- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Would ATM want to play Texas after joining SEC
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:12 am to Chitter Chatter
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:12 am to Chitter Chatter
quote:
TU is like JR Ewing having some blackmail material on Cliff Barnes.
Or... Comparing it to something NOT from a century ago, it would be like Saudi Arabia controlling the flow of oil to everyone else.
0
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:13 am to xiv
Dan Beebe has said as much. The Big XII cannot withstand losing Texas. The conference would collapse. So Texas bullies it's way getting all it can. Eventually the conference will fold and they are fine with that. They will have milked it for all the money they can before going independent
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:15 am to xiv
better question = would Texas want to play aTm after they join tSEC
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:15 am to xiv
Here's how it went down:
Texas saw NU was leaving for sure. Mizzou was making a lot of smoke about leaving as well.
Back in the 1990s, when the SWC was collapsing, Texas and teh PAC 10 got together and started talking. Enter the Texas Legislature and Ann Richards (BU grad). They demanded Texas not leave. Said the same to A&M about the SEC, and the SEC took Arky instead.
So Texas started talking with the PAC 10 again, but this time, didn't tell anyone. All was done in secret to keep the Legislature from stopping it. No idea who initiated. Texas told Larry Scott that they would bring 5 other teams with them, and the Pac-16 would shift divisions, to keep Texas able to play games on the east side of the rockies, in the central timezone. Texas was mulling over making a LHN then, but the Pac 10 said that would not be cool if they jumped. Texas said 'ok', and promised Larry Scott that there would be no problems with bringing the other teams, that they'd do what Texas told them, basically.
So Texas (Deloss Dodds/Powers) comes back and tells the other 5 teams (OU, OSU, Tech, A&M, and Colorado) 'hey, we got this deal set up, sign on the dotted line'. And everyone but A&M said 'of course'. A&M did what the longhorns never expected, they balked.
When A&M balked, the whole secret deal blew up into the public eye. It all depended on everything happening in secret (or Baylor grads would raise hell in the Legislature about being left out) and when A&M slammed on the brakes, everything went to shite.
A&M called Slive, and the rest is history.
Texas saw NU was leaving for sure. Mizzou was making a lot of smoke about leaving as well.
Back in the 1990s, when the SWC was collapsing, Texas and teh PAC 10 got together and started talking. Enter the Texas Legislature and Ann Richards (BU grad). They demanded Texas not leave. Said the same to A&M about the SEC, and the SEC took Arky instead.
So Texas started talking with the PAC 10 again, but this time, didn't tell anyone. All was done in secret to keep the Legislature from stopping it. No idea who initiated. Texas told Larry Scott that they would bring 5 other teams with them, and the Pac-16 would shift divisions, to keep Texas able to play games on the east side of the rockies, in the central timezone. Texas was mulling over making a LHN then, but the Pac 10 said that would not be cool if they jumped. Texas said 'ok', and promised Larry Scott that there would be no problems with bringing the other teams, that they'd do what Texas told them, basically.
So Texas (Deloss Dodds/Powers) comes back and tells the other 5 teams (OU, OSU, Tech, A&M, and Colorado) 'hey, we got this deal set up, sign on the dotted line'. And everyone but A&M said 'of course'. A&M did what the longhorns never expected, they balked.
When A&M balked, the whole secret deal blew up into the public eye. It all depended on everything happening in secret (or Baylor grads would raise hell in the Legislature about being left out) and when A&M slammed on the brakes, everything went to shite.
A&M called Slive, and the rest is history.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:24 am to Big Kat
quote:Then Dan Beebe, and not Texas, killed the Big 12.
Dan Beebe has said as much. The Big XII cannot withstand losing Texas.
quote:I still don't get why. With Texas gone, the perceived problem is gone.
The conference would collapse.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:31 am to cokebottleag
quote:Let's stop right there for a second. Why is everyone blaming Texas for all this and not Nebraska and Mizzou (and Colorado)?
Texas saw NU was leaving for sure. Mizzou was making a lot of smoke about leaving as well.
quote:So while Nebraska was leaving by themselves, and while Missouri was willing to leave by themselves, Texas wants to leave but bring five others, and TEXAS is the a-hole here? Makes no sense.
