(03-14-2019 08:59 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 08:47 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 04:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It’s a move we would fight to the bitter end

UT is conference killing cancer

Tech is a pawn that enables the conference killing cancer

I trust our leadership is smart enough to strike first and land OU/KU

This is the SEC, not the L10

NOBODY tells the SEC who it “has” to take to make their lives more convenient

The SEC takes who it wants

It's a fight among College Station fans. The College Station Chancellor will do what he is told or he can move his school to another conference

Texas Tech told UT no thanks on airing the Texas Tech vs Texas St game on the LHN. Guess who agreed to it as long as Kansas media outlets were able to televise in Kansas? Yep---- the University of Kansas. Some want Kansas who bowed down to UT. Texas Tech didn't. Who is the pawn?

https://www.vivathematadors.com/2012/6/2...ger-to-lhn

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...twork-2013

Some have mentioned that UT is a conference killer so I ask why UT is doing this to Texas Tech? Why is UT trying to derail our chance at a Vet school?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comme...ian-school


Why did UT accuse Tech of cover up after the 2001 game in Lubbock?

http://www.dailytoreador.com/archives/mc...e8921.html

Why did the UT Chancellor who was well regarded in military circles later have to apologize to Tech and Lubbock when one of their own was responsible?

https://www.myplainview.com/news/article...971603.php

Fact remains---
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Texas Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

College Station doesn't want anyone who will make them less relevant in their new conference. The conference will invite who it wants and College Station will like it or leave.

Is Texas a conference killer? I don't think so.

Congrats!

You failed our bet and have proven your obsession with A&M

Oh and btw 2 things:

1) selective stats don’t count. It’s A&M 37-32 including the last 3

2) Tech is a political parasite that has no say in where it will or won’t go. You’ll once again beg politicians to intervene on your behalf and hope it’s enough for you to remain the remora firmly attached to the belly of the UT shark. But there’s no Bob Bullock to save you this time.

I didn't mention the school in College Station by name. You already lost when you mentioned Tech and the L10 earlier in this thread.

Since 1960, the year Texas Tech officially joined the Southwest Conference.
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

Let the hate flow my friend because I definitely understand College Station will do everything to keep Tech down. Fortunately, no one cares what College Station wants or desires.

(03-14-2019 10:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 03:32 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 06:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 06:32 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 05:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Missouri

SEC took Mizzou instead because OU insisted on oSu being included. Mizzou was a smart, contiguous addition and the best available at the time.
That's another point. If UT, OU, maybe KU, insist on bring-a-longs, they need to stick with what they have, the B12.

Being subservient to ESPN to the level advocated will not end well for the long-term. If that network has that much power to dictate, it's time for an anti-trust suit like was done in the early part of the 20th century. Corporate-ism has replaced capitalism. A Teddy Roosevelt is desperately needed.

I think I told you about why we got Missouri. But my point is that they were the suggestion of the network. And they were the best contiguous addition at the time, once a certain party reneged on paying for F.S.U. & Clemson to move to the SEC after they had agreed to it and it had made their crawler. But a certain partial member might have reneged had those two departed. So a major crayfish was in order.

As to what you suggest about corpate-ism and needing Teddy R. I couldn't agree more. The whole footprint model was a corporate invention by that network to prevent the SEC from completely owning Florida, and to keep the Big 12 from completely keeping Texas. It is why the N.C. State / Va Tech talk was being pushed in 2009-11 so that the key states in the ACC wouldn't remain a monopoly either.

It was their divide and conquer plan and the conferences played along except for the ACC, which was the only real smart thing they did. Until the footprint model it was about regional fit and content value. It actually went down in three stages. A&M and OU were to be the first two, and Va Tech and N.C. State the next two but all taking us to 16 within a year of one another, if it couldn't be worked out to be at once. OU's Boren insisted on OSU, Missouri was offered as a substitute and that worked out, but then the old core of the ACC blew up the bigger plans and N.C. State and Va Tech were off the board. ESPN was pissed and the SEC got approval to move on Clemson and F.S.U.. For 3 days it was in order after the crawler announced it and then the partial said they might back out if the two football schools left the ACC. Then we wen't to just 14 with a screwed up arrangement.

I'd say they still owe us one and if we pushed for OU and KU maybe we would get them. But the maybe is there because if UT refuses some kind of deal with the ACC then the network is going to want them with us. In that case our pot gets sweetened and we probably go along.

Now with cord cutting and money being driven by content once again instead of footprint cable subscriptions they may be easier to work with than they were 8 years ago. I'd say a good compromise position might be UT / KU. But I suspect my first assertion is the most likely.

In the end, I am for whatever is best for the SEC although it is not lost on me that Texas has a tendency to make life difficult for those around them. They wouldn't get away with as much once contained in the SEC, however, I still fear they wouldn't be of the same mind as the rest.

If I had to guess, ESPN would rather stick Texas in the ACC. That league is in desperate need of that sort of economic infusion and ESPN has committed to them to an even greater degree now with their conference network. The best way to prop up that investment is still moving Texas that way. Not to mention, a strong property in the Central Time Zone would probably be best for the ACC's watchability.

There is another variable it accounts for and that is it's a way for all 3 of the most powerful schools in the Big 12 to move at the same time and stay in the ESPN fold. If Oklahoma and Kansas move to the SEC then we've got 16. Texas could move to the ACC and that would essentially force Notre Dame to join in football. They've got 16 and that's a much more dynamic power play that putting West Virginia over there. On that note, I do think it makes sense in context because Gordon Gee does appear to be concerned about the future of West Virginia or else he wouldn't be politicking to find ways to strengthen the Big 12.

Now the biggest question is what does Texas actually want? Do they want to be in the ACC? I think there would be some allure if they got to play Notre Dame every year, partnered with some of the froufrou schools on the East Coast, and avoided the appearance of following A&M; but they might require some regional partners and the question is would it be profitable enough at that point? Or maybe they'd be fine traveling on their own, I'm not sure.

Every move Texas has ever made has been to protect their business model. Nothing would be more alien to that model than moving to the ACC as a partial member. Moving there as a full member would be out of the question for them.

IMO if the SEC were not an option we would be more likely to see Texas look to take Tech, Baylor, and T.C.U. with them to the PAC even if they lost some revenue. That's the only other move that preserves their business model.

I don't see the PAC taking Baylor and TCU. The PAC already said no thanks to Baylor in 2010 and TCU doesn't offer that much as a small private school.

