http://www.kut.org/post/political-footba...o-distance

Hmm? Warming up.

It's a matchup worth watching and a game football fans want to see.

This actually is a good use of authority by the state government, imo. It keeps these public institutions in check. And in a place like Texas, with these two institutions specifically, I suspect it won't go unnoticed across the country.

If you can force the mighty Bevo to make good on its servitude to the state, other states might jump in on this.

(02-12-2019 11:53 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This actually is a good use of authority by the state government, imo. It keeps these public institutions in check. And in a place like Texas, with these two institutions specifically, I suspect it won't go unnoticed across the country.

If you can force the mighty Bevo to make good on its servitude to the state, other states might jump in on this.

It was an act of the legislature in post WWII Alabama that forced Auburn and Alabama to play each other again. So the step is not a new one, but it is IMO a much needed and positive one.

(02-12-2019 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 11:53 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This actually is a good use of authority by the state government, imo. It keeps these public institutions in check. And in a place like Texas, with these two institutions specifically, I suspect it won't go unnoticed across the country.

If you can force the mighty Bevo to make good on its servitude to the state, other states might jump in on this.

It was an act of the legislature in post WWII Alabama that forced Auburn and Alabama to play each other again. So the step is not a new one, but it is IMO a much needed and positive one.

No, it's not new. But seemingly a forgotten weapon in any state's arsenal. It's always been available, but it doesn't seem like a popular option these days. Hopefully, this is a turning point to redirect intrastate schools to work with each other again.

(02-12-2019 12:34 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 11:53 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This actually is a good use of authority by the state government, imo. It keeps these public institutions in check. And in a place like Texas, with these two institutions specifically, I suspect it won't go unnoticed across the country.

If you can force the mighty Bevo to make good on its servitude to the state, other states might jump in on this.

It was an act of the legislature in post WWII Alabama that forced Auburn and Alabama to play each other again. So the step is not a new one, but it is IMO a much needed and positive one.

No, it's not new. But seemingly a forgotten weapon in any state's arsenal. It's always been available, but it doesn't seem like a popular option these days. Hopefully, this is a turning point to redirect intrastate schools to work with each other again.

There is definitely some signaling going on in the remarks as well, not only for the school presidents and the voters but to other parties and conferences. Texas and Texas Tech's relationship will be just as important to the state's interests moving forward as Texas A&M's with regard to playing one another.

That's essentially the government signaling the networks and conferences that those relationships need to be kept fully in mind in their planning as well.

He's not the first Aggie to propose this.

(02-12-2019 12:34 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 11:53 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This actually is a good use of authority by the state government, imo. It keeps these public institutions in check. And in a place like Texas, with these two institutions specifically, I suspect it won't go unnoticed across the country.

If you can force the mighty Bevo to make good on its servitude to the state, other states might jump in on this.

It was an act of the legislature in post WWII Alabama that forced Auburn and Alabama to play each other again. So the step is not a new one, but it is IMO a much needed and positive one.

No, it's not new. But seemingly a forgotten weapon in any state's arsenal. It's always been available, but it doesn't seem like a popular option these days. Hopefully, this is a turning point to redirect intrastate schools to work with each other again.

The South Carolina legislature has mandated that Clemson and South Carolina play. The North Carolina legislature has mandated that UNC and NC State play ECU. I'm not sure what the frequency requirements for ECU are.

(02-12-2019 09:18 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:34 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 11:53 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This actually is a good use of authority by the state government, imo. It keeps these public institutions in check. And in a place like Texas, with these two institutions specifically, I suspect it won't go unnoticed across the country.

If you can force the mighty Bevo to make good on its servitude to the state, other states might jump in on this.

It was an act of the legislature in post WWII Alabama that forced Auburn and Alabama to play each other again. So the step is not a new one, but it is IMO a much needed and positive one.

No, it's not new. But seemingly a forgotten weapon in any state's arsenal. It's always been available, but it doesn't seem like a popular option these days. Hopefully, this is a turning point to redirect intrastate schools to work with each other again.

The South Carolina legislature has mandated that Clemson and South Carolina play. The North Carolina legislature has mandated that UNC and NC State play ECU. I'm not sure what the frequency requirements for ECU are.

I’ve heard there’s pressure in Iowa for Iowa, Iowa State, and UNI to have some frequency, if not a mandate.

What I like about this in Texas is that a great rivalry ceased because of a bunch of pompous blowhards at both schools acting like children, and it stopped. But, now you might have the state walking it back.