So Texas started talking with the PAC 10 again, but this time, didn't tell anyone. All was done in secret to keep the Legislature from stopping it. No idea who initiated. Texas told Larry Scott that they would bring 5 other teams with them, and the Pac-16 would shift divisions, to keep Texas able to play games on the east side of the rockies, in the central timezone. Texas was mulling over making a LHN then, but the Pac 10 said that would not be cool if they jumped. Texas said 'ok', and promised Larry Scott that there would be no problems with bringing the other teams, that they'd do what Texas told them, basically.
quote:Good imho. I don't like the idea of the Pac-16. It sounds gay. Having said that, there's nothing wrong with what Texas did or how they did it, and there's nothing wrong with anyone balking at the idea.
So Texas (Deloss Dodds/Powers) comes back and tells the other 5 teams (OU, OSU, Tech, A&M, and Colorado) 'hey, we got this deal set up, sign on the dotted line'. And everyone but A&M said 'of course'. A&M did what the longhorns never expected, they balked.
quote:So it's ok for A&M to call Slive, but it's not ok for Texas to call the Pac-10?
A&M called Slive, and the rest is history.
The truth is that none of these schools has done anything wrong. Any school has the right to act in its own self-interest. Texas has the right to ask for an inordinate share of the Big 12 pie, and the Big 12 has the right to refuse. But it's a sissy move to give Texas what they want and then blame Texas for it.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:32 am to cokebottleag
Cokebottle, I believe Baylor was in and CU was out. They Pre-emptively jumped and took BU's spot which the PAC preferred.
Also, I've been told Anne Richards is more a Longhorn supporter than Baylor. She's a huge lady horn bball fan
Also, I've been told Anne Richards is more a Longhorn supporter than Baylor. She's a huge lady horn bball fan
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:32 am to xiv
quote:
I still don't get why. With Texas gone, the perceived problem is gone.
But with Texas gone, the Big 12 is almost certainly destined to lose its BCS status (all BCS statuses go up for re-vote in 2014). Where Texas goes, OU follows, and without those two, the conference would be about the level of the WAC.
Even so, in 2013 the Big 12 will be about the level of the MWC in difficulty. One/two good teams, nobody else.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:34 am to xiv
Nebraska left BEACAUSE OF TEXAS. that's why it's Texas' fault. They ruined the SWC and now they've ruined the B12 with greed.
Are you just being a contrarian at this point?
Are you just being a contrarian at this point?
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:39 am to Machine
quote:
better question = would Texas want to play aTm after they join tSEC
If A&M beats them again this year, do you really think Texas will end the series on a two game losing streak to the Aggies? A&M would hold that over them forever.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:40 am to cokebottleag
quote:No way. The Big 12 minus Nebraska, Colorado, Texas, and Texas A&M has still been better than the ACC three out of the last four years and the Big East three out of the last four years. There is a clause in the BCS contract that states that if a conference's on-field is so bad, it automatically loses its auto-bid, and no conference has ever even come close to that; the Big "12" will never be that bad.
But with Texas gone, the Big 12 is almost certainly destined to lose its BCS status (all BCS statuses go up for re-vote in 2014).
quote:Not even close, and the Big "12" can raid the MWC and WAC over the weekend to stay strong.
Where Texas goes, OU follows, and without those two, the conference would be about the level of the WAC.
quote:You're overrating the MWC; the MWC has only twice been a top 6 conference (2008, when it placed ahead of the Pac-10, and 2009, when it placed ahead of the ACC).
Even so, in 2013 the Big 12 will be about the level of the MWC in difficulty. One/two good teams, nobody else.
A few simple phone calls to cities like Provo, Colorado Springs, Fort Worth, Louisville, and Cincinnati will solve all the Big 12's problems. Sorry, Memphis.
The Big 12's job here is to not panic. That's it.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:44 am to Big Kat
quote:There has never been a day in the history of the Big Ten conference when Nebraska (or any other Big 8 school) would have turned down that invite. Though the Huskers may have been more eager to leave this year than most, they would have left in 1925, 1958, 1972, 1983, or 1995 if they were invited. So would almost any school there is.
