Texas on the schedule and that he was open to the game "anytime, anywhere." That's an exact quote.
If anything, we are the ones that now don't want the game. And I think that's evidenced by the chancellor taking a shot on Twitter (I thought it was classless for a man of his stature, FTR) at the fact that Texas' schedule is so weak and boring (we would tremendously add to their schedule's substance, while A&M wouldn't have all that much to gain).
But they were definitely the ones that, at least publicly, didn't want the game at the outset.
They are historically the predominant program and I'm not one of the Aggies that are going to argue that. But with all the advantages Of the SEC, that is no longer the case. The best things going for them are A. easy path to conference championship, B. the fact that they are "THE" "flagship" program in the state.
They will be in another conference or independent before 2025. Book it.
No, it was definitely A&M that you said would be better served. And I'm not sure how college football would be well served by giving small schools like Rice and Houston another chance in the big leagues.
I think I said that A&M would be better served in that they would win more games/appear in more bowls if they reconstituted the SWC.
And here is a clue for you.....A&M, from a national perspective was considered barely a bump ahead of Rice (and not at all above Houston...especially when they had a slew of QBs doing the run and shoot...and beating opponents by like 70-0)
From a competitive standpoint we'd be well served by joining the CUSA too.
Probably.
We left for the SEC. Our president (who was the spokesman throughout the move) said repeatedly that he would like to keep Texas on the schedule and that he was open to the game "anytime, anywhere." That's an exact quote.
What he said and what he did are two different things. Again....I can only go by the accounts I have read....all of which said A&M cancelled it to join the SEC.
If anything, we are the ones that now don't want the game. And I think that's evidenced by the chancellor taking a shot on Twitter (I thought it was classless for a man of his stature, FTR) at the fact that Texas' schedule is so weak and boring (we would tremendously add to their schedule's substance, while A&M wouldn't have all that much to gain).
Again, NO, that is NOT what I am reading on reputable websites (like Sporting News/ Sports Illustrated/ESPN etc.
But they were definitely the ones that, at least publicly, didn't want the game at the outset.
Again, no, no, no. That must be the Aggie sychophant view of things...it is not the national reports.
They are historically the predominant program and I'm not one of the Aggies that are going to argue that. But with all the advantages Of the SEC, that is no longer the case. The best things going for them are A. easy path to conference championship, B. the fact that they are "THE" "flagship" program in the state.
They will be in another conference or independent before 2025. Book it.
There was talk of them joining the Big Ten at one point.
And they have their own TV network....not a league network, where it seemed possible that they did not wish to share revenues. Perhaps the Big 12 is allowing them to keep all their TV money.
-
David Ubben is an ESPN Big 12 writer. I've met him a couple times. He has zero to gain from making A&M or the SEC look good. Here is an article he wrote in 2011:
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/34658/ut-am-rivalry-playing-the-blame-game
"We want to make it abundantly clear we will play the game anywhere, any time," new Texas A&M chancellor John Sharp told the Austin American-Statesman last month. "If that game dies, it will not be on us. That game is bigger than Texas and bigger than A&M. That game belongs to the people of Texas, and if it goes away, it's not going to be on our watch."
Texas A&M president R. Bowen Loftin told the Associated Press on Sunday: "We're able to accommodate them anytime they want to make that happen. ... It's their choice, obviously."
And yeah, I'll grant you that Ubben puts some blame on A&M, but that blame pretty much extends solely to the fact that we left the conference, and the fact that maybe (he doesn't know for sure) we wouldn't be willing to pay for Texas to get out of future non-conference contracts, even though it's cheap, is done all the time, and would more than pay for itself.
David Ubben is an ESPN Big 12 writer. I've met him a couple times. He has zero to gain from making A&M or the SEC look good. Here is an article he wrote in 2011:
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/34658/ut-am-rivalry-playing-the-blame-game
"We want to make it abundantly clear we will play the game anywhere, any time," new Texas A&M chancellor John Sharp told the Austin American-Statesman last month. "If that game dies, it will not be on us. That game is bigger than Texas and bigger than A&M. That game belongs to the people of Texas, and if it goes away, it's not going to be on our watch."
