(08-12-2014 10:29 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  I catch a lot of grief on this board but what Texas AD states is basically the philosophy of all BCS teams and conferences. The Texas AD is publicly saying what all other BCS schools are thinking internally...but keeping a public lid on it.

Regarding Longhorn greed, it was PAC greed and invitation to B12 schools that started this whole realignment mess. That PAC invitation is/was a statement of greed...and how about B1G invitation to Maryland? That, too, is greed. Ditto loss of Orlando, Charlotte, and Pinstripe Bowls for Nbe/AAC. There is greed all over the BCS place.

They (BCS) are all greedy. To see greed as a Texas Longhorn phenomena is to miss the entire point.

The only thing I see in the OP of this thread is that the Texas AD was foolish to publicly admit it....but, then again, it is all out there for everyone to see. His statement is not shocking to me--and it is the obvious BCS greed that is the basis for just about all my posts.

(08-13-2014 12:08 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  He is who he is. If outsiders wish to condemn and whatnot, so be it. For me, I couldn't care less who the F Texas decides upon to run their Athletic Department.

What it shows me though is that it is business as usual. Texas will still prefer the ACC. Why? Because Texas is thinking about themselves first and foremost. The ACC is the only major conference that has shown they are willing to do a partial membership contract with a University.

Texas wants more control over their football program and whom they play? Six OOC games and six contracted games against the ACC is the best deal they will find today when it comes to having the most control possible in terms of maximizing their money making potential.

They will leave behind the Big 8 leftovers that they really don't care about and never have. They will maintain relations with Oklahoma on the side. They can maintain relations with Tech and then take with them two other Texas programs. They will once again leave everyone else behind JUST as they did before with the SWC. Another program only means something to Texas if it provides some value to Texas. Love it or hate it, it is whom the Longhorns are at heart and they have the power to follow their heart in this. They are not going West and they are not staying in a region that they only used as a stepping stone to step out of a conference based almost entirely within the State of Texas.

That is their M.O. Save the judgement, it makes no difference.

(08-13-2014 05:29 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 12:08 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  He is who he is. If outsiders wish to condemn and whatnot, so be it. For me, I couldn't care less who the F Texas decides upon to run their Athletic Department.

What it shows me though is that it is business as usual. Texas will still prefer the ACC. Why? Because Texas is thinking about themselves first and foremost. The ACC is the only major conference that has shown they are willing to do a partial membership contract with a University.

Texas wants more control over their football program and whom they play? Six OOC games and six contracted games against the ACC is the best deal they will find today when it comes to having the most control possible in terms of maximizing their money making potential.

They will leave behind the Big 8 leftovers that they really don't care about and never have. They will maintain relations with Oklahoma on the side. They can maintain relations with Tech and then take with them two other Texas programs. They will once again leave everyone else behind JUST as they did before with the SWC. Another program only means something to Texas if it provides some value to Texas. Love it or hate it, it is whom the Longhorns are at heart and they have the power to follow their heart in this. They are not going West and they are not staying in a region that they only used as a stepping stone to step out of a conference based almost entirely within the State of Texas.

That is their M.O. Save the judgement, it makes no difference.

BINGO!

(08-12-2014 10:29 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  I catch a lot of grief on this board but what Texas AD states is basically the philosophy of all BCS teams and conferences.

(08-13-2014 07:59 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  And if every other program could be and act like Texas, they would. Texas makes the money, Texas has the brand, more power to them if they choose to cash in and ditch the driftwood. The latest conference realignment has already wrecked my childhood college football ...

(08-13-2014 08:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 07:59 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  And if every other program could be and act like Texas, they would. Texas makes the money, Texas has the brand, more power to them if they choose to cash in and ditch the driftwood. The latest conference realignment has already wrecked my childhood college football ...

About Texas: Yep, everyone else sure would, meaning criticism of them (like that of Notre Dame) is pure jealousy.

As for your childhood, mine was the 1970s. And even though one can point to many changes in college football since then, to me it still has its essential character. E.g., in 1970 the SEC had 9 teams not 14, it didn't have a CCG, the mix of its best programs has changed considerably, and overall it wasn't nearly as good as it is now. But, it's still visibly the same essential "SEC". I think that is true of the rest of college football too. Even the monstrosity that is today's ACC is still the ACC.

(08-13-2014 12:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Patterson is a prime example of how so many schools have lost their way. Not the arrogance but rather his background.

Patterson has spent a whopping 29 months as an AD and only 37 months in intercollegiate athletics yet he leads the richest program in the country. Charlie Strong was his first major coaching hire ever (and I like the hire).

He has essentially no experience working with other AD's or presidents nor did he emerge from the culture and traditions of intercollegiate athletics and I doubt full understands the nuances of how universities interact with one another. To me it is much like taking someone to an island some place, teaching them the skills of baseball and plopping them on a team with no understanding of the unwritten rules of the game then being surprised when he flips his bat and points to where the ball went he hits a homerun or being shocked that he bunts when he is the third batter in the 9th inning of a no hitter or steals second with his team up by 9 runs in the 8th.

As for the comments. I think they reflect his lack of understanding of what is going on. As I've noted and as have others, most of the P5 believes there is value being associated with the rest of FBS and the rest of Division I and the NCAA as a whole. That is reflected in the CFP deal, it is reflected in how the NCAA operates and distributes funds, and in how despite more than six decades of saber rattling no one has ever seriously pursued a break from the organization.

The comments also reflect a cultural shift in the nation. From about World War I to the mid-80's a university administrator at a public college making such an elitist comment would have disappeared from the scene because politically it was unthinkable to take such a "to the manor born stance public."

Now many receive such comments gleefully as would have probably happened circa 1850 to 1914