Stinkin cheapshot steelers never change
-
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)
-
"sigh"
Meanwhile, some things squealer 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.
http://www.behindthe...m-small-no-more
-
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.
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.
Actually, it shows yours. You think more of A&M than the rest of the country does. From that Big 12 conference the powerhouse teams were Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. Texas A&M was in among the likes of OK St., Kansas, Iowa St. in terms of national recognition.
Getting JMZ, and moving to the SEC have given it somewhat of an upgrade in national profile.
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.
Yes, I know that they haven't been all that in the past.....but if TAMU can upgrade its profile by moving to a perceived stronger conference...then perhaps those schools could as well.
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.
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me....not that these schools and conferences would ever do the sensible thing if they thing there is an extra buck in it. If those schools go to the Pac 12....where does that leave the rest of the schools? The Big Ten for some of them? The SEC? Maybe that Texas/A&M rivalry would be restarted if Texas joined the SEC party. (but then that will have defeated A&M's plan to get out of Texas's shadow by making that move)
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.
OK, but naturally, your vision is skewed:
Texas A&M decided to move to the SEC. Texas A&M decided to make LSU their season ending game.
Texas AD Dodds: "They're the ones that decided not to play us. We get to decide when we play again. I think that's fair."
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/2/5571774/texas-texas-a-m-non-rivalry-timeline
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.
My point about OSU/Michigan is that it is the best rivalry in the nation....and that it is of such value that neither school would ever dream of terminating it....as TAMU decided to terminate it rivalry with Texas.
If you think that is scatterbrainedness....then you don't have a brain to scatter.
-
why does every thread on this board now turn into some kind of SEC Texas bullshit....everytime.....Ive heard more about Texas on this board than I have my entire life and I go there 4 times a year....wtf
This is a "Browns" board, right?.......
why does every thread on this board now turn into some kind of SEC Texas bullshit....everytime.....Ive heard more about Texas on this board than I have my entire life and I go there 4 times a year....wtf
This is a "Browns" board, right?.......
People's panties get in a wad due to my avatar. I haven't started any of these discussions. It's actually pretty hilarious.
-
The period at the end of the SWC was a period in which A&M was dominating. If the country didn't regard A&M highly after it won the SWC in 91, 92, and 93, then you're basically calling the rest of the country stupid, rather than successfully tearing down A&M (which we know is your goal).
Yes, they could upgrade their profile. But they don't offer enough value to the conference to be deemed worthy.
The other schools don't matter. Baylor and TCU never should have been in a major modern conference. So when that PAC move happens, they will be relegated again to the little leagues, where they should be. Or Texas will go independent/Big 10 on their own and then the Big 12 will be not much better than the old Big East and will probably get any big time automatic bids stripped. You ask if some will end up in the Big 10. You really want to bog the conference down and share your money with Baylor and Texas Tech? Well ok, suit yourself.
Texas could never join the SEC. Yet another example of your lack of knowledge on CFB. It takes 3/4 of the schools (now 11) in the SEC to accept a new member. A&M, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina have a voting bloc committed to keeping Texas, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Clemson from the conference.
Your density shows yet again. I already addressed the fact that we left the conference, which automatically cancels the game. You keep throwing that out there again as if I still think we're still in the Big 12. I'm not sure you even understand how these game contracts work. The games are automatically set up by the conference. So when a team leaves said conference, those games are automatically cancelled. Now, both teams can still choose to set them up on their own, which A&M attempted to do and Texas declined to reciprocate.
I like how the article you post is from a week ago, and you're using it to form judgments about things that happened in2011. Meanwhile, I post an article actually from 2011 and you reject it. Ok buddy.
The fact that you cited an article that uses emoticons and distills the series into one huge break up for comedic purposes tells me you have no articles of any actual intellectual heft to back you up.
Btw the LSU series was set up (according to YOUR article) in late 2012. We gave Texas a year to put the game back on the schedule. They didn't want to. So we moved on. How long, pray tell, were we supposed to keep the spot open?