Texas A&M president R. Bowen Loftin told the Associated Press on Sunday: "We're able to accommodate them anytime they want to make that happen. ... It's their choice, obviously."
And yeah, I'll grant you that Ubben puts some blame on A&M, but that blame pretty much extends solely to the fact that we left the conference, and the fact that maybe (he doesn't know for sure) we wouldn't be willing to pay for Texas to get out of future non-conference contracts, even though it's cheap, is done all the time, and would more than pay for itself.
Yes, NOW A&M's guy is wanting to revitalize the game.....and yes, as I said, NOW Texas is essentially saying Nyet.
But it was A&M who cancelled.
And I guess it is A&M who will have to grovel more than they have if they want to get it back.
-
nothing against the irish BUT the rooney family is as close to the irish mafia in america that you can get. between the IRA connections, casinos and horse track dealings the stoolers are minor league horse shit when it comes to the shady dealings spun by that family.
fuck the steelers and fuck their fans. stick a shilaleigh up yer arse and be done wit ya.
nothing against the irish BUT the rooney family is as close to the irish mafia in america that you can get. between the IRA connections, casinos and horse track dealings the stoolers are minor league horse shit when it comes to the shady dealings spun by that family.
fuck the steelers and fuck their fans. stick a shilaleigh up yer arse and be done wit ya.
LOL! You ain't kiddin.
Half my blood is Irish so I can tell you first hand that God invented whiskey to prevent the Irish from ruling the world. That said Rooney was street smart enough to remember God hand selected Moses to lead his people to the Promise Land. Nobody powerglued more hotties and naughties than Moses. That was all Rooney needed for leverage in his negotiations with God. Consequently, God said I'll give this scum bag the Sodom and Gomorrah of the United States. Then I'll throw in a bunch of counterfeit trophies and rings made out of costume jewelry along with a bottle of MD 20/20 - and be done with him until judgment day.
Because he's God - he didn't forget to add a Deputy to Rooney's payroll to clean up behind all of the essential ingredients that go into winning at all costs in Pittsburgh. So here's that part of it: http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/12210027/pittsburgh-steelers-security-chief-dual-role-sheriff-officer-questioned
-
And that is only true in the sense that we cancelled it as a fixture by moving conferences (therefore it was no longer a set conference game). But we were willing to clear out non-con schedule to play it. Furthermore, IIRC, the league was willing to let us use our valuable Thanksgiving day/weekend spot on the game, despite the value of pairing us with LSU that weekend (which did not happen until our third season in the league, and would not have happened if Texas had taken the offer).
And that is only true in the sense that we cancelled it as a fixture by moving conferences (therefore it was no longer a set conference game). But we were willing to clear out non-con schedule to play it. Furthermore, IIRC, the league was willing to let us use our valuable Thanksgiving day/weekend spot on the game, despite the value of pairing us with LSU that weekend (which did not happen until our third season in the league, and would not have happened if Texas had taken the offer).
Well, looking at Texas's future schedule, it does not appear that they could schedule a game vs. A&M at least until like 2020.
They have two prime opponents on their non-conference schedules the next several years:
2015 Cal and Notre Dame
2016 Cal and Notre Dame
2017 Maryland and USC
2018 Maryland and USC
In 2019 and 2020 they play LSU...so they have their SEC team committment. And in years beyond that I see they have both Ohio St. and Michigan on their schedules.
And yes, they do have their "cupcakes" on their schedule: Rice, UTEP, UCF, Tulsa
But they only have one per year (no the typical 3 that the SEC usually schedules....and those are not even SEC type cupcake teams from lower conferences. Those are WAC/CUSA type schools)
-
And that is only true in the sense that we cancelled it as a fixture by moving conferences (therefore it was no longer a set conference game). But we were willing to clear out non-con schedule to play it. Furthermore, IIRC, the league was willing to let us use our valuable Thanksgiving day/weekend spot on the game, despite the value of pairing us with LSU that weekend (which did not happen until our third season in the league, and would not have happened if Texas had taken the offer).