(03-14-2019 11:29 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:59 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 08:47 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 04:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It’s a move we would fight to the bitter end

UT is conference killing cancer

Tech is a pawn that enables the conference killing cancer

I trust our leadership is smart enough to strike first and land OU/KU

This is the SEC, not the L10

NOBODY tells the SEC who it “has” to take to make their lives more convenient

The SEC takes who it wants

It's a fight among College Station fans. The College Station Chancellor will do what he is told or he can move his school to another conference

Texas Tech told UT no thanks on airing the Texas Tech vs Texas St game on the LHN. Guess who agreed to it as long as Kansas media outlets were able to televise in Kansas? Yep---- the University of Kansas. Some want Kansas who bowed down to UT. Texas Tech didn't. Who is the pawn?

https://www.vivathematadors.com/2012/6/2...ger-to-lhn

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...twork-2013

Some have mentioned that UT is a conference killer so I ask why UT is doing this to Texas Tech? Why is UT trying to derail our chance at a Vet school?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comme...ian-school


Why did UT accuse Tech of cover up after the 2001 game in Lubbock?

http://www.dailytoreador.com/archives/mc...e8921.html

Why did the UT Chancellor who was well regarded in military circles later have to apologize to Tech and Lubbock when one of their own was responsible?

https://www.myplainview.com/news/article...971603.php

Fact remains---
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Texas Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

College Station doesn't want anyone who will make them less relevant in their new conference. The conference will invite who it wants and College Station will like it or leave.

Is Texas a conference killer? I don't think so.

Congrats!

You failed our bet and have proven your obsession with A&M

Oh and btw 2 things:

1) selective stats don’t count. It’s A&M 37-32 including the last 3

2) Tech is a political parasite that has no say in where it will or won’t go. You’ll once again beg politicians to intervene on your behalf and hope it’s enough for you to remain the remora firmly attached to the belly of the UT shark. But there’s no Bob Bullock to save you this time.

I didn't mention the school in College Station by name. You already lost when you mentioned Tech and the L10 earlier in this thread.

Since 1960, the year Texas Tech officially joined the Southwest Conference.
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

Let the hate flow my friend because I definitely understand College Station will do everything to keep Tech down. Fortunately, no one cares what College Station wants or desires.

You lost when you got warnings and posts deleted for your obsession which is so pathetic you try to not count wins so you can pretend you have the series. It’s a pathetic level of little brother obsession

The only thing that matters here is that your school is a political parasite who has no say in their own future and only stays in the P5 at the mercy of its betters

(03-14-2019 10:51 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  If KU wants in the SEC, that bb coach and others, may try to make amends with Mizzou. KSU doesn't act that way.

Over recent years, I've read some bitter comments about the SEC from sources at UT, KU, ISU, and OU's ex-coach Stoops even though he has a brother coaching in the SEC. Most related to the two defections that went to the SEC. Maybe they forget the early defections of Nebraska and Colorado.

The irony is that all these B12 schools were shopping around at the time and some are still doing so silently.
Knowing all this, their outrage rings hollow. Texas is mad that they lost their leverage with Texas A & M. The Aggies relish breaking the chain.

I'd like to see no more than one more from the B12. The other addition to come from the East, but the ACC's GoR doesn't make that conference fluid for a long time. That said, if it MUST be two from the BIG12 for the SEC, I wouldn't dismiss WVU. I am not going to list the repeated drawbacks, but their NE crossroads location and a consistent, athletic program for their major sports, are worth consideration.

As to Texas, pursing the renewal of rivalry games with Texas A & M, may not be an indicator that Texas is exploring SEC membership. Whatever they do, they will experience more frustration. They don't have control of external entities they need to set-up their ideal model, according to Texas. They largely created their situation by being insensitive and dismissive to the needs of those they expected ongoing and future cooperation

1. Kansas State isn't under consideration and they don't make waves because they can't afford to do so.

2. We don't take anyone from the Big 12 unless the first one is Oklahoma or Texas.

3. We've passed twice on WVU and they don't add enough to pay their way in at this point.

4. If we do expand again from the Big 12 the only question will really be who is it that travels with Texas or Oklahoma, unless of course they travel with each other.

Texas would travel with T A&M since they are down the road. OU is a continuous state. They all are.

(03-14-2019 10:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 03:32 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 06:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 06:32 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 05:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Missouri

SEC took Mizzou instead because OU insisted on oSu being included. Mizzou was a smart, contiguous addition and the best available at the time.
That's another point. If UT, OU, maybe KU, insist on bring-a-longs, they need to stick with what they have, the B12.

Being subservient to ESPN to the level advocated will not end well for the long-term. If that network has that much power to dictate, it's time for an anti-trust suit like was done in the early part of the 20th century. Corporate-ism has replaced capitalism. A Teddy Roosevelt is desperately needed.

I think I told you about why we got Missouri. But my point is that they were the suggestion of the network. And they were the best contiguous addition at the time, once a certain party reneged on paying for F.S.U. & Clemson to move to the SEC after they had agreed to it and it had made their crawler. But a certain partial member might have reneged had those two departed. So a major crayfish was in order.

As to what you suggest about corpate-ism and needing Teddy R. I couldn't agree more. The whole footprint model was a corporate invention by that network to prevent the SEC from completely owning Florida, and to keep the Big 12 from completely keeping Texas. It is why the N.C. State / Va Tech talk was being pushed in 2009-11 so that the key states in the ACC wouldn't remain a monopoly either.

It was their divide and conquer plan and the conferences played along except for the ACC, which was the only real smart thing they did. Until the footprint model it was about regional fit and content value. It actually went down in three stages. A&M and OU were to be the first two, and Va Tech and N.C. State the next two but all taking us to 16 within a year of one another, if it couldn't be worked out to be at once. OU's Boren insisted on OSU, Missouri was offered as a substitute and that worked out, but then the old core of the ACC blew up the bigger plans and N.C. State and Va Tech were off the board. ESPN was pissed and the SEC got approval to move on Clemson and F.S.U.. For 3 days it was in order after the crawler announced it and then the partial said they might back out if the two football schools left the ACC. Then we wen't to just 14 with a screwed up arrangement.

I'd say they still owe us one and if we pushed for OU and KU maybe we would get them. But the maybe is there because if UT refuses some kind of deal with the ACC then the network is going to want them with us. In that case our pot gets sweetened and we probably go along.

Now with cord cutting and money being driven by content once again instead of footprint cable subscriptions they may be easier to work with than they were 8 years ago. I'd say a good compromise position might be UT / KU. But I suspect my first assertion is the most likely.

In the end, I am for whatever is best for the SEC although it is not lost on me that Texas has a tendency to make life difficult for those around them. They wouldn't get away with as much once contained in the SEC, however, I still fear they wouldn't be of the same mind as the rest.

If I had to guess, ESPN would rather stick Texas in the ACC. That league is in desperate need of that sort of economic infusion and ESPN has committed to them to an even greater degree now with their conference network. The best way to prop up that investment is still moving Texas that way. Not to mention, a strong property in the Central Time Zone would probably be best for the ACC's watchability.

There is another variable it accounts for and that is it's a way for all 3 of the most powerful schools in the Big 12 to move at the same time and stay in the ESPN fold. If Oklahoma and Kansas move to the SEC then we've got 16. Texas could move to the ACC and that would essentially force Notre Dame to join in football. They've got 16 and that's a much more dynamic power play that putting West Virginia over there. On that note, I do think it makes sense in context because Gordon Gee does appear to be concerned about the future of West Virginia or else he wouldn't be politicking to find ways to strengthen the Big 12.

