(03-30-2020 09:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 09:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 04:40 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 04:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 12:23 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I’ll totally admit that UT made a good choice by taking the deal ESPN dropped in their lap in order to stop further realignment

Why cant YOU admit that the deal Dodds offered Byrne was not a great deal and was not in any way related to LHN because NOBODY at the time Byrne or Dodds, could have predicted realignment and the near death of the Big 12 changing the game?

That was all pointed out in the original post. And that you can't let it go demonstrates Aggie culture in all its glory. You should adopt the culture of the school you actually attend.

Your UT arrogance is on full display.

You simply can’t admit that offer Dodds made Byrne wasn’t a good one because it wouldn’t have made money.

You insist he was wrong because somehow he couldn’t predict that years in the future, realignment would radically shift the college landscape and the B12 would damn near collapse and because of that, in a once ever confluence of events, ESPN would drop the mother of all deals into UTs lap in order to prevent more realignment. A deal that never would have happened if the status quo had continued.

That you can’t see that and insist our AD made a terrible mistake for somehow not foreseeing that is the worst sort of 2020 hindsight arrogance

You have adopted the Aggie inferiority complex. Byrne blew it. Plain and simple. Now the rest of the Big 12 wasn't interested in a conference network at the time either. That's why NU and UT had to fund the study themselves. But Dodds offered the opportunity that turned into $11 million a year. Dodds didn't know either how good it would be. But I already said that in the first post.

Bullet, the Aggies didn't want in on the LHN because Texas controlled it, the Aggies already had their sites on the SEC, and the LHN gave them a plausible excuse to pursue it. Byme didn't blow it. He exploited it.

What was sad about all of that... was schools like Iowa st, Kansas St, kansas, baylor proposing that they would give more of an equal share to aggy, ou, UT to keep the conference together. Maybe seeing that makes me appreciate those school more and want to stay as is. Except for baylor.. they need to GTFO.. from murder cover ups, to rape cover ups.. when is it enough?

You’re going to continue to insist that not taking Dodds up on an offer for a no profit network was foolish because he couldn’t foresee the impossible to predict scenario of realignment leading to the near death of the B12 leading to ESPN bribing the horns to stay by massively overpaying for their T3 content years into the future?

You are way too invested in your own arrogant, self serving burnt orange narrative as nobody with a shred of common sense will read that and agree with you

All the more proof that going to the SEC was the best outcome of saying no to Dodds

(03-30-2020 09:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 04:40 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 04:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 12:23 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 12:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  You aren't and Byrne aren't man enough to admit Texas made a good choice and Byrne made a poor choice without throwing a bunch of spin. Its pathetic and its such an Aggie thing to do.

In the original post I pointed out that nobody thought it would be worth more than $3 million a year even a month before ESPN made their offer.

I’ll totally admit that UT made a good choice by taking the deal ESPN dropped in their lap in order to stop further realignment

Why cant YOU admit that the deal Dodds offered Byrne was not a great deal and was not in any way related to LHN because NOBODY at the time Byrne or Dodds, could have predicted realignment and the near death of the Big 12 changing the game?

That was all pointed out in the original post. And that you can't let it go demonstrates Aggie culture in all its glory. You should adopt the culture of the school you actually attend.

Your UT arrogance is on full display.

You simply can’t admit that offer Dodds made Byrne wasn’t a good one because it wouldn’t have made money.

You insist he was wrong because somehow he couldn’t predict that years in the future, realignment would radically shift the college landscape and the B12 would damn near collapse and because of that, in a once ever confluence of events, ESPN would drop the mother of all deals into UTs lap in order to prevent more realignment. A deal that never would have happened if the status quo had continued.

That you can’t see that and insist our AD made a terrible mistake for somehow not foreseeing that is the worst sort of 2020 hindsight arrogance

You have adopted the Aggie inferiority complex. Byrne blew it. Plain and simple. Now the rest of the Big 12 wasn't interested in a conference network at the time either. That's why NU and UT had to fund the study themselves. But Dodds offered the opportunity that turned into $11 million a year. Dodds didn't know either how good it would be. But I already said that in the first post.

TAMU might have lost money by not joining with Texas on a network or the Big 12 on a network, but if those networks would have made it hard to join the SEC, than that money lost was money well spent, as TAMU is clearly better off in the SEC.

(03-31-2020 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 09:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 04:40 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 04:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-30-2020 12:23 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I’ll totally admit that UT made a good choice by taking the deal ESPN dropped in their lap in order to stop further realignment

Why cant YOU admit that the deal Dodds offered Byrne was not a great deal and was not in any way related to LHN because NOBODY at the time Byrne or Dodds, could have predicted realignment and the near death of the Big 12 changing the game?