Well, looking at Texas's future schedule, it does not appear that they could schedule a game vs. A&M at least until like 2020.
They have two prime opponents on their non-conference schedules the next several years:
2015 Cal and Notre Dame
2016 Cal and Notre Dame
2017 Maryland and USC
2018 Maryland and USC
In 2019 and 2020 they play LSU...so they have their SEC team committment. And in years beyond that I see they have both Ohio St. and Michigan on their schedules.
And yes, they do have their "cupcakes" on their schedule: Rice, UTEP, UCF, Tulsa
But they only have one per year (no the typical 3 that the SEC usually schedules....and those are not even SEC type cupcake teams from lower conferences. Those are WAC/CUSA type schools)
Well, looking at Texas's future schedule, it does not appear that they could schedule a game vs. A&M at least until like 2020.
They have two prime opponents on their non-conference schedules the next several years:
2015 Cal and Notre Dame
2016 Cal and Notre Dame
2017 Maryland and USC
2018 Maryland and USC
In 2019 and 2020 they play LSU...so they have their SEC team committment. And in years beyond that I see they have both Ohio St. and Michigan on their schedules.
And yes, they do have their "cupcakes" on their schedule: Rice, UTEP, UCF, Tulsa
But they only have one per year (no the typical 3 that the SEC usually schedules....and those are not even SEC type cupcake teams from lower conferences. Those are WAC/CUSA type schools)
Good points Gipper; but I liked your points related to the subject heading a lot better. I hate to see you distracted on college football when you were just getting warmed up to bend steel. Let's get back to our show and tell session with Steeler Stu. He needs more of that inconvenient truth; because only people willing to tell the truth to Pittsburgh fans are Cleveland fans. Those poor bastards have been rooting for flunkies, junkies, rapists and domestic violence poster boys since the 70s.
Some of them even bring their pom poms to crack houses in the offseason to chant "Here we go Steelers - Here we go!" How else do you think they got autographs from guys like Bell and Blount?
-
A&M has more SWC titles than Houston and Ruce combined. Houston won 4. Rice won 8. We won 18. Predictably, you will say "well Houston was only in the league from 76-95." We won 6 in that period. So spare me. You say you don't have a dog in the fight, yet your intentions are clearly to tear down A&M. That's fine, but stop the ruse that you are neutral.
Here is what you posted, and it's actually worse than I thought.
"Prediction: Texas A&M will join a reconstituted "Southwest Conference".
Or at least they should."
If you want to get all nuanced about what you meant then fine. But merely winning games isn't an end unto itself. See what I said about CUSA.
Post the national reports that agree with you. I guarantee you I've followed this thing a lot more closely than you have and you will not be able to provide such reports without an equal (and more accurate) counter. Maybe some from Chip Brown, who I listen to almost every morning on the radio here and is a shill for the university.
Yes, the Big 12 does allow them to keep all their TV money, because OU is the only conference member with any clout, and they're tied to OSU so their power is somewhat diminished. And even if it weren't, they still don't wield near the power that Texas does. Not only does Texas keep all the money from the Longhorn Network, they also receive a larger share of the conference's TV package, a perk they also offered to A&M in 2010. None of the other power 5 conferences allow that. Makes for an unhappy and unhealthy league. In the SEC, Vandy gets the same money as Alabama.
The article (and its included quotes from A&M officials) is from 2011. Not sure how that qualifies as "NOW."
-
And that is only true in the sense that we cancelled it as a fixture by moving conferences (therefore it was no longer a set conference game). But we were willing to clear out non-con schedule to play it. Furthermore, IIRC, the league was willing to let us use our valuable Thanksgiving day/weekend spot on the game, despite the value of pairing us with LSU that weekend (which did not happen until our third season in the league, and would not have happened if Texas had taken the offer).
