Don't be surprised to see AD Steve Patterson and USC athletic director Pat Haden move the two teams' 2017 (at USC) and 2018 (at Texas) meetings to Mexico City.

In fact, Patterson thinks moving those USC games to Mexico City makes a whole lot more sense for Texas from an international branding and exposure perspective than doing something like, say, renew the Texas A&M rivalry.

Privately, Patterson has been comparing Texas A&M to Texas' divorced, ex-wife. He says the two got divorced for a reason and that it wouldn't make sense to take the ex-wife back.

"What's in my best interest?" Patterson was quoted as saying. "Playing A&M in that (expletive) College Station or USC in Mexico City?"

hey, those grapes are sour anyway!

I think playing USC in Austin probably makes the most sense. Why do school's put all the $ into stadiums but than move games off-campus? Yet, I do like the idea of Michigan State and USC playing 1 game in Rome.

(02-14-2014 12:17 PM)bevotex Wrote:  Don't be surprised to see AD Steve Patterson and USC athletic director Pat Haden move the two teams' 2017 (at USC) and 2018 (at Texas) meetings to Mexico City.

In fact, Patterson thinks moving those USC games to Mexico City makes a whole lot more sense for Texas from an international branding and exposure perspective than doing something like, say, renew the Texas A&M rivalry.

Privately, Patterson has been comparing Texas A&M to Texas' divorced, ex-wife. He says the two got divorced for a reason and that it wouldn't make sense to take the ex-wife back.

"What's in my best interest?" Patterson was quoted as saying. "Playing A&M in that (expletive) College Station or USC in Mexico City?"

It seems like UT is taking a step closer to becoming part of the PAC...

(02-14-2014 12:25 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(02-14-2014 12:17 PM)bevotex Wrote:  Don't be surprised to see AD Steve Patterson and USC athletic director Pat Haden move the two teams' 2017 (at USC) and 2018 (at Texas) meetings to Mexico City.

In fact, Patterson thinks moving those USC games to Mexico City makes a whole lot more sense for Texas from an international branding and exposure perspective than doing something like, say, renew the Texas A&M rivalry.

Privately, Patterson has been comparing Texas A&M to Texas' divorced, ex-wife. He says the two got divorced for a reason and that it wouldn't make sense to take the ex-wife back.

"What's in my best interest?" Patterson was quoted as saying. "Playing A&M in that (expletive) College Station or USC in Mexico City?"

It seems like UT is taking a step closer to becoming part of the PAC...

it is one game

UT has played UCLA recently as well

OU had a series with Oregon a little while pack

OkState with ASU

and Texas could have been in the PAC 12 two years ago if they had wanted and Bob Bowlsby did not leave Stanford to watch UT leave the Big 12 or for the Big 12 to fall apart a year or two later or to decline with the loss of UT and the addition of less than UT

and with the article posted in this forum about "cable cuttters" and people ditching cable TV and how ESPN needs to consider that I don't think UT is going to leave 15 million GUARANTEED dollars per year from the LHN to join the PAC 12 that pays out only slightly more per year for ALL conference payouts including NCAA and media distributions and when the PAC 12 network is not taking off as planned specifically because cable MSOs are not looking to add expensive channels with singular appeal

and UT, Steve Patterson and Bob Bowlsby all specifically know what the value of UT in the PAC 12 would be because they were all in the room when it was discussed and UT figured out really quick that the Big 12 and LHN combined would never come close to being matched in dollars as a member of the PAC 12 and Bob Bowlsby and Steve Patterson know this as well because they would have seen the numbers offered for the PAC 12 with UT as a member and the numbers for UT in the Big 12 with the LHN are well known

Bob Bowlsby specifically is not an idiot and if he knew that UT in the PAC 12 would mean that UT would earn close to or even more money than UT in the Big 12 with the LHN he never would have left the cushy and high paid job he had at Stanford where he was one of the most respected ADs in the country to take the job at the Big 12

(02-14-2014 12:17 PM)bevotex Wrote:  "What's in my best interest?" Patterson was quoted as saying. "Playing A&M in that (expletive) College Station or USC in Mexico City?"