Now the biggest question is what does Texas actually want? Do they want to be in the ACC? I think there would be some allure if they got to play Notre Dame every year, partnered with some of the froufrou schools on the East Coast, and avoided the appearance of following A&M; but they might require some regional partners and the question is would it be profitable enough at that point? Or maybe they'd be fine traveling on their own, I'm not sure.

Every move Texas has ever made has been to protect their business model. Nothing would be more alien to that model than moving to the ACC as a partial member. Moving there as a full member would be out of the question for them.

IMO if the SEC were not an option we would be more likely to see Texas look to take Tech, Baylor, and T.C.U. with them to the PAC even if they lost some revenue. That's the only other move that preserves their business model.

I agree that Texas will protect their business model although I wonder if they have hemmed themselves in due to past actions.

I think the question is what is Texas' opening offer? What are they going to ask for and what compromises have to be made to get them? They are still a highly valuable commodity after all, and they know it.

1. They have always played a ton of other TX schools, but they must also see that A&M has elevated their stature while simultaneously not playing other TX schools. Will they admit that A&M has broader appeal and doesn't need other in-state rivals or will they seek to separate themselves as well?

2. They basically have to go with an ESPN-owned league or their deal with the LHN becomes more complicated. The Big Ten is essentially out for that reason alone. The PAC is likely out when you consider that league doesn't have a profitable network...Texas would lose value on all 3 tiers.

3. The SEC would certainly welcome them although we don't need Texas Tech. I think we'd be willing to take Tech, but if Oklahoma is willing to come as well then that complicates matters.

In other words, I think Texas has painted themselves into a corner. They'll be fine, of course, but I don't think they can get everything they want at this stage.

(03-14-2019 02:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 10:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 03:32 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 06:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 06:32 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  SEC took Mizzou instead because OU insisted on oSu being included. Mizzou was a smart, contiguous addition and the best available at the time.
That's another point. If UT, OU, maybe KU, insist on bring-a-longs, they need to stick with what they have, the B12.

Being subservient to ESPN to the level advocated will not end well for the long-term. If that network has that much power to dictate, it's time for an anti-trust suit like was done in the early part of the 20th century. Corporate-ism has replaced capitalism. A Teddy Roosevelt is desperately needed.

I think I told you about why we got Missouri. But my point is that they were the suggestion of the network. And they were the best contiguous addition at the time, once a certain party reneged on paying for F.S.U. & Clemson to move to the SEC after they had agreed to it and it had made their crawler. But a certain partial member might have reneged had those two departed. So a major crayfish was in order.

As to what you suggest about corpate-ism and needing Teddy R. I couldn't agree more. The whole footprint model was a corporate invention by that network to prevent the SEC from completely owning Florida, and to keep the Big 12 from completely keeping Texas. It is why the N.C. State / Va Tech talk was being pushed in 2009-11 so that the key states in the ACC wouldn't remain a monopoly either.

It was their divide and conquer plan and the conferences played along except for the ACC, which was the only real smart thing they did. Until the footprint model it was about regional fit and content value. It actually went down in three stages. A&M and OU were to be the first two, and Va Tech and N.C. State the next two but all taking us to 16 within a year of one another, if it couldn't be worked out to be at once. OU's Boren insisted on OSU, Missouri was offered as a substitute and that worked out, but then the old core of the ACC blew up the bigger plans and N.C. State and Va Tech were off the board. ESPN was pissed and the SEC got approval to move on Clemson and F.S.U.. For 3 days it was in order after the crawler announced it and then the partial said they might back out if the two football schools left the ACC. Then we wen't to just 14 with a screwed up arrangement.

I'd say they still owe us one and if we pushed for OU and KU maybe we would get them. But the maybe is there because if UT refuses some kind of deal with the ACC then the network is going to want them with us. In that case our pot gets sweetened and we probably go along.

Now with cord cutting and money being driven by content once again instead of footprint cable subscriptions they may be easier to work with than they were 8 years ago. I'd say a good compromise position might be UT / KU. But I suspect my first assertion is the most likely.

In the end, I am for whatever is best for the SEC although it is not lost on me that Texas has a tendency to make life difficult for those around them. They wouldn't get away with as much once contained in the SEC, however, I still fear they wouldn't be of the same mind as the rest.

If I had to guess, ESPN would rather stick Texas in the ACC. That league is in desperate need of that sort of economic infusion and ESPN has committed to them to an even greater degree now with their conference network. The best way to prop up that investment is still moving Texas that way. Not to mention, a strong property in the Central Time Zone would probably be best for the ACC's watchability.

There is another variable it accounts for and that is it's a way for all 3 of the most powerful schools in the Big 12 to move at the same time and stay in the ESPN fold. If Oklahoma and Kansas move to the SEC then we've got 16. Texas could move to the ACC and that would essentially force Notre Dame to join in football. They've got 16 and that's a much more dynamic power play that putting West Virginia over there. On that note, I do think it makes sense in context because Gordon Gee does appear to be concerned about the future of West Virginia or else he wouldn't be politicking to find ways to strengthen the Big 12.

Now the biggest question is what does Texas actually want? Do they want to be in the ACC? I think there would be some allure if they got to play Notre Dame every year, partnered with some of the froufrou schools on the East Coast, and avoided the appearance of following A&M; but they might require some regional partners and the question is would it be profitable enough at that point? Or maybe they'd be fine traveling on their own, I'm not sure.

Every move Texas has ever made has been to protect their business model. Nothing would be more alien to that model than moving to the ACC as a partial member. Moving there as a full member would be out of the question for them.

IMO if the SEC were not an option we would be more likely to see Texas look to take Tech, Baylor, and T.C.U. with them to the PAC even if they lost some revenue. That's the only other move that preserves their business model.

I agree that Texas will protect their business model although I wonder if they have hemmed themselves in due to past actions.

I think the question is what is Texas' opening offer? What are they going to ask for and what compromises have to be made to get them? They are still a highly valuable commodity after all, and they know it.

1. They have always played a ton of other TX schools, but they must also see that A&M has elevated their stature while simultaneously not playing other TX schools. Will they admit that A&M has broader appeal and doesn't need other in-state rivals or will they seek to separate themselves as well?

2. They basically have to go with an ESPN-owned league or their deal with the LHN becomes more complicated. The Big Ten is essentially out for that reason alone. The PAC is likely out when you consider that league doesn't have a profitable network...Texas would lose value on all 3 tiers.

3. The SEC would certainly welcome them although we don't need Texas Tech. I think we'd be willing to take Tech, but if Oklahoma is willing to come as well then that complicates matters.

In other words, I think Texas has painted themselves into a corner. They'll be fine, of course, but I don't think they can get everything they want at this stage.

I agree that they can't dictate terms, but for that matter neither can Oklahoma. If they pull that Oklahoma State must come stuff it won't go anywhere this time around because we know 100% that the Big 10 won't take OSU.