In places like the Carolinas, they understand the value. But something like this in Texas reinforces and reminds folks of what should be at the core of the sport. Like all is not lost or forgotten, and that there is still a right mind about all of this.

It also looks slightly like a middle finger to conferences who overreach and schools who try to hide behind them. I like that, too.

(02-12-2019 10:14 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 09:18 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:34 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 11:53 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This actually is a good use of authority by the state government, imo. It keeps these public institutions in check. And in a place like Texas, with these two institutions specifically, I suspect it won't go unnoticed across the country.

If you can force the mighty Bevo to make good on its servitude to the state, other states might jump in on this.

It was an act of the legislature in post WWII Alabama that forced Auburn and Alabama to play each other again. So the step is not a new one, but it is IMO a much needed and positive one.

No, it's not new. But seemingly a forgotten weapon in any state's arsenal. It's always been available, but it doesn't seem like a popular option these days. Hopefully, this is a turning point to redirect intrastate schools to work with each other again.

The South Carolina legislature has mandated that Clemson and South Carolina play. The North Carolina legislature has mandated that UNC and NC State play ECU. I'm not sure what the frequency requirements for ECU are.

I’ve heard there’s pressure in Iowa for Iowa, Iowa State, and UNI to have some frequency, if not a mandate.

What I like about this in Texas is that a great rivalry ceased because of a bunch of pompous blowhards at both schools acting like children, and it stopped. But, now you might have the state walking it back.

In places like the Carolinas, they understand the value. But something like this in Texas reinforces and reminds folks of what should be at the core of the sport. Like all is not lost or forgotten, and that there is still a right mind about all of this.

It also looks slightly like a middle finger to conferences who overreach and schools who try to hide behind them. I like that, too.

I take it you are no Aggie. But I think you are misreading the intent on that message. There is no middle finger, there are just conditions being conveyed.

It will die in committee

UT just got done begging us to reinstate it

We said no

That’s that.

(02-12-2019 09:18 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:34 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 11:53 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This actually is a good use of authority by the state government, imo. It keeps these public institutions in check. And in a place like Texas, with these two institutions specifically, I suspect it won't go unnoticed across the country.

If you can force the mighty Bevo to make good on its servitude to the state, other states might jump in on this.

It was an act of the legislature in post WWII Alabama that forced Auburn and Alabama to play each other again. So the step is not a new one, but it is IMO a much needed and positive one.

No, it's not new. But seemingly a forgotten weapon in any state's arsenal. It's always been available, but it doesn't seem like a popular option these days. Hopefully, this is a turning point to redirect intrastate schools to work with each other again.

The South Carolina legislature has mandated that Clemson and South Carolina play. The North Carolina legislature has mandated that UNC and NC State play ECU. I'm not sure what the frequency requirements for ECU are.

Just in 1952 when the SoCon suspended Clemson (and Maryland) for playing in bowl games. The SoCon prohibited members schools from playing both Clemson and Maryland in the 1952 season so the state made it law that the teams had to meet in 1952

There was talk when the Texas and A&M rivalry ended to pass a new law but officials from both schools talked the legislature out of it fearing the precedent that would be created if the state government got involved in sports scheduling.

(02-13-2019 02:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It will die in committee

UT just got done begging us to reinstate it

We said no

That’s that.

You sure do like to type in absolutes about a school (A&M) you never attended. Lets see if we can bring this back into reality??

I found these 2 little nuggets that should help you change your tune. I'm doubtful.

1st nugget from the BCS Eagle on Jan 25th 2019
https://www.myaggienation.com/am_news/te...2eb0f.html

Both the President of A&M and UT are open to renewing the series. If the Presidents want it, the State lege will have no issue moving this forward. So not as dead as you suggest.

2nd nugget and it's HUGE. A&M needs $55 million dollars to close the student "equity" funding between A&M and UT.

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/02/12/...-funds-ut/

Quote:While lawmakers try to revive a rivalry football game between the state’s flagship institutions, a different contest between the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University began to play out Tuesday, when A&M’s president asked lawmakers for more than $50 million to bring the school’s per-student funding closer to UT’s.

Quote:At the moment our challenge is, with our per-student funding going down, it will become very hard to sustain this,” Young said. The school might have to consider shrinking the student body of the university or making other accommodations based on the “resources that we have available,” he said.

In 2017, when most public colleges were threatened with funding cuts, UT was granted a $55 million “hold harmless” payment to ensure the school’s allocation was at least held flat. While colleges are not expected to face the same slashes this budget cycle, institutions that received hold harmless funding, like UT-Austin, had those line items maintained.

Quote:At one point during the hearing, John Sharp, chancellor of the A&M System said: “Something has to give there."