Well, looking at Texas's future schedule, it does not appear that they could schedule a game vs. A&M at least until like 2020.
They have two prime opponents on their non-conference schedules the next several years:
2015 Cal and Notre Dame
2016 Cal and Notre Dame
2017 Maryland and USC
2018 Maryland and USC
In 2019 and 2020 they play LSU...so they have their SEC team committment. And in years beyond that I see they have both Ohio St. and Michigan on their schedules.
And yes, they do have their "cupcakes" on their schedule: Rice, UTEP, UCF, Tulsa
But they only have one per year (no the typical 3 that the SEC usually schedules....and those are not even SEC type cupcake teams from lower conferences. Those are WAC/CUSA type schools)
Well, looking at Texas's future schedule, it does not appear that they could schedule a game vs. A&M at least until like 2020.
They have two prime opponents on their non-conference schedules the next several years:
2015 Cal and Notre Dame
2016 Cal and Notre Dame
2017 Maryland and USC
2018 Maryland and USC
In 2019 and 2020 they play LSU...so they have their SEC team committment. And in years beyond that I see they have both Ohio St. and Michigan on their schedules.
And yes, they do have their "cupcakes" on their schedule: Rice, UTEP, UCF, Tulsa
But they only have one per year (no the typical 3 that the SEC usually schedules....and those are not even SEC type cupcake teams from lower conferences. Those are WAC/CUSA type schools)
Many of those were scheduled after we left. Especially LSU. And they have a necessity to schedule marquee OOC opponents in order to put butts in the seats, a necessity we don't share because our conference games alone are enough to sell season tickets.
-
A&M has more SWC titles than Houston and Ruce combined. Houston won 4. Rice won 8. We won 18. Predictably, you will say "well Houston was only in the league from 76-95." We won 6 in that period. So spare me. You say you don't have a dog in the fight, yet your intentions are clearly to tear down A&M. That's fine, but stop the ruse that you are neutral.
Here is what you posted, and it's actually worse than I thought.
"Prediction: Texas A&M will join a reconstituted "Southwest Conference".
Or at least they should."
If you want to get all nuanced about what you meant then fine. But merely winning games isn't an end unto itself. See what I said about CUSA.
Post the national reports that agree with you. I guarantee you I've followed this thing a lot more closely than you have and you will not be able to provide such reports without an equal (and more accurate) counter. Maybe some from Chip Brown, who I listen to almost every morning on the radio here and is a shill for the university.
Yes, the Big 12 does allow them to keep all their TV money, because OU is the only conference member with any clout, and they're tied to OSU so their power is somewhat diminished. And even if it weren't, they still don't wield near the power that Texas does. Not only does Texas keep all the money from the Longhorn Network, they also receive a larger share of the conference's TV package, a perk they also offered to A&M in 2010. None of the other power 5 conferences allow that. Makes for an unhappy and unhealthy league. In the SEC, Vandy gets the same money as Alabama.
The article (and its included quotes from A&M officials) is from 2011. Not sure how that qualifies as "NOW."
A&M has more SWC titles than Houston and Ruce combined. Houston won 4. Rice won 8. We won 18. Predictably, you will say "well Houston was only in the league from 76-95." We won 6 in that period. So spare me. You say you don't have a dog in the fight, yet your intentions are clearly to tear down A&M. That's fine, but stop the ruse that you are neutral.
I am not here to tear A&M down....nor to prop Houston up. I am only saying that A&M historically had about the same national profile as those schools....and a far inferior profile than Texas.
Here is what you posted, and it's actually worse than I thought.
"Prediction: Texas A&M will join a reconstituted "Southwest Conference".
Or at least they should."