Nebraska left BEACAUSE OF TEXAS.
quote:A LOT of schools ruined the SWC.
They ruined the SWC
quote:Nope. I think Texas's villain role is largely overstated. I think a lot of people have Longhorn envy and cast Texas as the villain because it's easy to do so. Texas hasn't taken anything that hasn't been given to them. The blame should be to those who gave it to Texas, not to Texas for taking it.
Are you just being a contrarian at this point?
Texas is the big, bad wolf. If the Big 12 (or SWC, for that matter) had built a house of bricks, the present air of instability would be nonexistent.
This post was edited on 8/14/11 at 10:49 am
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:45 am to TigerintheNO
quote:Good point.
If A&M beats them again this year, do you really think Texas will end the series on a two game losing streak to the Aggies? A&M would hold that over them forever.
They're not ending this game.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 11:10 am to xiv
If Texas is being made to look like the Big Bad Wolf it is because they are. It is not all their fault because Bebee and the remaining members of the Big 12 minus two or three gave them that power. Texas has done a remarkable job of presenting the illusion that they are a national team much like ND. They are not. It is quite obvious that they are stringing the conference along until they are able to comfortably go Independent. Why should TAMU or any other university continue in such a tenuous agreement? Why would any university continue in a conference where there is not a equal voice and the AD of one school has the ear of the Commissioner?More to the point why should they continue in conference where money is not split equally?
Posted on 8/14/11 at 11:25 am to SteelersFan
quote:Nailed it.
If Texas is being made to look like the Big Bad Wolf it is because they are. It is not all their fault because Bebee and the remaining members of the Big 12 minus two or three gave them that power. Texas has done a remarkable job of presenting the illusion that they are a national team much like ND. They are not. It is quite obvious that they are stringing the conference along until they are able to comfortably go Independent. Why should TAMU or any other university continue in such a tenuous agreement? Why would any university continue in a conference where there is not a equal voice and the AD of one school has the ear of the Commissioner?
quote:If you're talking about A&M, one reason to stay in the Big 12 is that they are on the plus side of the revenue sharing agreement.
More to the point why should they continue in conference where money is not split equally?
Posted on 8/14/11 at 11:29 am to xiv
quote:
Let's stop right there for a second. Why is everyone blaming Texas for all this and not Nebraska and Mizzou (and Colorado)?
I can't go into specifics (because I admittedly don't know them) but Texas exherted an enormous influence to remake big 12 conference policy in its own image. One tangible example is the change in location of the Big 12 CC. Texas demanded it be moved from Kansas City to Dallas. Nebraska and Missouri were not used to being strong armed, and before you say 'well everyone had equal votes', know that Texas is very good about convincing Texas Tech and Baylor to vote their way. Couple that with OU's seeming defection to licking TU's bootheels, I can see why they were pissed. NU and OU used to run the Big 8, and NU wasn't willing to play political second fiddle to anyone.
quote:
So while Nebraska was leaving by themselves, and while Missouri was willing to leave by themselves, Texas wants to leave but bring five others, and TEXAS is the a-hole here? Makes no sense.
No one objected to Texas leaving by themselves anymore than they did NU leaving. It was the arrogance. There was no consultation on the PAC 10 deal. It was Texas telling the other teams that they were in charge. A&M wasn't ready to just blindly follow. A&M had no problem with Texas leaving and taking the other teams. But A&M was (and is) going to do what is good for A&M. We wanted to decide for ourselves.
quote:
Good imho. I don't like the idea of the Pac-16. It sounds gay. Having said that, there's nothing wrong with what Texas did or how they did it, and there's nothing wrong with anyone balking at the idea.
Yeah, the problem was that A&M was painted as destroying this deal that Texas cooked up on their own, and that it was Texas who saved the conference.
quote:
So it's ok for A&M to call Slive, but it's not ok for Texas to call the Pac-10?
Like I said, no problem with Texas going whereever they want. A&M has never stopped Texas from moving. Texas on the otherhand is fighting tooth and nail to stop us now.