“Either we've got to come down in our enrollment pretty substantially or something has to change," he said.

1 of 2 things could potentially happen here:
1. State Lege agrees to the increased funding if A&M plays UT annually
2. If the A&M says NO or the state denies their funding request, A&M's student enrollment could decrease but that might create more t-shirt fans who end up at another school and then bash the conference their current school resides in. Not sure which is worse, more A&M grads or T-shirt Aggie fans??

1 thing I'm sure of, A&M needs the help of the State Legislature which is filled with UT grads who might enjoy seeing UT play their little brother again.

This could be eerily familiar to the funding A&M got when they wanted Reed Arena. Need money from the state but need UT and Tech's help

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/...971434.php

Quote:Clayton said in a 2004 interview that Bullock told him, "Texas Tech and Baylor and Texas are going to the Big 12, and you need to be with us.' And I said, 'Bob, I understand that, but we're going to the SEC.'

"We kept going until finally, Bullock says, 'Clayton, what the hell would it take for you to go with us?' And I said, 'Bob, now you're talking more my language.' "

Bullock agreed to concessions that would benefit A&M, including an agreement that led to the construction of Reed Arena, and by the end of the six-hour meeting that day, the Big 12 was a done deal - and the SWC was history.

Thankfully Rick Perry is no longer Governor of Texas. The Aggies will need help from the 2 schools they ran away from and no longer want to associate with.

I absolutely freaking love it.

(02-13-2019 02:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It will die in committee

UT just got done begging us to reinstate it

We said no

That’s that.

Too much money is involved to continue to pass on this game.

(02-12-2019 09:18 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:34 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 11:53 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This actually is a good use of authority by the state government, imo. It keeps these public institutions in check. And in a place like Texas, with these two institutions specifically, I suspect it won't go unnoticed across the country.

If you can force the mighty Bevo to make good on its servitude to the state, other states might jump in on this.

It was an act of the legislature in post WWII Alabama that forced Auburn and Alabama to play each other again. So the step is not a new one, but it is IMO a much needed and positive one.

No, it's not new. But seemingly a forgotten weapon in any state's arsenal. It's always been available, but it doesn't seem like a popular option these days. Hopefully, this is a turning point to redirect intrastate schools to work with each other again.

The South Carolina legislature has mandated that Clemson and South Carolina play. The North Carolina legislature has mandated that UNC and NC State play ECU. I'm not sure what the frequency requirements for ECU are.

No, the NCGA has not mandated that State and ECU play. The threat was made, but no legislation. State continues to play ECU on a periodic basis in order not to piss off the politicos from the far eastern part of the State of NC.

We have ECU in 19/22/25 and 28 - roughly once every three years.

UNC-Ch is under pressure to schedule them home and away between 26 and 29 and will likely do so seeing as the current UNC BOG chair is an ECU man and UNC-Ch has managed to get itself into 3 or 4 really stupid situations over the last half decade cutting into their political support.

By cutting Kenan down from 63 K to 51 K there is less need to schedule ECU or any other OOC school to drive attendance. At 58K Carter Finley will sell out for an absolute dog so ECU doesn't drive attendance in Raleigh. ECU at WF or Duke will drive attendance there.

The greatest pressure to play ECU has ALWAYS come from NC State's own Board of Trustees who have business ties in Eastern NC. Specifically agribusiness interests. oink oink.

(02-13-2019 02:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It will die in committee

UT just got done begging us to reinstate it

We said no

That’s that.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Lmao.

(02-13-2019 06:33 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 02:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It will die in committee

UT just got done begging us to reinstate it

We said no

That’s that.

You sure do like to type in absolutes about a school (A&M) you never attended. Lets see if we can bring this back into reality??

I found these 2 little nuggets that should help you change your tune. I'm doubtful.

1st nugget from the BCS Eagle on Jan 25th 2019
https://www.myaggienation.com/am_news/te...2eb0f.html

Both the President of A&M and UT are open to renewing the series. If the Presidents want it, the State lege will have no issue moving this forward. So not as dead as you suggest.

2nd nugget and it's HUGE. A&M needs $55 million dollars to close the student "equity" funding between A&M and UT.

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/02/12/...-funds-ut/

Quote:While lawmakers try to revive a rivalry football game between the state’s flagship institutions, a different contest between the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University began to play out Tuesday, when A&M’s president asked lawmakers for more than $50 million to bring the school’s per-student funding closer to UT’s.

Quote:At the moment our challenge is, with our per-student funding going down, it will become very hard to sustain this,” Young said. The school might have to consider shrinking the student body of the university or making other accommodations based on the “resources that we have available,” he said.