You are like another Texas boy: Sheldon Cooper. He too has serious trouble recognizing saracasm (You really didn't see that that is what that was? Do I have to hit you over the head with a frying pan? Though it was sarcasm, there was truth in it. What I was saying is that the Big 12 should go by the wayside and that it should be renamed the Southwest Conference in which old SWC members like Rice and Houston are brought back in....and A&M if that were the case)
If you want to get all nuanced about what you meant then fine. But merely winning games isn't an end unto itself. See what I said about CUSA.
Yea, sorry. I forgot you were from Texas...where nuance is a bit beyond your DNA.
Maybe its good that I sent my daughter down there to give the state a bit of an upgrade to the gene pool.
(Hint Sheldon...that too was sarcasm)
Post the national reports that agree with you. I guarantee you I've followed this thing a lot more closely than you have and you will not be able to provide such reports without an equal (and more accurate) counter. Maybe some from Chip Brown, who I listen to almost every morning on the radio here and is a shill for the university.
Well, it was the ones that I found. I really didn't have to look too far...you know, like the top 5 google listings.
Yes, the Big 12 does allow them to keep all their TV money, because OU is the only conference member with any clout, and they're tied to OSU so their power is somewhat diminished. And even if it weren't, they still don't wield near the power that Texas does. Not only does Texas keep all the money from the Longhorn Network, they also receive a larger share of the conference's TV package, a perk they also offered to A&M in 2010. None of the other power 5 conferences allow that. Makes for an unhappy and unhealthy league. In the SEC, Vandy gets the same money as Alabama.
I dunno. Baylor/TCU/OK/Kan. St....and who else in the B12 defeated them last year no? I guess if they are unhappy the best payback is to open up a can on them. Fait accompli
The article (and its included quotes from A&M officials) is from 2011. Not sure how that qualifies as "NOW."
Well, now as in post the time they had canceled the game up until the current time.
Are you saying A&M no longer wants the game?
Show a source.
And, honestly, if you are saying now that A&M don't want it, and Texas don't want it, then fine, it is really no hair off my ass. Better rivalries have come and gone. The aforementioned Miami/Florida game. The Oklahoma/Nebraska rivalry is one I miss. Penn St./Pitt no longer play.
I mean, really, it was hard to tell who was playing who in Texas.....it could have been Texas/Tex. A&M Texas/Texas Tech Texas/Texas Christian. It was pretty much all the same to us here in the land of the greatest rivalry of all.
While I hope that Ohio St. continues to dominate I suspect that with Harbaugh at Michigan it will get real stupid real fast....and by stupid, I really mean stupid....as in he will probably say and do ridiculous things.
Maybe I should sic you on Woody....and you can argue TAMU and Meshuganan.
-
Well, looking at Texas's future schedule, it does not appear that they could schedule a game vs. A&M at least until like 2020.
They have two prime opponents on their non-conference schedules the next several years:
2015 Cal and Notre Dame
2016 Cal and Notre Dame
2017 Maryland and USC
2018 Maryland and USC
In 2019 and 2020 they play LSU...so they have their SEC team committment. And in years beyond that I see they have both Ohio St. and Michigan on their schedules.
And yes, they do have their "cupcakes" on their schedule: Rice, UTEP, UCF, Tulsa
But they only have one per year (no the typical 3 that the SEC usually schedules....and those are not even SEC type cupcake teams from lower conferences. Those are WAC/CUSA type schools)
Many of those were scheduled after we left. Especially LSU. And they have a necessity to schedule marquee OOC opponents in order to put butts in the seats, a necessity we don't share because our conference games alone are enough to sell season tickets.
Many of those were scheduled after we left. Especially LSU. And they have a necessity to schedule marquee OOC opponents in order to put butts in the seats, a necessity we don't share because our conference games alone are enough to sell season tickets.
I doubt that Texas needs those games to put butts in the seats. I suspect they can get their 100K in there playing Rice and Houston.
But...to get national TV eyeballs on them....sure.
-
And that's ridiculous to say, as Houston has only ever been in a major conference for 20 years. Now you are just being sense.