It would be great to get Texas and Oklahoma. But if we can only have 1 Texas adds more value. And Tech would likely be the compromise. I can't stress enough that the Texas market is 28 million people. 3 SEC venues & on weekly TV in that state delivers a huge revenue boost for T2 in terms of advertising and that doesn't even take into consideration the value they add to T1.

Imagine if the SEC held Florida State and Miami and could dictate the highest ad rate for the state of Florida. Now add 9 million more people and that's what you get with the 3 largest state schools of Texas. Oklahoma can deliver 4 million in state and DFW so roughly 14 million. That's half of what Texas gives us weekly. Kansas is a state of 2.9 million. Kansas and Oklahoma together are 6.9 million or roughly 1/4 of the population of the state of Texas. The Sooners have a national draw as does Kansas and that's what even has them in this picture. If OU or KU have a down year the national interest drops like a rock. If Texas has a bad year you still have 28 million who will be watching.

(03-14-2019 12:12 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 11:29 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:59 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 08:47 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 04:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It’s a move we would fight to the bitter end

UT is conference killing cancer

Tech is a pawn that enables the conference killing cancer

I trust our leadership is smart enough to strike first and land OU/KU

This is the SEC, not the L10

NOBODY tells the SEC who it “has” to take to make their lives more convenient

The SEC takes who it wants

It's a fight among College Station fans. The College Station Chancellor will do what he is told or he can move his school to another conference

Texas Tech told UT no thanks on airing the Texas Tech vs Texas St game on the LHN. Guess who agreed to it as long as Kansas media outlets were able to televise in Kansas? Yep---- the University of Kansas. Some want Kansas who bowed down to UT. Texas Tech didn't. Who is the pawn?

https://www.vivathematadors.com/2012/6/2...ger-to-lhn

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...twork-2013

Some have mentioned that UT is a conference killer so I ask why UT is doing this to Texas Tech? Why is UT trying to derail our chance at a Vet school?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comme...ian-school


Why did UT accuse Tech of cover up after the 2001 game in Lubbock?

http://www.dailytoreador.com/archives/mc...e8921.html

Why did the UT Chancellor who was well regarded in military circles later have to apologize to Tech and Lubbock when one of their own was responsible?

https://www.myplainview.com/news/article...971603.php

Fact remains---
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Texas Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

College Station doesn't want anyone who will make them less relevant in their new conference. The conference will invite who it wants and College Station will like it or leave.

Is Texas a conference killer? I don't think so.

Congrats!

You failed our bet and have proven your obsession with A&M

Oh and btw 2 things:

1) selective stats don’t count. It’s A&M 37-32 including the last 3

2) Tech is a political parasite that has no say in where it will or won’t go. You’ll once again beg politicians to intervene on your behalf and hope it’s enough for you to remain the remora firmly attached to the belly of the UT shark. But there’s no Bob Bullock to save you this time.

I didn't mention the school in College Station by name. You already lost when you mentioned Tech and the L10 earlier in this thread.

Since 1960, the year Texas Tech officially joined the Southwest Conference.
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

Let the hate flow my friend because I definitely understand College Station will do everything to keep Tech down. Fortunately, no one cares what College Station wants or desires.

You lost when you got warnings and posts deleted for your obsession which is so pathetic you try to not count wins so you can pretend you have the series. It’s a pathetic level of little brother obsession

The only thing that matters here is that your school is a political parasite who has no say in their own future and only stays in the P5 at the mercy of its betters

This isn't Texags and no one cares what college station wants. Congrats on that early 13-5 lead when Tech was a member of the Border Conference. Since then, Tech leads 27-24-1.

(03-14-2019 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 02:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 10:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 03:32 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 06:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think I told you about why we got Missouri. But my point is that they were the suggestion of the network. And they were the best contiguous addition at the time, once a certain party reneged on paying for F.S.U. & Clemson to move to the SEC after they had agreed to it and it had made their crawler. But a certain partial member might have reneged had those two departed. So a major crayfish was in order.

As to what you suggest about corpate-ism and needing Teddy R. I couldn't agree more. The whole footprint model was a corporate invention by that network to prevent the SEC from completely owning Florida, and to keep the Big 12 from completely keeping Texas. It is why the N.C. State / Va Tech talk was being pushed in 2009-11 so that the key states in the ACC wouldn't remain a monopoly either.

It was their divide and conquer plan and the conferences played along except for the ACC, which was the only real smart thing they did. Until the footprint model it was about regional fit and content value. It actually went down in three stages. A&M and OU were to be the first two, and Va Tech and N.C. State the next two but all taking us to 16 within a year of one another, if it couldn't be worked out to be at once. OU's Boren insisted on OSU, Missouri was offered as a substitute and that worked out, but then the old core of the ACC blew up the bigger plans and N.C. State and Va Tech were off the board. ESPN was pissed and the SEC got approval to move on Clemson and F.S.U.. For 3 days it was in order after the crawler announced it and then the partial said they might back out if the two football schools left the ACC. Then we wen't to just 14 with a screwed up arrangement.

I'd say they still owe us one and if we pushed for OU and KU maybe we would get them. But the maybe is there because if UT refuses some kind of deal with the ACC then the network is going to want them with us. In that case our pot gets sweetened and we probably go along.

Now with cord cutting and money being driven by content once again instead of footprint cable subscriptions they may be easier to work with than they were 8 years ago. I'd say a good compromise position might be UT / KU. But I suspect my first assertion is the most likely.

In the end, I am for whatever is best for the SEC although it is not lost on me that Texas has a tendency to make life difficult for those around them. They wouldn't get away with as much once contained in the SEC, however, I still fear they wouldn't be of the same mind as the rest.

If I had to guess, ESPN would rather stick Texas in the ACC. That league is in desperate need of that sort of economic infusion and ESPN has committed to them to an even greater degree now with their conference network. The best way to prop up that investment is still moving Texas that way. Not to mention, a strong property in the Central Time Zone would probably be best for the ACC's watchability.

There is another variable it accounts for and that is it's a way for all 3 of the most powerful schools in the Big 12 to move at the same time and stay in the ESPN fold. If Oklahoma and Kansas move to the SEC then we've got 16. Texas could move to the ACC and that would essentially force Notre Dame to join in football. They've got 16 and that's a much more dynamic power play that putting West Virginia over there. On that note, I do think it makes sense in context because Gordon Gee does appear to be concerned about the future of West Virginia or else he wouldn't be politicking to find ways to strengthen the Big 12.

Now the biggest question is what does Texas actually want? Do they want to be in the ACC? I think there would be some allure if they got to play Notre Dame every year, partnered with some of the froufrou schools on the East Coast, and avoided the appearance of following A&M; but they might require some regional partners and the question is would it be profitable enough at that point? Or maybe they'd be fine traveling on their own, I'm not sure.

Every move Texas has ever made has been to protect their business model. Nothing would be more alien to that model than moving to the ACC as a partial member. Moving there as a full member would be out of the question for them.

IMO if the SEC were not an option we would be more likely to see Texas look to take Tech, Baylor, and T.C.U. with them to the PAC even if they lost some revenue. That's the only other move that preserves their business model.