In 2017, when most public colleges were threatened with funding cuts, UT was granted a $55 million “hold harmless” payment to ensure the school’s allocation was at least held flat. While colleges are not expected to face the same slashes this budget cycle, institutions that received hold harmless funding, like UT-Austin, had those line items maintained.

Quote:At one point during the hearing, John Sharp, chancellor of the A&M System said: “Something has to give there."

“Either we've got to come down in our enrollment pretty substantially or something has to change," he said.

1 of 2 things could potentially happen here:
1. State Lege agrees to the increased funding if A&M plays UT annually
2. If the A&M says NO or the state denies their funding request, A&M's student enrollment could decrease but that might create more t-shirt fans who end up at another school and then bash the conference their current school resides in. Not sure which is worse, more A&M grads or T-shirt Aggie fans??

1 thing I'm sure of, A&M needs the help of the State Legislature which is filled with UT grads who might enjoy seeing UT play their little brother again.

This could be eerily familiar to the funding A&M got when they wanted Reed Arena. Need money from the state but need UT and Tech's help

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/...971434.php

Quote:Clayton said in a 2004 interview that Bullock told him, "Texas Tech and Baylor and Texas are going to the Big 12, and you need to be with us.' And I said, 'Bob, I understand that, but we're going to the SEC.'

"We kept going until finally, Bullock says, 'Clayton, what the hell would it take for you to go with us?' And I said, 'Bob, now you're talking more my language.' "

Bullock agreed to concessions that would benefit A&M, including an agreement that led to the construction of Reed Arena, and by the end of the six-hour meeting that day, the Big 12 was a done deal - and the SWC was history.

Thankfully Rick Perry is no longer Governor of Texas. The Aggies will need help from the 2 schools they ran away from and no longer want to associate with.

I absolutely freaking love it.

What's 55 million to A&M? Isn't that less than Jimbo's contract? 10 years for 75 million? It sounds to me like an issue of priorities.

(02-13-2019 06:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 09:18 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:34 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 11:53 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  This actually is a good use of authority by the state government, imo. It keeps these public institutions in check. And in a place like Texas, with these two institutions specifically, I suspect it won't go unnoticed across the country.

If you can force the mighty Bevo to make good on its servitude to the state, other states might jump in on this.

It was an act of the legislature in post WWII Alabama that forced Auburn and Alabama to play each other again. So the step is not a new one, but it is IMO a much needed and positive one.

No, it's not new. But seemingly a forgotten weapon in any state's arsenal. It's always been available, but it doesn't seem like a popular option these days. Hopefully, this is a turning point to redirect intrastate schools to work with each other again.

The South Carolina legislature has mandated that Clemson and South Carolina play. The North Carolina legislature has mandated that UNC and NC State play ECU. I'm not sure what the frequency requirements for ECU are.

Just in 1952 when the SoCon suspended Clemson (and Maryland) for playing in bowl games. The SoCon prohibited members schools from playing both Clemson and Maryland in the 1952 season so the state made it law that the teams had to meet in 1952

There was talk when the Texas and A&M rivalry ended to pass a new law but officials from both schools talked the legislature out of it fearing the precedent that would be created if the state government got involved in sports scheduling.

I'm glad the market footprint model is dying, with the exception of T3 games on a cable network. State's are, have been, and will be involved. They ideally want the best possible funding for their schools.

There never was a "gentlemen's agreement" to prohibit 2 schools from one state from being in a conference. But there were network incentives for not taking that second school. Now that we are moving back towards a content driven world states with 2 or more strong programs, with large followings, will want both or all to be able to maximize their revenue, and their reach, not only for sports, but for enrollment and academics to the extent that all objectives might be met with a move.

The "little brother problem" will now be both more viable and less viable at the same time depending upon branding and draw. "Little brothers" with draw will have less problem tagging along and those with problems drawing eyeballs will have more.

The State of Texas does not lack for eyes on the product. When government leaders strongly suggest that all 3 primary state schools should play each other they are elevating Tech. Not lost on me are the scheduling implications of this suggestion. That could only be made possible by all 3 being in 1 conference. No conference has schools playing two P5's as out of conference games, especially with both being from their home state. So in essence the politicians are angling for two things here. The guaranteed elevation of Texas Tech in status (an effort to maximize their funding in time conference crisis), and an option that Texas could live with if schools outside of the state of Texas, but within the Big 12, leave.