That OSU/Michigan is a better rivalry has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here. Just more of your ego and scatterbrainedness on parade.
-
Well, what do ya know. Just like Troy Pollyfullapoopoo, their new draftee db,
Senquez Golson, is also a player who will cheapshot an offensive player and apparently try
to end his career.
Steelers only win that way, too. The refs kicked the wrong player out of a game for it.
Well, what do ya know. Just like Troy Pollyfullapoopoo, their new draftee db,
Senquez Golson, is also a player who will cheapshot an offensive player and apparently try
to end his career.
Steelers only win that way, too. The refs kicked the wrong player out of a game for it.
Do you get a penny for every post you start no matter how stupid or a waste of time reading? Are you saving up to buy 1989 Dodge Diplomat?
-
The period at the end of the SWC was a period in which A&M was dominating. If the country didn't regard A&M highly after it won the SWC in 91, 92, and 93, then you're basically calling the rest of the country stupid, rather than successfully tearing down A&M (which we know is your goal).
Yes, they could upgrade their profile. But they don't offer enough value to the conference to be deemed worthy.
The other schools don't matter. Baylor and TCU never should have been in a major modern conference. So when that PAC move happens, they will be relegated again to the little leagues, where they should be. Or Texas will go independent/Big 10 on their own and then the Big 12 will be not much better than the old Big East and will probably get any big time automatic bids stripped. You ask if some will end up in the Big 10. You really want to bog the conference down and share your money with Baylor and Texas Tech? Well ok, suit yourself.
Texas could never join the SEC. Yet another example of your lack of knowledge on CFB. It takes 3/4 of the schools (now 11) in the SEC to accept a new member. A&M, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina have a voting bloc committed to keeping Texas, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Clemson from the conference.
Your density shows yet again. I already addressed the fact that we left the conference, which automatically cancels the game. You keep throwing that out there again as if I still think we're still in the Big 12. I'm not sure you even understand how these game contracts work. The games are automatically set up by the conference. So when a team leaves said conference, those games are automatically cancelled. Now, both teams can still choose to set them up on their own, which A&M attempted to do and Texas declined to reciprocate.
I like how the article you post is from a week ago, and you're using it to form judgments about things that happened in2011. Meanwhile, I post an article actually from 2011 and you reject it. Ok buddy.
The fact that you cited an article that uses emoticons and distills the series into one huge break up for comedic purposes tells me you have no articles of any actual intellectual heft to back you up.
Btw the LSU series was set up (according to YOUR article) in late 2012. We gave Texas a year to put the game back on the schedule. They didn't want to. So we moved on. How long, pray tell, were we supposed to keep the spot open?
That OSU/Michigan is a better rivalry has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here. Just more of your ego and scatterbrainedness on parade.
The period at the end of the SWC was a period in which A&M was dominating. If the country didn't regard A&M highly after it won the SWC in 91, 92, and 93, then you're basically calling the rest of the country stupid, rather than successfully tearing down A&M (which we know is your goal).
I don't know about a very few short number of years....but I have been watching college football since the early 60s....and I don't EVER remember Texas A&M being a player on the National Championship stage. I fact here is there ranking history:
SeasonAP rankCoaches rank19391N/A19406N/A19419N/A195517141956551957910197416151975111219767819781918198567198613121987109198920-199015131991121319927619939819948-199515151997202119981113199923202010192120125520131818
Yea, I know, that sucks....it won't post right. Just to boil it down, they won a title in 1939. They had never been a factor in the National Championship race again until possibly 2012 with Johnny., when they finished 5th. You can't say the same for Texas, OK, Nebraska.I am not trying to tear them down....just tell the facts. TAMU has historically been a weak sister to those former Big 8/12/SWC brethren. Sorry if you can't handle that fact.Yes, they could upgrade their profile. But they don't offer enough value to the conference to be deemed worthy.