That was all pointed out in the original post. And that you can't let it go demonstrates Aggie culture in all its glory. You should adopt the culture of the school you actually attend.

Your UT arrogance is on full display.

You simply can’t admit that offer Dodds made Byrne wasn’t a good one because it wouldn’t have made money.

You insist he was wrong because somehow he couldn’t predict that years in the future, realignment would radically shift the college landscape and the B12 would damn near collapse and because of that, in a once ever confluence of events, ESPN would drop the mother of all deals into UTs lap in order to prevent more realignment. A deal that never would have happened if the status quo had continued.

That you can’t see that and insist our AD made a terrible mistake for somehow not foreseeing that is the worst sort of 2020 hindsight arrogance

You have adopted the Aggie inferiority complex. Byrne blew it. Plain and simple. Now the rest of the Big 12 wasn't interested in a conference network at the time either. That's why NU and UT had to fund the study themselves. But Dodds offered the opportunity that turned into $11 million a year. Dodds didn't know either how good it would be. But I already said that in the first post.

TAMU might have lost money by not joining with Texas on a network or the Big 12 on a network, but if those networks would have made it hard to join the SEC, than that money lost was money well spent, as TAMU is clearly better off in the SEC.

USFFan

I agree aggy is in a great place in the sec.. they are financially secure for the foreseeable future. One day they may be able to parlay that money into a championship..in something, anything.

a UT fan lecturing literally anyone else about doing less with more....there are no words...

(03-31-2020 04:14 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  a UT fan lecturing literally anyone else about doing less with more....there are no words...

1963, 1969, 1970, 2005. We don't claim 9 titles like most SEC schools would (1961, 1968, etc.), only ones that make sense. With a couple breaks might have had 2008 and 2009 as well.

2000-2009 only Boise St. had a better winning %.

6th in NCAA championships with 47 in 11 different sports.

Hey if youre happy with UTs success and think it has been just right for the amount of money the program brings in and spends then good for you

(03-31-2020 04:59 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Hey if youre happy with UTs success and think it has been just right for the amount of money the program brings in and spends then good for you

funny because aggys boasts itself as if it has the skins on the wall like Texas. Has aggy ever been passed a sweet 16? How many BCS/NY6 games have they won? When was the last time they won a conference title in anything? Meat judging?

Victories you claim are playing bama, lsu, regularly.. signing a coach that's clearly on the downside, for 75 plus million. oh and owning the state of Texas because of annual victories vs a murdereres row that includes Lamar, SWT, UTSA, soon to be Tarleton St, ABCU.. who's next? Angelo St? Atleast play SMU...

Can’t help but notice you’re very intentionally avoiding the question there so let’s try again real slowly:

You said that A&M should be turning money into titles.

UT has made more money than anyone over the past 10 years.

So given that: do you think UT’s level of success over the past 10 years is appropriate for how much money the program makes and spends?

I know it’s hard but try to focus and answer the question as it’s a simple “yes” or “no” so I’m pretty sure you can handle it

(04-02-2020 09:28 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Can’t help but notice you’re very intentionally avoiding the question there so let’s try again real slowly:

You said that A&M should be turning money into titles.

UT has made more money than anyone over the past 10 years.

So given that: do you think UT’s level of success over the past 10 years is appropriate for how much money the program makes and spends?

I know it’s hard but try to focus and answer the question as it’s a simple “yes” or “no” so I’m pretty sure you can handle it

Not in football or basketball.
Over the last 60 years, yes.

In contrast to A&M who won a national title in 1939 and then went 3-31-1 vs. Texas over the next 35 years despite having Bear Bryant and Gene Stallings as coaches during some of those years.

See here’s the thing

I didn’t bring up this issue of doing less with more

You horn boys did

And no one has done less with more over the past decade than UT has so I’m not sure why you boys thought that would be a great attack.

Something about glass houses

(03-29-2020 12:28 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Wait.. how is the Big 12 on unstable ground? They are making more money and the ADs aren't the ones making comments about exploring all options. Did you know that with the original Big 12 there was un-equal sharing? That aggy and Nebraska demanded? Did you know that Deloss asked the conference about making a conference channel and Osborne saying no. Then he asked aggy if they wanted to make a Texas network which would air both tier 3 content and they said no because they would do their own? Ever since they left and the old ou AD retired, there hasn't been grumblings about further movement.