First let me say that I don't believe that any of these quotes are even real. Hiowever, just for the fun of it let's assume they are for just a second.

As someone who has been to both College Station, TX and Mexico City, I think Mr. Patterson may be slightly confused. If my man thinks College Station is a schithole, he's going to just love, love, love Mexico's capital. It's the veritable Shangri-la of North America.

As a fan of Texas since childhood, I would like to see the Texas-Texas A&M rivalry continue. That said, I understand the feeling that some have that don't see the necessity in renewing those ties. Texas fans are a bit butthurt that A&M bolted for greener pastures and A&M fans probably don't see the need to play Texas along with one of the toughest conference schedules in the country. I get it. But it was a great series over time and I'd love to see the teams play again.

As far as Texas playing USC in Mexico City, I have never been a proponent of neutral site games, whether in college or the pros. College games especially should be played in on-campus venues when possible and home stadia when appropriate. While these neutral site games may "grow the game" in terms of interest, I just don't think playing a Texas-USC game does much more than take what would be a high profile home game away from a team's fanbase. If I am a fan of Michigan or Florida, I'm not leaving my home state to go to Nashville to see the teams play. Bowl games are one thing, but a regular season contest played at a neutral site just doesn't make sense to me. Ole Miss is playing Boise State in Atlanta this upcoming season. Who thinks this is a good idea? Boise fans won't show up in any numbers and most Ole Miss fans aren't going to go to Atlanta for a game that could have been played in Oxford. Some will go, but those are the same folks that would have traveled to a road game against Georgia or Georgia Tech. Just say no to these contrived neutral site games.

(02-14-2014 01:04 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  As a fan of Texas since childhood, I would like to see the Texas-Texas A&M rivalry continue. That said, I understand the feeling that some have that don't see the necessity in renewing those ties. Texas fans are a bit butthurt that A&M bolted for greener pastures and A&M fans probably don't see the need to play Texas along with one of the toughest conference schedules in the country. I get it. But it was a great series over time and I'd love to see the teams play again.

As far as Texas playing USC in Mexico City, I have never been a proponent of neutral site games, whether in college or the pros. College games especially should be played in on-campus venues when possible and home stadia when appropriate. While these neutral site games may "grow the game" in terms of interest, I just don't think playing a Texas-USC game does much more than take what would be a high profile home game away from a team's fanbase. If I am a fan of Michigan or Florida, I'm not leaving my home state to go to Nashville to see the teams play. Bowl games are one thing, but a regular season contest played at a neutral site just doesn't make sense to me. Ole Miss is playing Boise State in Atlanta this upcoming season. Who thinks this is a good idea? Boise fans won't show up in any numbers and most Ole Miss fans aren't going to go to Atlanta for a game that could have been played in Oxford. Some will go, but those are the same folks that would have traveled to a road game against Georgia or Georgia Tech. Just say no to these contrived neutral site games.

Boise fans travel surprisingly well they were out in force in DC VS VT a year or two age

I can understand your point on neutral site games for sure and for me it just depends on where it is played and also on the remaining home schedule of the team I care about

with Ole' Miss getting to Atlanta is probably pretty appealing to a lot of their fans and they probably have plenty in Atlanta......some have to remember that not all that long ago (in long history) getting to dallas for OU and Arkansas fans was a real treat because of the shopping and "big city"

now that OKC is a major city, NW Arkansas has grown massively and department stores and the WWW are available for shopping the novelty of those trips is down some, but there are still a lot of fans in smaller states that love to get out to a major city for all it offers VS there smaller metro area where they live

it UT still has a really nice home slate of 6 games I am not as worried about a neutral site game (although with UT they already have one with OU, but that is tradition) so getting a NICE 6 game home schedule is already hard and with a second neutral site game even harder

now with a 10 team conference with 9 conference games (5 home one year 4 the other) that helps some for even UT.....but yea I think I will pass on Mexico City even if the time and money was unlimited for me.....just not appealing any longer

as for the UT and A&M game really Ut should just shut up about it for the time being