The Horns have the most successful scheduling model and sports business operations model in the nation. That model is built around playing in state as much as is possible to allow fans ease of travel while providing them with natural rivals to play. Texas can't keep a model that plays 4 games inside of the state by going to the PAC or to the Big 10, at least not easily enough to feel secure about their business model. But should Texas and Tech move together to a conference that has another Texas school then Texas can keep the RRR, and still utilize 2 of its 3 OOC dates to keep those 4 in state games.

I don't see this as a direct overture to the SEC for a move. Clearly Texas wants to stay where they are. But should Oklahoma and Kansas leave, it sets the stage for a move that would keep Texas's business model viable. And having Arkansas back on the schedule wouldn't hurt either. All of this talk seems to me to be an effort to create a viable escape plan should the lure of the Big 10 beckon Oklahoma and Kansas away.

And should Oklahoma drop the RRR in a move (although I don't see this as likely) Arkansas could easily fill that Dallas weekend spot at the State Fair.

Lots of bitter, jealous little brothers on this thread who are angry that UT doesn’t care at all about the annual series with them but came hat in hand to A&M asking to make amends for when they ended the series but now want a second chance.

It’s understandable

But you never give the crazy ex a second chance

(02-14-2019 11:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 06:33 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(02-13-2019 02:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It will die in committee

UT just got done begging us to reinstate it

We said no

That’s that.

You sure do like to type in absolutes about a school (A&M) you never attended. Lets see if we can bring this back into reality??

I found these 2 little nuggets that should help you change your tune. I'm doubtful.

1st nugget from the BCS Eagle on Jan 25th 2019
https://www.myaggienation.com/am_news/te...2eb0f.html

Both the President of A&M and UT are open to renewing the series. If the Presidents want it, the State lege will have no issue moving this forward. So not as dead as you suggest.

2nd nugget and it's HUGE. A&M needs $55 million dollars to close the student "equity" funding between A&M and UT.

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/02/12/...-funds-ut/

Quote:While lawmakers try to revive a rivalry football game between the state’s flagship institutions, a different contest between the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University began to play out Tuesday, when A&M’s president asked lawmakers for more than $50 million to bring the school’s per-student funding closer to UT’s.

Quote:At the moment our challenge is, with our per-student funding going down, it will become very hard to sustain this,” Young said. The school might have to consider shrinking the student body of the university or making other accommodations based on the “resources that we have available,” he said.

In 2017, when most public colleges were threatened with funding cuts, UT was granted a $55 million “hold harmless” payment to ensure the school’s allocation was at least held flat. While colleges are not expected to face the same slashes this budget cycle, institutions that received hold harmless funding, like UT-Austin, had those line items maintained.

Quote:At one point during the hearing, John Sharp, chancellor of the A&M System said: “Something has to give there."

“Either we've got to come down in our enrollment pretty substantially or something has to change," he said.

1 of 2 things could potentially happen here:
1. State Lege agrees to the increased funding if A&M plays UT annually
2. If the A&M says NO or the state denies their funding request, A&M's student enrollment could decrease but that might create more t-shirt fans who end up at another school and then bash the conference their current school resides in. Not sure which is worse, more A&M grads or T-shirt Aggie fans??

1 thing I'm sure of, A&M needs the help of the State Legislature which is filled with UT grads who might enjoy seeing UT play their little brother again.

This could be eerily familiar to the funding A&M got when they wanted Reed Arena. Need money from the state but need UT and Tech's help

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/...971434.php

Quote:Clayton said in a 2004 interview that Bullock told him, "Texas Tech and Baylor and Texas are going to the Big 12, and you need to be with us.' And I said, 'Bob, I understand that, but we're going to the SEC.'

"We kept going until finally, Bullock says, 'Clayton, what the hell would it take for you to go with us?' And I said, 'Bob, now you're talking more my language.' "

Bullock agreed to concessions that would benefit A&M, including an agreement that led to the construction of Reed Arena, and by the end of the six-hour meeting that day, the Big 12 was a done deal - and the SWC was history.

Thankfully Rick Perry is no longer Governor of Texas. The Aggies will need help from the 2 schools they ran away from and no longer want to associate with.

I absolutely freaking love it.

What's 55 million to A&M? Isn't that less than Jimbo's contract? 10 years for 75 million? It sounds to me like an issue of priorities.

2 separate issues. The school needs 55 million so they can keep up UT per capita student spending which comes from the state of Texas. The $75 million contract they gave Jimbo is funded by the Athletic Department( Donors, TV Revenue, AD Revenue etc).

IIRC, Universities in Texas can't use state or endowment money to pay coaches,
fund stadium renovations etc.