How would further splitting the pie with teams like Houston and Rice that add nothing to said pie help the teams? Again, advocating the reconstitution of the SWC is just dumb, and really shows a lack of knowledge of how CFB works. It's about TV viewers.
If they're so easy to find, then they should be easy to post. Given that I'm the only one in this conversation to actually provide a source of any kind, the reports so far are in my favor. Post the proof or stop asserting it.
That Texas lost to some teams in a given season says nothing about their level of power.
I posted quotes from 2011 (prior to us actually joining the conference, but after the announcement that we would be) about how we wanted to continue to play Texas. You responded "yeah, NOW A&M's guy wants to revitalize the game," as if the article I posted was from 2014. It wasn't. It was 2011. Literally the same month we announced the move I think.
I'm not saying definitively that A&M no longer wants the game. At the current moment, I don't think they do. There's no official proof of that yet other than the fact that A. the game has not been scheduled and B. little messages sent out from university officials such as the tweet from A&M's chancellor that I mentioned earlier.
You are the most scatterbrained individual I've ever seen.
-
Many of those were scheduled after we left. Especially LSU. And they have a necessity to schedule marquee OOC opponents in order to put butts in the seats, a necessity we don't share because our conference games alone are enough to sell season tickets.
I doubt that Texas needs those games to put butts in the seats. I suspect they can get their 100K in there playing Rice and Houston.
But...to get national TV eyeballs on them....sure.
More proof you don't know what you're talking about.I doubt that Texas needs those games to put butts in the seats. I suspect they can get their 100K in there playing Rice and Houston.
But...to get national TV eyeballs on them....sure.
Texas is also hemorrhaging season ticket holders lately because they don't like the actions re: tickets of new AD Steve Patterson.
-
And that's ridiculous to say, as Houston has only ever been in a major conference for 20 years. Now you are just being sense.
How would further splitting the pie with teams like Houston and Rice that add nothing to said pie help the teams? Again, advocating the reconstitution of the SWC is just dumb, and really shows a lack of knowledge of how CFB works. It's about TV viewers.
If they're so easy to find, then they should be easy to post. Given that I'm the only one in this conversation to actually provide a source of any kind, the reports so far are in my favor. Post the proof or stop asserting it.
That Texas lost to some teams in a given season says nothing about their level of power.
I posted quotes from 2011 (prior to us actually joining the conference, but after the announcement that we would be) about how we wanted to continue to play Texas. You responded "yeah, NOW A&M's guy wants to revitalize the game," as if the article I posted was from 2014. It wasn't. It was 2011. Literally the same month we announced the move I think.
I'm not saying definitively that A&M no longer wants the game. At the current moment, I don't think they do. There's no official proof of that yet other than the fact that A. the game has not been scheduled and B. little messages sent out from university officials such as the tweet from A&M's chancellor that I mentioned earlier.
You are the most scatterbrained individual I've ever seen.
And that's ridiculous to say, as Houston has only ever been in a major conference for 20 years. Now you are just being sense.
How long was Houston in the SWC...and what does that have to do anything we are talking about?
How would further splitting the pie with teams like Houston and Rice that add nothing to said pie help the teams? Again, advocating the reconstitution of the SWC is just dumb, and really shows a lack of knowledge of how CFB works. It's about TV viewers.
I think you are being a bit obtuse. I am saying that the Big 12 should change its name to the Southwest Conference....which is just as marketable a name as the Southeast Conference....and then they would have to be worried that their names sound foolish mathematically.
I am also saying that that conference should expand to 14 teams...which is where the major conferences are going with their numbers. This newly retitled SWC would have the current Texas Schools/OK/OK St/Kansas/Kan. St./Iowa St....plus 4 others that they should bring in. I advocate for Houston and a few others. Since you are in that part of the country, you are welcome to suggest a few.
And of course it is about TV viewers....an expanded SWC nee Big 12 would have to go out seeking some decent markets to bring into the fold. I suspect they could raid the SEC territory the way the SEC raided it......Tulane or La Tech in LA. Maybe an Arkansas St.....which is FBS...and may want to upgrade its program to the higher (Big 12/SWC) type level. Maybe Memphis St.. Maybe Southern Miss. Western KY? South Alabama? Or it may want to look west to Colorado St., New Mexico, Utah St/BYU, or Boise.
