- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: There is one big misconception about the Texas and A&M scenario
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:37 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:37 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
When the hell did I ever say this?
You didn't, but many have or will, so it was a pre-emptive statement because this is about football conference, and not academic prowess. Academics are FAR MORE about individual talent and work ethic than about the school that one obtains their education (I've hired from Kentucky, LSU, Iowa State, Purdue, USC, Arizona State, Missouri, A&M, UT, Auburn, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc...and if I am giving an edge for the most likely to be a safe and strong hire, I'd give the edge to Purdue and Iowa State, and i have no affiliation with either one). The fact that UT has great SAT scores for the average student on the 40 acres is admirable, but irrelevant to the courses most football players take, just as it is at SEC schools.
UT is just not a fit for the SEC, and most SEC fans no more want UT than the UT elite do not want to bow down to go to the SEC, so mostly it is a mutual sentiment.
This post was edited on 6/11/10 at 7:46 pm
0
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:37 pm to roody
quote:
The SEC'ers are pissed that anyone has the temerity to not join their elite conference.
Because the conferences you're in have such a great track record
See, this is why education is important.
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:38 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
The PAC 16 will be much stronger than the Big 12.
Not really. In fact, I think the overall depth of that conference will be terrible. Beyond Texas, Oklahoma and USC, the league is just as weak as the B12. UT's new conference games will be Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona St., Ok St., ans some combo of Wash. St., Oregon, UCLA, Stanford, etc. How is that any better than what the B12 was offering year in and year out?
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:39 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
roody, in all fairness, for all of the respect the SEC has around the nation, none of it has anything to do with Arkansas. You should probably sit this one out.
In all fairness, only one team can claim to be the flagship member of two conferences that have imploded in the past 15 years. THAT is the track record.
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:41 pm to iHorn
quote:
The SEC'ers are pissed that anyone has the temerity to not join their elite conference
Just not true. The SEC legitimately just does not want UT to be in the conference, and it is not because UT is a strong team, it is because the culture of UT is not thought of as preferred by SEC folks. We have an Ole Miss already.
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:42 pm to Tiger in NY
quote:
Not really. In fact, I think the overall depth of that conference will be terrible. Beyond Texas, Oklahoma and USC, the league is just as weak as the B12. UT's new conference games will be Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona St., Ok St., ans some combo of Wash. St., Oregon, UCLA, Stanford, etc. How is that any better than what the B12 was offering year in and year out?
Look......the Big 12 was a top heavy conference with nothing else. Texas Tech and Okie State had their moments as decent mid-tier teams. Oregon and Cal alone, along with getting rid of Baylor and ISU and A&M, make a big difference.
Funny thing about all of these discussion, whether or not A&M goes to the Pac 16 has nothing to do with how good that conference will be.......
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:45 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
It was a 3 way tie and the score didn't mean a thing. OU played in the title game.
Cry some more you ol T-sipper.
Most people that were kids in the 80s and early 90s didn't even know Longhorns exsisted most of the time between 1983-1998.
Dude football runs in cycles.
When the SEC was talking to UT and A&M in 1987 and 1888. UT would have been the 2nd choice.
Cry some more you ol T-sipper.
Most people that were kids in the 80s and early 90s didn't even know Longhorns exsisted most of the time between 1983-1998.
Dude football runs in cycles.
When the SEC was talking to UT and A&M in 1987 and 1888. UT would have been the 2nd choice.
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:45 pm to roody
quote:
In all fairness, only one team can claim to be the flagship member of two conferences that have imploded in the past 15 years. THAT is the track record.
An Arkie talking about track records is funny.
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:47 pm to LSU9102
quote:
Dude football runs in cycles.
Glad somebody posted that. I remember when the Big10 thought they would rule the world forever. Same with the Pac10. Same with the Big 8. Same with ND.
The SEC should take note, it won't last as long as you think it will; it never does.
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:50 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
So now instead of beating TAMU at the end of the year and getting no respect your going to pound Colorado and get no respect!