The way the Big 12 commish and Texas have been acting, the conference is there for Texas' benefit. We're not into that.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 11:37 am to TigerintheNO
quote:
better question = would Texas want to play aTm after they join tSEC
I believe Texas wants to play ATM....especially if ATM is beat up by the SECwest by the end of the year.
It would not help ATM to endure an SEC schedule, then play a tough UT team...after they played only one or two tough games over the season.
Think UF, here. They play in the toughest conference in the country, then end the season playing one more traditionally tough game...Out of Conference, in FSU.
That is not so fair to UF, they play LSU, UGA, USC and Tenn every year, then play another tough OOC game while USCe plays the less tough, Clemson.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 11:43 am to cokebottleag
quote:Makes sense, but even then, the blame goes to Baylor, Tech, and OU just as much as it does to UT. Makes no sense to blame UT for having balls when it is more logical to blame those who suck them.
I can't go into specifics (because I admittedly don't know them) but Texas exherted an enormous influence to remake big 12 conference policy in its own image. One tangible example is the change in location of the Big 12 CC. Texas demanded it be moved from Kansas City to Dallas. Nebraska and Missouri were not used to being strong armed, and before you say 'well everyone had equal votes', know that Texas is very good about convincing Texas Tech and Baylor to vote their way. Couple that with OU's seeming defection to licking TU's bootheels, I can see why they were pissed. NU and OU used to run the Big 8, and NU wasn't willing to play political second fiddle to anyone.
quote:I can understand that.
No one objected to Texas leaving by themselves anymore than they did NU leaving. It was the arrogance. There was no consultation on the PAC 10 deal. It was Texas telling the other teams that they were in charge. A&M wasn't ready to just blindly follow. A&M had no problem with Texas leaving and taking the other teams.
quote:This makes A&M inherently no different from Texas (or Nebraska, Colorado, or Missouri, for that matter).
We wanted to decide for ourselves.
quote:Painted that way by whom?
Yeah, the problem was that A&M was painted as destroying this deal that Texas cooked up on their own, and that it was Texas who saved the conference.
quote:As well they should. They're just as valuable a rival as is Oklahoma. The loss of Arkansas as a rival is still lamentable imho.
Like I said, no problem with Texas going whereever they want. A&M has never stopped Texas from moving. Texas on the otherhand is fighting tooth and nail to stop us now.
quote:Impeach his arse.
The way the Big 12 commish and Texas have been acting, the conference is there for Texas' benefit. We're not into that.
This post was edited on 8/14/11 at 11:45 am
Posted on 8/14/11 at 12:08 pm to xiv
TAMU moving to another conference does not affect their annual game against Texas unless either team wants it to. UGA still plays Tech annually as does UF-FSU, Scar-Clemson and UK-Louisville. Texas is the one using this game as a iron fist to try to influence TAMU decisions.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 12:23 pm to xiv
quote:
Makes sense, but even then, the blame goes to Baylor, Tech, and OU just as much as it does to UT. Makes no sense to blame UT for having balls when it is more logical to blame those who suck them.
Oh, the anger at the other schools is not lost on A&M fans. We are used to baylor and tech grads telling us that we should support Texas just like they do. That Texas has all the state schools in its little basket of protection.
The difference is, Baylor and Tech are pretty much forced to cow to Texas on account of they have no where else to go. Neither school has enough eyeballs to go anywhere.
quote:
Painted that way by whom?
A large part of the sport media in Texas are sip grads or sip t-shirt fans. The Dallas Morning News and Austin American Statesman both lean toward Texas. The Houston Chronicle leans toward A&M some days, but is not as well read. I know that sounds incredibly biased of me.
quote:
As well they should. They're just as valuable a rival as is Oklahoma. The loss of Arkansas as a rival is still lamentable imho.
I agree, when Arky left it accelerated the already doomed SWC. Thats beside the point though. Playing a rival OOC is nothing new for Texas. They played OU for +80 years OOC. The only people who are saying that the rivalry won't continue if we move to the SEC is the longhorns. That's flat out ridiculous. We even have the legislature on our backs now about leaving, when they never said anything about Baylor getting left behind in the proposed move to the PAC 10.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News