I agree that Texas will protect their business model although I wonder if they have hemmed themselves in due to past actions.

I think the question is what is Texas' opening offer? What are they going to ask for and what compromises have to be made to get them? They are still a highly valuable commodity after all, and they know it.

1. They have always played a ton of other TX schools, but they must also see that A&M has elevated their stature while simultaneously not playing other TX schools. Will they admit that A&M has broader appeal and doesn't need other in-state rivals or will they seek to separate themselves as well?

2. They basically have to go with an ESPN-owned league or their deal with the LHN becomes more complicated. The Big Ten is essentially out for that reason alone. The PAC is likely out when you consider that league doesn't have a profitable network...Texas would lose value on all 3 tiers.

3. The SEC would certainly welcome them although we don't need Texas Tech. I think we'd be willing to take Tech, but if Oklahoma is willing to come as well then that complicates matters.

In other words, I think Texas has painted themselves into a corner. They'll be fine, of course, but I don't think they can get everything they want at this stage.

I agree that they can't dictate terms, but for that matter neither can Oklahoma. If they pull that Oklahoma State must come stuff it won't go anywhere this time around because we know 100% that the Big 10 won't take OSU.

It would be great to get Texas and Oklahoma. But if we can only have 1 Texas adds more value. And Tech would likely be the compromise. I can't stress enough that the Texas market is 28 million people. 3 SEC venues & on weekly TV in that state delivers a huge revenue boost for T2 in terms of advertising and that doesn't even take into consideration the value they add to T1.

Imagine if the SEC held Florida State and Miami and could dictate the highest ad rate for the state of Florida. Now add 9 million more people and that's what you get with the 3 largest state schools of Texas. Oklahoma can deliver 4 million in state and DFW so roughly 14 million. That's half of what Texas gives us weekly. Kansas is a state of 2.9 million. Kansas and Oklahoma together are 6.9 million or roughly 1/4 of the population of the state of Texas. The Sooners have a national draw as does Kansas and that's what even has them in this picture. If OU or KU have a down year the national interest drops like a rock. If Texas has a bad year you still have 28 million who will be watching.

The bold part is key. Adding Texas and Tech locks up the entire state for the SEC. Houston all the way to Amarillo and El Paso all the way to the LA border.

(03-14-2019 05:07 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 12:12 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 11:29 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:59 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 08:47 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  It's a fight among College Station fans. The College Station Chancellor will do what he is told or he can move his school to another conference

Texas Tech told UT no thanks on airing the Texas Tech vs Texas St game on the LHN. Guess who agreed to it as long as Kansas media outlets were able to televise in Kansas? Yep---- the University of Kansas. Some want Kansas who bowed down to UT. Texas Tech didn't. Who is the pawn?

https://www.vivathematadors.com/2012/6/2...ger-to-lhn

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...twork-2013

Some have mentioned that UT is a conference killer so I ask why UT is doing this to Texas Tech? Why is UT trying to derail our chance at a Vet school?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comme...ian-school


Why did UT accuse Tech of cover up after the 2001 game in Lubbock?

http://www.dailytoreador.com/archives/mc...e8921.html

Why did the UT Chancellor who was well regarded in military circles later have to apologize to Tech and Lubbock when one of their own was responsible?

https://www.myplainview.com/news/article...971603.php

Fact remains---
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Texas Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

College Station doesn't want anyone who will make them less relevant in their new conference. The conference will invite who it wants and College Station will like it or leave.

Is Texas a conference killer? I don't think so.

Congrats!

You failed our bet and have proven your obsession with A&M

Oh and btw 2 things:

1) selective stats don’t count. It’s A&M 37-32 including the last 3

2) Tech is a political parasite that has no say in where it will or won’t go. You’ll once again beg politicians to intervene on your behalf and hope it’s enough for you to remain the remora firmly attached to the belly of the UT shark. But there’s no Bob Bullock to save you this time.

I didn't mention the school in College Station by name. You already lost when you mentioned Tech and the L10 earlier in this thread.

Since 1960, the year Texas Tech officially joined the Southwest Conference.
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

Let the hate flow my friend because I definitely understand College Station will do everything to keep Tech down. Fortunately, no one cares what College Station wants or desires.

You lost when you got warnings and posts deleted for your obsession which is so pathetic you try to not count wins so you can pretend you have the series. It’s a pathetic level of little brother obsession

The only thing that matters here is that your school is a political parasite who has no say in their own future and only stays in the P5 at the mercy of its betters

This isn't Texags and no one cares what college station wants. Congrats on that early 13-5 lead when Tech was a member of the Border Conference. Since then, Tech leads 27-24-1.

I realize they don’t bother teaching math at Tier Three Tech but let me try to dumb it down to Tech level

Number of A&M wins >>>>>> Number of Tech wins

What the big boys want in realignment >>>>>>> what Tier Three Tech wants

But like I always say

Prove me wrong

Go stand by the mailbox and bring us proof that Tier 3 has been accepted to a P4 conference

Go write to the NCAA and demand they change the official record so that obsessed Tier 3 Tech can have a winning record vs A&M

Report back here immediately when either of these things happen

Reading this board is so much better with certain people on ignore.

(03-13-2019 08:47 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 04:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It’s a move we would fight to the bitter end

UT is conference killing cancer

Tech is a pawn that enables the conference killing cancer

I trust our leadership is smart enough to strike first and land OU/KU

This is the SEC, not the L10

NOBODY tells the SEC who it “has” to take to make their lives more convenient

The SEC takes who it wants

It's a fight among College Station fans. The College Station Chancellor will do what he is told or he can move his school to another conference

Texas Tech told UT no thanks on airing the Texas Tech vs Texas St game on the LHN. Guess who agreed to it as long as Kansas media outlets were able to televise in Kansas? Yep---- the University of Kansas. Some want Kansas who bowed down to UT. Texas Tech didn't. Who is the pawn?

https://www.vivathematadors.com/2012/6/2...ger-to-lhn

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...twork-2013

Some have mentioned that UT is a conference killer so I ask why UT is doing this to Texas Tech? Why is UT trying to derail our chance at a Vet school?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comme...ian-school


Why did UT accuse Tech of cover up after the 2001 game in Lubbock?

http://www.dailytoreador.com/archives/mc...e8921.html

Why did the UT Chancellor who was well regarded in military circles later have to apologize to Tech and Lubbock when one of their own was responsible?

https://www.myplainview.com/news/article...971603.php

Fact remains---
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Texas Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

College Station doesn't want anyone who will make them less relevant in their new conference. The conference will invite who it wants and College Station will like it or leave.

Is Texas a conference killer? I don't think so.

Four great schools packed up and left. Now the Big XII is now the little Big Ten. I would say Texas had a great deal to do with that.