Meanwhile SC might as well be 2014-2017 Texas, only difference is there has been an ou, wv, tcu, bu that have stepped up football wise. In the all powerful hierarchy of Pac schools, who has stepped up? Oregon? Utah? Let's not get into basketball or baseball.

I get why Pac looks down at the Big 12.. they see themselves on the same level of the Big or sec.. But the fact of the matter is they are in trouble. SC can't carry that conference alone at this moment.

So whether the Pac stays and hopes that it's Commish can get a HUUUGE deal for the Pac network through someone else, or decides to be the Pac division of the Rust Belt conference.. they are the ones on unsteady ground.. not the Big 12.

This is just wrong. The Pac-12 does not look down on the Big 12 and they are not the ones on unsteady ground. The Pac-12 distributed $33 million in revenue per school last season, so they are not going broke. They are falling behind the other power conferences, especially the SEC and Big Ten. The Pac-12 Network is an albatross around the conference's neck. The distribution and operation of the network has been a disaster. It is Exposure + Revenue + Expenses = Disaster

The Pac-12 Network is in 17 million homes. The SEC Network is in about 70 million homes and the Big Ten Network in about 60 million homes. The Pac-12 Network could triple their exposure and still be well behind the SEC and Big Ten. A tripling of exposure would give them a significant increase in revenue. On the expense side, operating one national network and six regional networks is too expensive, especially headquartered in the City of San Francisco.

The Pac-12 just needs to fix their network issues. That will happen at some point before the new TV contract with ESPN/FOX is re-negotiated in 2024. They had an offer from ESPN to distribute the network in exchange for a longer term commitment, with the Pac-12 maintaining sole ownership of the network. They turned it down, but they may find that to be the way to get wider distribution of their network. They may have to reconsider.

As for your implication that Big 12 football is better than Pac-12 football, there is no real prove of that. I do know that the Pac-12 consistently puts more talent in the NFL and more talent in the NBA. As for baseball, the Pac-12 has won more championships than any other conference, the last one in 2018 by Oregon State. For all three sports, both conferences produce good teams in all three sports. So I am not saying that the Pac-12 is better in these three sports, they just don't take a back seat to the Big 12 in any of them.

(04-02-2020 03:08 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  See here’s the thing

I didn’t bring up this issue of doing less with more

You horn boys did

And no one has done less with more over the past decade than UT has so I’m not sure why you boys thought that would be a great attack.

Something about glass houses

How many conference titles or title games? Texas has only been in one, but that's one more. How many does A&M have in the last 20 years? Zero of both.

Conference record last 10 years of 12 team Big 12
Oklahoma 65 15
Texas 63 17
Nebraska 47 33
Texas Tech 47 33
Missouri 42 38
Oklahoma St. 41 39
Colorado 38 42
Texas A&M 37 43
Kansas St. 35 45
Kansas 25 55
Iowa St. 25 55
Baylor 15 65

A&M's conference record over the last 20 years, 80-81, despite having top 10 resources and being a top 25 program of all time.

As an Aggie fan you should really keep your mouth shut. You just look ridiculous.

Now as a Horned Frog fan, you could have a point. That's a school that has done a lot with only medium resources.

(04-02-2020 07:23 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-29-2020 12:28 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Wait.. how is the Big 12 on unstable ground? They are making more money and the ADs aren't the ones making comments about exploring all options. Did you know that with the original Big 12 there was un-equal sharing? That aggy and Nebraska demanded? Did you know that Deloss asked the conference about making a conference channel and Osborne saying no. Then he asked aggy if they wanted to make a Texas network which would air both tier 3 content and they said no because they would do their own? Ever since they left and the old ou AD retired, there hasn't been grumblings about further movement.

Meanwhile SC might as well be 2014-2017 Texas, only difference is there has been an ou, wv, tcu, bu that have stepped up football wise. In the all powerful hierarchy of Pac schools, who has stepped up? Oregon? Utah? Let's not get into basketball or baseball.

I get why Pac looks down at the Big 12.. they see themselves on the same level of the Big or sec.. But the fact of the matter is they are in trouble. SC can't carry that conference alone at this moment.

So whether the Pac stays and hopes that it's Commish can get a HUUUGE deal for the Pac network through someone else, or decides to be the Pac division of the Rust Belt conference.. they are the ones on unsteady ground.. not the Big 12.