The other schools don't matter. Baylor and TCU never should have been in a major modern conference. So when that PAC move happens, they will be relegated again to the little leagues, where they should be.
Except, of course those two schools just finished higher in the National rankings than A&M has finished in over 75 years.
I would not have like A&Ms chances if they had played last year.
Or Texas will go independent/Big 10 on their own and then the Big 12 will be not much better than the old Big East and will probably get any big time automatic bids stripped. You ask if some will end up in the Big 10. You really want to bog the conference down and share your money with Baylor and Texas Tech? Well ok, suit yourself.
Not my problem, not my money. If they want to bring those schools in it will be because they see an economic benefit.
Texas could never join the SEC. Yet another example of your lack of knowledge on CFB. It takes 3/4 of the schools (now 11) in the SEC to accept a new member. A&M, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina have a voting bloc committed to keeping Texas, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Clemson from the conference.
My knowledge of college football far exceeds yours. But, I guess you are right....I guess I underestimated what chicken asses many of the SEC schools are.
But, I would not worry about FSU/GA Tech/Clemson....head to head the ACC this past year proved to be the far stronger conference. They had I think like a 6-2 record during the year vs. the SEC
Your density shows yet again. I already addressed the fact that we left the conference, which automatically cancels the game. You keep throwing that out there again as if I still think we're still in the Big 12. I'm not sure you even understand how these game contracts work. The games are automatically set up by the conference. So when a team leaves said conference, those games are automatically cancelled. Now, both teams can still choose to set them up on their own, which A&M attempted to do and Texas declined to reciprocate.
Automatic or otherwise....it is still a fact that it was the actions of A&M cancelled the games....just like I said. You should have a new nickname: The Obfuscator.
I like how the article you post is from a week ago, and you're using it to form judgments about things that happened in2011. Meanwhile, I post an article actually from 2011 and you reject it. Ok buddy.
I don't think I rejected anything....except for your attempt to make TAMU into something it isn't and never has been in my lifetime...that is, anything resembling a force in college football. Oh, and your attempt to make it out like it was not A&Ms fault that the rivalry was cancelled.
The fact that you cited an article that uses emoticons and distills the series into one huge break up for comedic purposes tells me you have no articles of any actual intellectual heft to back you up.
Sorry your vagina got sore by a few emoticons. I had no interest in spending much time at all on what you think you want. I just posted the first that popped up on Google.
Besides, YOU admit that it WAS A&M that cancelled the rivalry. That is all I have ever said, that is all this has ever been about.
Sorry you are feeling guilty about that.
Btw the LSU series was set up (according to YOUR article) in late 2012. We gave Texas a year to put the game back on the schedule. They didn't want to. So we moved on. How long, pray tell, were we supposed to keep the spot open?
Well, when you cancelled them, they had no interest in putting you back on the schedule.
And I guess the answer is that you can grovel as long as Texas wants you to.
That OSU/Michigan is a better rivalry has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here. Just more of your ego and scatterbrainedness on parade.
Well, the discussion was rivalries....the thing that prompted this whole discussion was my listing of what is considered the top rivalries in the game....and then we went to why one that was perceived to be a good one got terminated.
I am simply demonstrating to you what a real rivalry is all about...one that will not be whimsically terminated. Sorry you couldn't keep up.
-
why does every thread on this board now turn into some kind of SEC Texas bullshit....everytime.....Ive heard more about Texas on this board than I have my entire life and I go there 4 times a year....wtf
This is a "Browns" board, right?.......
People's panties get in a wad due to my avatar. I haven't started any of these discussions. It's actually pretty hilarious.
People's panties get in a wad due to my avatar. I haven't started any of these discussions. It's actually pretty hilarious.
last year, people might have because of all the influx of JF fans. now, not so much.
depending on his 'game' this year, manziel might help us rid all the boy/toy fans from the depths of this here piece.
not saying you're one or anything...
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