(03-14-2019 05:07 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 12:12 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 11:29 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 08:59 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 08:47 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  It's a fight among College Station fans. The College Station Chancellor will do what he is told or he can move his school to another conference

Texas Tech told UT no thanks on airing the Texas Tech vs Texas St game on the LHN. Guess who agreed to it as long as Kansas media outlets were able to televise in Kansas? Yep---- the University of Kansas. Some want Kansas who bowed down to UT. Texas Tech didn't. Who is the pawn?

https://www.vivathematadors.com/2012/6/2...ger-to-lhn

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...twork-2013

Some have mentioned that UT is a conference killer so I ask why UT is doing this to Texas Tech? Why is UT trying to derail our chance at a Vet school?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comme...ian-school


Why did UT accuse Tech of cover up after the 2001 game in Lubbock?

http://www.dailytoreador.com/archives/mc...e8921.html

Why did the UT Chancellor who was well regarded in military circles later have to apologize to Tech and Lubbock when one of their own was responsible?

https://www.myplainview.com/news/article...971603.php

Fact remains---
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Texas Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

College Station doesn't want anyone who will make them less relevant in their new conference. The conference will invite who it wants and College Station will like it or leave.

Is Texas a conference killer? I don't think so.

Congrats!

You failed our bet and have proven your obsession with A&M

Oh and btw 2 things:

1) selective stats don’t count. It’s A&M 37-32 including the last 3

2) Tech is a political parasite that has no say in where it will or won’t go. You’ll once again beg politicians to intervene on your behalf and hope it’s enough for you to remain the remora firmly attached to the belly of the UT shark. But there’s no Bob Bullock to save you this time.

I didn't mention the school in College Station by name. You already lost when you mentioned Tech and the L10 earlier in this thread.

Since 1960, the year Texas Tech officially joined the Southwest Conference.
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

Let the hate flow my friend because I definitely understand College Station will do everything to keep Tech down. Fortunately, no one cares what College Station wants or desires.

You lost when you got warnings and posts deleted for your obsession which is so pathetic you try to not count wins so you can pretend you have the series. It’s a pathetic level of little brother obsession

The only thing that matters here is that your school is a political parasite who has no say in their own future and only stays in the P5 at the mercy of its betters

This isn't Texags and no one cares what college station wants. Congrats on that early 13-5 lead when Tech was a member of the Border Conference. Since then, Tech leads 27-24-1.

Nor is this the Big XII board either. TAMU is a part of the SEC & TTU is not.

(03-15-2019 11:27 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 08:47 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 04:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It’s a move we would fight to the bitter end

UT is conference killing cancer

Tech is a pawn that enables the conference killing cancer

I trust our leadership is smart enough to strike first and land OU/KU

This is the SEC, not the L10

NOBODY tells the SEC who it “has” to take to make their lives more convenient

The SEC takes who it wants

It's a fight among College Station fans. The College Station Chancellor will do what he is told or he can move his school to another conference

Texas Tech told UT no thanks on airing the Texas Tech vs Texas St game on the LHN. Guess who agreed to it as long as Kansas media outlets were able to televise in Kansas? Yep---- the University of Kansas. Some want Kansas who bowed down to UT. Texas Tech didn't. Who is the pawn?

https://www.vivathematadors.com/2012/6/2...ger-to-lhn

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...twork-2013

Some have mentioned that UT is a conference killer so I ask why UT is doing this to Texas Tech? Why is UT trying to derail our chance at a Vet school?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comme...ian-school


Why did UT accuse Tech of cover up after the 2001 game in Lubbock?

http://www.dailytoreador.com/archives/mc...e8921.html

Why did the UT Chancellor who was well regarded in military circles later have to apologize to Tech and Lubbock when one of their own was responsible?

https://www.myplainview.com/news/article...971603.php

Fact remains---
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Texas Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

College Station doesn't want anyone who will make them less relevant in their new conference. The conference will invite who it wants and College Station will like it or leave.

Is Texas a conference killer? I don't think so.

Four great schools packed up and left. Now the Big XII is now the little Big Ten. I would say Texas had a great deal to do with that.

I would say you are wrong.
Colorado always wanted to be in the PAC. The Texoma 4 rumors to the PAC made their mind up. UT didn't have anything to do with that.

Mizzou wanted the Big 10 and got scared when they almost got left in the Big East during PAC realignment discussions. Texas had nothing to do with that.

Nebraska had nowhere to go but the Big 10 and they wouldn't let them have the partial qualifiers that Nebraska prospered with. They may have been bothered by UT but that was because they became mediocre once they couldn't admit partials anymore. They are killing it in the Big 10. LOL

College Station has always been a cry baby and always wanted to be in the SEC. They had the perfect storm, College Station Governor in office and the state legislature out of session. The college station Governor was definitely NOT calling the legislature back into session for that. Honestly, they got tired of being overshadowed by UT and Texas Tech. If that's UT's fault, so be it.

UT is often viewed as the bad guy but reality says the blame should fall on others as well.

(03-16-2019 10:11 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 11:27 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 08:47 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 04:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It’s a move we would fight to the bitter end

UT is conference killing cancer

Tech is a pawn that enables the conference killing cancer

I trust our leadership is smart enough to strike first and land OU/KU

This is the SEC, not the L10

NOBODY tells the SEC who it “has” to take to make their lives more convenient

The SEC takes who it wants

It's a fight among College Station fans. The College Station Chancellor will do what he is told or he can move his school to another conference

Texas Tech told UT no thanks on airing the Texas Tech vs Texas St game on the LHN. Guess who agreed to it as long as Kansas media outlets were able to televise in Kansas? Yep---- the University of Kansas. Some want Kansas who bowed down to UT. Texas Tech didn't. Who is the pawn?

https://www.vivathematadors.com/2012/6/2...ger-to-lhn

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...twork-2013

Some have mentioned that UT is a conference killer so I ask why UT is doing this to Texas Tech? Why is UT trying to derail our chance at a Vet school?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comme...ian-school


Why did UT accuse Tech of cover up after the 2001 game in Lubbock?

http://www.dailytoreador.com/archives/mc...e8921.html

Why did the UT Chancellor who was well regarded in military circles later have to apologize to Tech and Lubbock when one of their own was responsible?

https://www.myplainview.com/news/article...971603.php

Fact remains---
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Texas Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

College Station doesn't want anyone who will make them less relevant in their new conference. The conference will invite who it wants and College Station will like it or leave.

Is Texas a conference killer? I don't think so.

Four great schools packed up and left. Now the Big XII is now the little Big Ten. I would say Texas had a great deal to do with that.

I would say you are wrong.
Colorado always wanted to be in the PAC. The Texoma 4 rumors to the PAC made their mind up. UT didn't have anything to do with that.

Mizzou wanted the Big 10 and got scared when they almost got left in the Big East during PAC realignment discussions. Texas had nothing to do with that.

Nebraska had nowhere to go but the Big 10 and they wouldn't let them have the partial qualifiers that Nebraska prospered with. They may have been bothered by UT but that was because they became mediocre once they couldn't admit partials anymore. They are killing it in the Big 10. LOL

College Station has always been a cry baby and always wanted to be in the SEC. They had the perfect storm, College Station Governor in office and the state legislature out of session. The college station Governor was definitely NOT calling the legislature back into session for that. Honestly, they got tired of being overshadowed by UT and Texas Tech. If that's UT's fault, so be it.