This is just wrong. The Pac-12 does not look down on the Big 12 and they are not the ones on unsteady ground. The Pac-12 distributed $33 million in revenue per school last season, so they are not going broke. They are falling behind the other power conferences, especially the SEC and Big Ten. The Pac-12 Network is an albatross around the conference's neck. The distribution and operation of the network has been a disaster. It is Exposure + Revenue + Expenses = Disaster

The Pac-12 Network is in 17 million homes. The SEC Network is in about 70 million homes and the Big Ten Network in about 60 million homes. The Pac-12 Network could triple their exposure and still be well behind the SEC and Big Ten. A tripling of exposure would give them a significant increase in revenue. On the expense side, operating one national network and six regional networks is too expensive, especially headquartered in the City of San Francisco.

The Pac-12 just needs to fix their network issues. That will happen at some point before the new TV contract with ESPN/FOX is re-negotiated in 2024. They had an offer from ESPN to distribute the network in exchange for a longer term commitment, with the Pac-12 maintaining sole ownership of the network. They turned it down, but they may find that to be the way to get wider distribution of their network. They may have to reconsider.

As for your implication that Big 12 football is better than Pac-12 football, there is no real prove of that. I do know that the Pac-12 consistently puts more talent in the NFL and more talent in the NBA. As for baseball, the Pac-12 has won more championships than any other conference, the last one in 2018 by Oregon State. For all three sports, both conferences produce good teams in all three sports. So I am not saying that the Pac-12 is better in these three sports, they just don't take a back seat to the Big 12 in any of them.

There's lots of proof for football, out of conference records, poll rankings, computer rankings.
Now you can argue there's not much of a difference or argue with other criteria, but to say there is no real "proof" is simply not true.

As for basketball, the Big 12 has been FAR superior since the last realignment. To argue otherwise just indicates you haven't followed college basketball very well. There's a good argument the Big 12 has been the absolute best conference since the realignment.

Can’t help notice how you keep changing the timeline to fit your terrible narrative. Stop dodging and answer the question:

What has UT done in the past 10 years?

How many 1st place and or record setting collegiate revenue years has UT had in the past 10 years?

You look absolutely ridiculous denying a basic truth the entire college world knows:

Nobody has done less with more over the past decade than UT

(04-02-2020 08:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  As for basketball, the Big 12 has been FAR superior since the last realignment. To argue otherwise just indicates you haven't followed college basketball very well. There's a good argument the Big 12 has been the absolute best conference since the realignment.

Umm no. Until Texas Tech recently the Big 12 was Kansas and the Nine Dwarves. They've won one national championship since 2000 and only did because Memphis couldn't it a free throw. If a team can win your conference's regular season title 14 straight times the rest of your teams suck. Duke doesn't have 14 straight ACC titles. Neither does North Carolina. And it's not just each other stopping them. Not even Kentucky has 14 straight SEC titles and the SEC isn't much better than the Big 12.

https://www.bloggingthebracket.com/2019/...tournament

If “the rest of the BXII sucks”, then 340 of 355 schools suck.

I just love a good hate.

When that series resumes it going to kick off a great weekend of football.
Texas v. A&M
Florida State v. Florida
Georgia Tech v. Georgia
Clemson v. South Carolina
Louisville v. Kentucky

(04-02-2020 09:47 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  If “the rest of the BXII sucks”, then 340 of 355 schools suck.

Obviously you didn't read the link and if you were hinting the Big 12 is the best conference in men's basketball, 355 - 10 isn't 340 and neither is 355 - 9.

Last decade:

ACC: 130 wins, 36 Sweet 16's, 9 Final 4's, 5 Championships

Big Ten: 101 wins, 29 Sweet 16's, 8 Final 4's

SEC: 79 wins, 21 Sweet 16's, 7 Final 4's, 1 Championship

Big 12: 78 wins, 22 Sweet 16's, 5 Final 4's

Big East: 58 wins, 12 Sweet 16's, 4 Final 4's, 2 Championships

Pac-12: 46 wins, 15 Sweet 16's, 1 Final 4

AAC: 37 wins, 6 Sweet 16's, 3 Final 4's, 2 Championships

Of the 78 Big 12 wins, 24 are Kansas including 2 FF's. Take them out and they're below the Big East. Take Duke (26) out of the ACC and they're still #1. Take Duke (26) and North Carolina (24) out of the ACC and they're still ahead of both the Big 12 with Kansas and the SEC with Kentucky. Take Michigan State (21) out of the Big Ten and the Big 10's still ahead of both the SEC and Big 12 at full strength.

The ACC is #1, the Big Ten's #2, the SEC and Big 12 are fighting for #3. The data since 2000 is pretty similar. There's a reason the ACC and Big Ten are matched up in their challenge. The ACC won half of the championships in the last decade (four if Louisville's counts as a Big East title). Just because no one in the Big Ten is Kansas or Kentucky doesn't mean the SEC or Big 12 is better than the Big Ten.