Personally I don't see a positive change.
Personally I don't see a positive change.
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:50 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
Nice long post to cover up what may be an embarrassing situation for UT, but no one is going to buy the BS you are shoveling.
A&M to the SEC will be a kick in the nuts for UT, period.
UT should have joined the SEC or been man enough not to use the academic bullshite line in a money grab that is mostly about football.
My take why Texas did not want to go to the SEC is threefold:
1. Competition. It would be years before Texas made the SECCG. They would be just one of about 4 elite teams in any given year, and would likely not win the SEC for half a dozen years. SEC powerhouse teams would want to prove a point to Texas on the road and I think Texas would have a losing record in TS, BD, the Swamp, ect for years. Basically Texas is not interested in taking the tough road and the pride of proving yourself against the best.
2. (Appologies in advance fellow SEC fans) The SEC is a very dirty conference that buys players more than most. Texas would get outbid on some prized recruits they have their pick off right now. If not outbid, Texas would even lose some recruiting battles that were clean to some elite SEC program.
3. Texas would not call any shots in the SEC and would not be special in any way. They would be one of another half dozen powerhouse teams that all have HUGE athletic budgets and money to burn (6 of the top 11 revenue producers in the NCAA).
A&M to the SEC will be a kick in the nuts for UT, period.
UT should have joined the SEC or been man enough not to use the academic bullshite line in a money grab that is mostly about football.
My take why Texas did not want to go to the SEC is threefold:
1. Competition. It would be years before Texas made the SECCG. They would be just one of about 4 elite teams in any given year, and would likely not win the SEC for half a dozen years. SEC powerhouse teams would want to prove a point to Texas on the road and I think Texas would have a losing record in TS, BD, the Swamp, ect for years. Basically Texas is not interested in taking the tough road and the pride of proving yourself against the best.
2. (Appologies in advance fellow SEC fans) The SEC is a very dirty conference that buys players more than most. Texas would get outbid on some prized recruits they have their pick off right now. If not outbid, Texas would even lose some recruiting battles that were clean to some elite SEC program.
3. Texas would not call any shots in the SEC and would not be special in any way. They would be one of another half dozen powerhouse teams that all have HUGE athletic budgets and money to burn (6 of the top 11 revenue producers in the NCAA).
This post was edited on 6/11/10 at 7:52 pm
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:53 pm to therocketscientist
quote:
Just not true. The SEC legitimately just does not want UT to be in the conference
That;s simply not true...
quote:
source at CBS that Slive has told network executives the SEC will target Texas, Texas A&M, Florida State and Clemson if the Big 10 goes to 16 teams. If the Texas schools say no, the SEC will pursue Miami and Georgia Tech.
Who do you think Slive thought was the biggest and best plum to pick? Say it with me... T E X A S.
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:55 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
The SEC is a very dirty conference that buys players more than most. Texas would get outbid on some prized recruits they have their pick off right now.
You blew your diatribe with that gem. Texas outbid?
Texas has more money than half the SEC teams combined. 
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:56 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:56 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Texas would get outbid on some prized recruits
No, no they wouldn't.
You truly have no idea what sort of money and sheer arrogance we're dealing with in Teggzus.
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:57 pm to iHorn
I don't care what Texas wants to do, if they don't wanna be in the SEC fine. That doesn't make them pussies to me, but trying to manhandling A&M does.
A&M is in debt. They come to the SEC, make some money, hire a good coach, recruit some good texas talent, and all of a sudden they won't be the little brother anymore. And I think Texas knows it.
A&M is in debt. They come to the SEC, make some money, hire a good coach, recruit some good texas talent, and all of a sudden they won't be the little brother anymore. And I think Texas knows it.
Posted on 6/11/10 at 7:59 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
3. Texas would not call any shots in the SEC and would not be special in any way. They would be one of another half dozen powerhouse teams that all have HUGE athletic budgets and money to burn (6 of the top 11 revenue producers in the NCAA).