UT is often viewed as the bad guy but reality says the blame should fall on others as well.

Texas A&M has been a great addition to the SEC.

If Texas A&M detractors are still succumbed with anger, bitterness, jealously, and their school(s) being neutered in their power to manipulate, then advocate that the schools stay in the B12, or pursue going wherever Texas A&M is not, and seek an environment whereby they can adapt and shed the emotional baggage if they're willing to do so. The PAC 12 could be more conducive for that, perhaps.

I would expect the leadership of UT and TTU each, see their future in terms of making wise business decisions, and not based on the DeLoss Dodds-era of turmoil that generated sustaining grudges. What administrators think, and what fans attitudes are, can profoundly differ over time.

As for Texas A&M, they have a Presidential vote, and can make their case as to what schools to invite or not invite to the SEC. Some other Presidents may hold similar sentiments in terms of preferences. But don't make these decisions based specifically on grudges either.

Burying political hatchets, and letting history be history and the often flawed interpretations that go with such, doesn't mean intense and lucrative rivalries cannot be renewed in amicable and reasonable set-ups.

If UT-A&M agreed to play periodically or at intervals as OOC games, that would have strong national interest as it did previously.

(03-16-2019 10:11 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 11:27 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 08:47 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 04:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It’s a move we would fight to the bitter end

UT is conference killing cancer

Tech is a pawn that enables the conference killing cancer

I trust our leadership is smart enough to strike first and land OU/KU

This is the SEC, not the L10

NOBODY tells the SEC who it “has” to take to make their lives more convenient

The SEC takes who it wants

It's a fight among College Station fans. The College Station Chancellor will do what he is told or he can move his school to another conference

Texas Tech told UT no thanks on airing the Texas Tech vs Texas St game on the LHN. Guess who agreed to it as long as Kansas media outlets were able to televise in Kansas? Yep---- the University of Kansas. Some want Kansas who bowed down to UT. Texas Tech didn't. Who is the pawn?

https://www.vivathematadors.com/2012/6/2...ger-to-lhn

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...twork-2013

Some have mentioned that UT is a conference killer so I ask why UT is doing this to Texas Tech? Why is UT trying to derail our chance at a Vet school?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comme...ian-school


Why did UT accuse Tech of cover up after the 2001 game in Lubbock?

http://www.dailytoreador.com/archives/mc...e8921.html

Why did the UT Chancellor who was well regarded in military circles later have to apologize to Tech and Lubbock when one of their own was responsible?

https://www.myplainview.com/news/article...971603.php

Fact remains---
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Texas Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

College Station doesn't want anyone who will make them less relevant in their new conference. The conference will invite who it wants and College Station will like it or leave.

Is Texas a conference killer? I don't think so.

Four great schools packed up and left. Now the Big XII is now the little Big Ten. I would say Texas had a great deal to do with that.

I would say you are wrong.
Colorado always wanted to be in the PAC. The Texoma 4 rumors to the PAC made their mind up. UT didn't have anything to do with that.

Mizzou wanted the Big 10 and got scared when they almost got left in the Big East during PAC realignment discussions. Texas had nothing to do with that.

Nebraska had nowhere to go but the Big 10 and they wouldn't let them have the partial qualifiers that Nebraska prospered with. They may have been bothered by UT but that was because they became mediocre once they couldn't admit partials anymore. They are killing it in the Big 10. LOL

College Station has always been a cry baby and always wanted to be in the SEC. They had the perfect storm, College Station Governor in office and the state legislature out of session. The college station Governor was definitely NOT calling the legislature back into session for that. Honestly, they got tired of being overshadowed by UT and Texas Tech. If that's UT's fault, so be it.

UT is often viewed as the bad guy but reality says the blame should fall on others as well.

So the Texhoma Four and all the BS of pulling out of the Big XII had nothing to do with the total disruption of the conference? David Boren's comments at OU about Sooner options paved the way for Missouri's exit. Our leaders were looking for replacements for Nebraska and Colorado, and OU was still spouting off about options to bale on us. Missouri decided that Friday night to get out. If the PAC had voted to take OU and OSU, they would both be PAC now. In the Big XII it is Texas and Oklahoma, then everyone else. It took four conference members leaving for UT to open a discussion regarding a more equal revenue sharing deal.

(03-16-2019 02:33 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-16-2019 10:11 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 11:27 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 08:47 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 04:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It’s a move we would fight to the bitter end

UT is conference killing cancer

Tech is a pawn that enables the conference killing cancer

I trust our leadership is smart enough to strike first and land OU/KU

This is the SEC, not the L10

NOBODY tells the SEC who it “has” to take to make their lives more convenient

The SEC takes who it wants

It's a fight among College Station fans. The College Station Chancellor will do what he is told or he can move his school to another conference

Texas Tech told UT no thanks on airing the Texas Tech vs Texas St game on the LHN. Guess who agreed to it as long as Kansas media outlets were able to televise in Kansas? Yep---- the University of Kansas. Some want Kansas who bowed down to UT. Texas Tech didn't. Who is the pawn?

https://www.vivathematadors.com/2012/6/2...ger-to-lhn

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...twork-2013

Some have mentioned that UT is a conference killer so I ask why UT is doing this to Texas Tech? Why is UT trying to derail our chance at a Vet school?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comme...ian-school


Why did UT accuse Tech of cover up after the 2001 game in Lubbock?

http://www.dailytoreador.com/archives/mc...e8921.html

Why did the UT Chancellor who was well regarded in military circles later have to apologize to Tech and Lubbock when one of their own was responsible?

https://www.myplainview.com/news/article...971603.php

Fact remains---
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Texas Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

College Station doesn't want anyone who will make them less relevant in their new conference. The conference will invite who it wants and College Station will like it or leave.

Is Texas a conference killer? I don't think so.

Four great schools packed up and left. Now the Big XII is now the little Big Ten. I would say Texas had a great deal to do with that.

I would say you are wrong.
Colorado always wanted to be in the PAC. The Texoma 4 rumors to the PAC made their mind up. UT didn't have anything to do with that.

Mizzou wanted the Big 10 and got scared when they almost got left in the Big East during PAC realignment discussions. Texas had nothing to do with that.

Nebraska had nowhere to go but the Big 10 and they wouldn't let them have the partial qualifiers that Nebraska prospered with. They may have been bothered by UT but that was because they became mediocre once they couldn't admit partials anymore. They are killing it in the Big 10. LOL

College Station has always been a cry baby and always wanted to be in the SEC. They had the perfect storm, College Station Governor in office and the state legislature out of session. The college station Governor was definitely NOT calling the legislature back into session for that. Honestly, they got tired of being overshadowed by UT and Texas Tech. If that's UT's fault, so be it.

UT is often viewed as the bad guy but reality says the blame should fall on others as well.