If they're so easy to find, then they should be easy to post. Given that I'm the only one in this conversation to actually provide a source of any kind, the reports so far are in my favor. Post the proof or stop asserting it.
I told you...Sporting New, USA Today.
That Texas lost to some teams in a given season says nothing about their level of power.
Financial power.....it says something about their football power. At one time it would have been embarassing as hell for them to lose to Baylor/TCU/Kansas St.
I posted quotes from 2011 (prior to us actually joining the conference, but after the announcement that we would be) about how we wanted to continue to play Texas. You responded "yeah, NOW A&M's guy wants to revitalize the game," as if the article I posted was from 2014. It wasn't. It was 2011. Literally the same month we announced the move I think.
I'm not saying definitively that A&M no longer wants the game. At the current moment, I don't think they do. There's no official proof of that yet other than the fact that A. the game has not been scheduled and B. little messages sent out from university officials such as the tweet from A&M's chancellor that I mentioned earlier.
You are the most scatterbrained individual I've ever seen.
On the contrary....You are the scatterbrained one. You can't freeking decide if you want that game or not. I mean, I really don't give a shit if they do. I think they should play....but if all y'all are too stupid and stubborn to git it done it ain't no sweat off my back. It was a minor rivalry on the national scope anyway.
I mean, play it, or don't play it. Around here we know what a rivalry is all about.
-
More proof you don't know what you're talking about.I doubt that Texas needs those games to put butts in the seats. I suspect they can get their 100K in there playing Rice and Houston.
But...to get national TV eyeballs on them....sure.
Texas is also hemorrhaging season ticket holders lately because they don't like the actions re: tickets of new AD Steve Patterson.
More proof you don't know what you're talking about.
Texas is also hemorrhaging season ticket holders lately because they don't like the actions re: tickets of new AD Steve Patterson.
Well, I guess I did misjudge the passion of the state of Texas football fan. I guess their passion for the game is overrated.
(I am learning that an awful lot about that state is overrated)
-
I meant dense. They were in the SWC for 20 years. I've said that before. P5 teams have far greater national recognition than non-P5 teams so to pair us with Houston or Rice just shows your bias.
Yes renaming the Big 12 and expanding it might be a smart move. But all of those options have been bandied about for awhile and haven't come to fruition. Those low-level teams, even though they grow the market geographically, don't add much to the pot. In the case of most of these schools, they don't even pay for themselves.
It also could be that the Big 12 isn't making moves because they know it will implode soon enough. If I had to guess, ESPN will find a way to end the Longhorn Network, then Texas, Tech, OU, and OSU will go to the PAC 12.
Post links, because I can't find them. And given my knowledge on the facts here, that leads me to believe they don't exist.
Over the long term, football power will be determined by financial power. Texas has it in spades over all of those schools. Losing to them once is irrelevant.
My contention from the beginning was that we left the Big 12, then still wanted to play it. Texas turned down all attempts to get the game on the schedule. So now we don't really care because the game helps them more than us. Your attempts to turn this into a fellatio of the OSU-Michigan rivalry despite the fact that you're the one that brought up the topic of A&M and Texas reveal your scatterbrainedness.
-
More proof you don't know what you're talking about.
Texas is also hemorrhaging season ticket holders lately because they don't like the actions re: tickets of new AD Steve Patterson.
Well, I guess I did misjudge the passion of the state of Texas football fan. I guess their passion for the game is overrated.
(I am learning that an awful lot about that state is overrated)
Austin is the most overrated city in America. And I live here. UT fans have always been fair-weathered and terrible.Well, I guess I did misjudge the passion of the state of Texas football fan. I guess their passion for the game is overrated.
(I am learning that an awful lot about that state is overrated)
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login