Nail meet hammer!!
quote:
1. Competition. It would be years before Texas made the SECCG. They would be just one of about 4 elite teams in any given year, and would likely not win the SEC for half a dozen years. SEC powerhouse teams would want to prove a point to Texas on the road and I think Texas would have a losing record in TS, BD, the Swamp, ect for years. Basically Texas is not interested in taking the tough road and the pride of proving yourself against the best.
If your scared..say your scared.
Maybe the LSU and Arky fans are right.Piss on a T-sipper
Posted on 6/11/10 at 8:01 pm to Luke4LSU
quote:shite you hit the nail on the head!!!!!
Nobody said UT can't compete in the SEC.
We said you're a bunch of spoiled, elitist pussies who don't want to get grass stains on your khaki pants, so you're going to play croquet with the hippies out west instead of playing mother fricking FOOTBALL with the big boys.
No one is mad at UT for being pussies. We're just calling you what you are.
Posted on 6/11/10 at 8:11 pm to iHorn
UT is a great program and a great school and is money rich....BUT, this conference deal is not going to be good for the national success of UT.
The Big 12 was the best case for UT, and UT made its run at this very well and came away with 1 NC in the BCS era.
Bottom line, UT will always be a great school, and have great money/resources and will be a great program. BUT, UT had a GREAT situation with only 1 real competitor in the Big-12 in OU, and that is going to come to an end. Sure, there have been the occasional TT and Ok State appearance once in a blue moon in the last year in the top 5/10 (for example), but low-mid level Ole Miss and Kentucky and South Carlina from the SEC have all made the Top-5 in the last decade also. The SEC had the last 4 NC's, with 3 different schools, and when Auburn's 2004 13-0 record gets at least a split NC (when USC's is vacated and OU and AU each get one of the BCS and/or AP trophies), that will make 4 different SEC teams winning 6 NC's in the last 7 years (LSU-03, AU-04, UT-05, UF-06, LSU-07, UF-08, Bama-09)
UT and OU are GREAT programs, but they have had a HUGE advantage in the BCS era, and UT has climbed to the top 1 time, while the SEC been dominant in a diverse wide-spread manner.
UT's best ever "football success" odds die when the Big-12 dies, and that is an objective fact that only an emotionally-attached UT fan would deny.
The Big 12 was the best case for UT, and UT made its run at this very well and came away with 1 NC in the BCS era.
Bottom line, UT will always be a great school, and have great money/resources and will be a great program. BUT, UT had a GREAT situation with only 1 real competitor in the Big-12 in OU, and that is going to come to an end. Sure, there have been the occasional TT and Ok State appearance once in a blue moon in the last year in the top 5/10 (for example), but low-mid level Ole Miss and Kentucky and South Carlina from the SEC have all made the Top-5 in the last decade also. The SEC had the last 4 NC's, with 3 different schools, and when Auburn's 2004 13-0 record gets at least a split NC (when USC's is vacated and OU and AU each get one of the BCS and/or AP trophies), that will make 4 different SEC teams winning 6 NC's in the last 7 years (LSU-03, AU-04, UT-05, UF-06, LSU-07, UF-08, Bama-09)
UT and OU are GREAT programs, but they have had a HUGE advantage in the BCS era, and UT has climbed to the top 1 time, while the SEC been dominant in a diverse wide-spread manner.
UT's best ever "football success" odds die when the Big-12 dies, and that is an objective fact that only an emotionally-attached UT fan would deny.
This post was edited on 6/11/10 at 8:18 pm
Posted on 6/11/10 at 8:14 pm to LSU9102
quote:
Most people that were kids in the 80s and early 90s didn't even know Longhorns exsisted most of the time between 1983-1998. Dude football runs in cycles. When the SEC was talking to UT and A&M in 1987 and 1888. UT would have been the 2nd choice.
THIS!!! I am that kid that remembers how bad texas SUCKED!!!
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News