So the Texhoma Four and all the BS of pulling out of the Big XII had nothing to do with the total disruption of the conference? David Boren's comments at OU about Sooner options paved the way for Missouri's exit. Our leaders were looking for replacements for Nebraska and Colorado, and OU was still spouting off about options to bale on us. Missouri decided that Friday night to get out. If the PAC had voted to take OU and OSU, they would both be PAC now. In the Big XII it is Texas and Oklahoma, then everyone else. It took four conference members leaving for UT to open a discussion regarding a more equal revenue sharing deal.

So it sounds like OU is the reason Mizzou left, not UT?

I remember correctly, Missouri offered Nebraska/Colorado exit money to keep OU and UT happy. UT finally agreed to equal revenue when the forgotten 5( Kansas, K-State, Iowa St, Baylor and Mizzou) offered exit money.

That was a long time ago and I could be mistaken.

What can I say, our jealous, bitter little brother can’t accept they aren’t a player in realignment at all and are only even mentioned due to hopes that they can repeat the same political parasite scam that got them into the Big 12 by riding UTs coattail even though they no longer have any significant political power in the legislature anymore.

(03-16-2019 06:50 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-16-2019 02:33 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-16-2019 10:11 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 11:27 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 08:47 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  It's a fight among College Station fans. The College Station Chancellor will do what he is told or he can move his school to another conference

Texas Tech told UT no thanks on airing the Texas Tech vs Texas St game on the LHN. Guess who agreed to it as long as Kansas media outlets were able to televise in Kansas? Yep---- the University of Kansas. Some want Kansas who bowed down to UT. Texas Tech didn't. Who is the pawn?

https://www.vivathematadors.com/2012/6/2...ger-to-lhn

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...twork-2013

Some have mentioned that UT is a conference killer so I ask why UT is doing this to Texas Tech? Why is UT trying to derail our chance at a Vet school?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comme...ian-school


Why did UT accuse Tech of cover up after the 2001 game in Lubbock?

http://www.dailytoreador.com/archives/mc...e8921.html

Why did the UT Chancellor who was well regarded in military circles later have to apologize to Tech and Lubbock when one of their own was responsible?

https://www.myplainview.com/news/article...971603.php

Fact remains---
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Texas Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

College Station doesn't want anyone who will make them less relevant in their new conference. The conference will invite who it wants and College Station will like it or leave.

Is Texas a conference killer? I don't think so.

Four great schools packed up and left. Now the Big XII is now the little Big Ten. I would say Texas had a great deal to do with that.

I would say you are wrong.
Colorado always wanted to be in the PAC. The Texoma 4 rumors to the PAC made their mind up. UT didn't have anything to do with that.

Mizzou wanted the Big 10 and got scared when they almost got left in the Big East during PAC realignment discussions. Texas had nothing to do with that.

Nebraska had nowhere to go but the Big 10 and they wouldn't let them have the partial qualifiers that Nebraska prospered with. They may have been bothered by UT but that was because they became mediocre once they couldn't admit partials anymore. They are killing it in the Big 10. LOL

College Station has always been a cry baby and always wanted to be in the SEC. They had the perfect storm, College Station Governor in office and the state legislature out of session. The college station Governor was definitely NOT calling the legislature back into session for that. Honestly, they got tired of being overshadowed by UT and Texas Tech. If that's UT's fault, so be it.

UT is often viewed as the bad guy but reality says the blame should fall on others as well.

So the Texhoma Four and all the BS of pulling out of the Big XII had nothing to do with the total disruption of the conference? David Boren's comments at OU about Sooner options paved the way for Missouri's exit. Our leaders were looking for replacements for Nebraska and Colorado, and OU was still spouting off about options to bale on us. Missouri decided that Friday night to get out. If the PAC had voted to take OU and OSU, they would both be PAC now. In the Big XII it is Texas and Oklahoma, then everyone else. It took four conference members leaving for UT to open a discussion regarding a more equal revenue sharing deal.

So it sounds like OU is the reason Mizzou left, not UT?

I remember correctly, Missouri offered Nebraska/Colorado exit money to keep OU and UT happy. UT finally agreed to equal revenue when the forgotten 5( Kansas, K-State, Iowa St, Baylor and Mizzou) offered exit money.

That was a long time ago and I could be mistaken.

I believe you just validated my point here. It's all about OU and UT.

(03-16-2019 10:11 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-15-2019 11:27 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 08:47 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 04:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It’s a move we would fight to the bitter end

UT is conference killing cancer

Tech is a pawn that enables the conference killing cancer

I trust our leadership is smart enough to strike first and land OU/KU

This is the SEC, not the L10

NOBODY tells the SEC who it “has” to take to make their lives more convenient

The SEC takes who it wants

It's a fight among College Station fans. The College Station Chancellor will do what he is told or he can move his school to another conference

Texas Tech told UT no thanks on airing the Texas Tech vs Texas St game on the LHN. Guess who agreed to it as long as Kansas media outlets were able to televise in Kansas? Yep---- the University of Kansas. Some want Kansas who bowed down to UT. Texas Tech didn't. Who is the pawn?

https://www.vivathematadors.com/2012/6/2...ger-to-lhn

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...twork-2013

Some have mentioned that UT is a conference killer so I ask why UT is doing this to Texas Tech? Why is UT trying to derail our chance at a Vet school?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comme...ian-school


Why did UT accuse Tech of cover up after the 2001 game in Lubbock?

http://www.dailytoreador.com/archives/mc...e8921.html

Why did the UT Chancellor who was well regarded in military circles later have to apologize to Tech and Lubbock when one of their own was responsible?

https://www.myplainview.com/news/article...971603.php

Fact remains---
UT is 32-20 vs College Station
Texas Tech is 27-24-1 vs College Station.

College Station doesn't want anyone who will make them less relevant in their new conference. The conference will invite who it wants and College Station will like it or leave.

Is Texas a conference killer? I don't think so.

Four great schools packed up and left. Now the Big XII is now the little Big Ten. I would say Texas had a great deal to do with that.

I would say you are wrong.
Colorado always wanted to be in the PAC. The Texoma 4 rumors to the PAC made their mind up. UT didn't have anything to do with that.

Mizzou wanted the Big 10 and got scared when they almost got left in the Big East during PAC realignment discussions. Texas had nothing to do with that.

Nebraska had nowhere to go but the Big 10 and they wouldn't let them have the partial qualifiers that Nebraska prospered with. They may have been bothered by UT but that was because they became mediocre once they couldn't admit partials anymore. They are killing it in the Big 10. LOL

College Station has always been a cry baby and always wanted to be in the SEC. They had the perfect storm, College Station Governor in office and the state legislature out of session. The college station Governor was definitely NOT calling the legislature back into session for that. Honestly, they got tired of being overshadowed by UT and Texas Tech. If that's UT's fault, so be it.

UT is often viewed as the bad guy but reality says the blame should fall on others as well.

That's quite the apologetic argument for Texas. Deloss Dodds would be proud.