I actually don't feel all butt hurt that A&M left even though they handled it with less than class across the board and flat lied about UT and the LHN and tried to blame it on UT greed even though they were making that "100 year decision" and they were also CLEARLY the ones that were butt hurt that UT said "well see ya" and that UT did not beg them to keep playing them

so every time UT officials comment on it after that especially now that A&M is SEC SEC SECing 9and finishing 3rd in their division and making Cotton Bowls and Peach Bowls which is a BAD SEASON for TOP SEC SEC SEC teams well UT should just go on about their business that much more

hopefully they can meet soon enough in a playoff game or even in the Sugar Bowl and then A&M can feel some more pain and UT can offer them a boo boo and a bandaid with a picture of Ole' Sarge on it and then offer to play them again and more than likely with the current A&M membership they would probably be dumb enough to say no

It isn't in Texas' best interest to renew the rivalry at this point.

They run the risk of losing and thus losing further ground in the state.

They should, and appear to be, waiting a bit until they get out of their slump and then renew it.

(02-14-2014 01:04 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  As far as Texas playing USC in Mexico City, I have never been a proponent of neutral site games, whether in college or the pros. College games especially should be played in on-campus venues when possible and home stadia when appropriate. While these neutral site games may "grow the game" in terms of interest, I just don't think playing a Texas-USC game does much more than take what would be a high profile home game away from a team's fanbase.

Especially in this case where you have a 2-game series already scheduled as a home/home.

Season-ticket holders at places like USC and UT already have to pay for one cruddy non-con home game a year, so they ought to get big-name games at home when they get the chance. Especially for UT, whose biggest annual game (OU) is never played in their home stadium anyway.

Honestly I don't think its in Texas A&M's best interest to renew the series just yet. Aggie culture was entirely based on being jealous of UT's accomplishments. Kinda like Jan to Marcia Brady. The aggies just need to move on and realize their potential as a top tier program.

(02-14-2014 03:45 PM)TStatebobcat Wrote:  Honestly I don't think its in Texas A&M's best interest to renew the series just yet. Aggie culture was entirely based on being jealous of UT's accomplishments. Kinda like Jan to Marcia Brady. The aggies just need to move on and realize their potential as a top tier program.

If they continue to turn in outstanding recruiting classes like this year's, they should be fine. Of course, realizing their potential is more difficult when the other schools in your division/conference are also posting top 10-15 recruiting classes.

Notice its not our coach or AD that keeps bringing up UT in press conferences...

Wish 'em well but we have no need to ever play UT ever again.

We're good.

I agree with all the folks who feel keeping the games at home are better than most neutral site contests. That being said, I don't have a problem with some of the made for TV season kickoff games, when they make some geographic sense.

What I just can't understand is why Mexico City? What is to be gained by introducing American college football to our neighbors to the south? Do we expect them to sign up for the Longhorn Network? Are we looking for another recruiting ground as yet unplumbed? I just don't get it.

(02-14-2014 04:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  I agree with all the folks who feel keeping the games at home are better than most neutral site contests. That being said, I don't have a problem with some of the made for TV season kickoff games, when they make some geographic sense.

What I just can't understand is why Mexico City? What is to be gained by introducing American college football to our neighbors to the south? Do we expect them to sign up for the Longhorn Network? Are we looking for another recruiting ground as yet unplumbed? I just don't get it.

Probably like the Ireland games and others the schools are getting paid out by a group that wants to create a local spectacle.

(02-14-2014 04:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  I agree with all the folks who feel keeping the games at home are better than most neutral site contests. That being said, I don't have a problem with some of the made for TV season kickoff games, when they make some geographic sense.

What I just can't understand is why Mexico City? What is to be gained by introducing American college football to our neighbors to the south? Do we expect them to sign up for the Longhorn Network? Are we looking for another recruiting ground as yet unplumbed? I just don't get it.

if you lived in Texas it would be easier to understand

Mexicans love to wear UT gear and not just ones born in Texas or from families that have been here for generations, but ones that are probably not even citizens or legal

they are really big on the Cowboys too

the Cowboys deal is easier to figure out, but having worked with a lot of people from Mexico the UT gear thing just comes from them liking the colors, liking the longhorn symbol and kind of showing they live in Texas

it gets talked about a lot here

(02-14-2014 03:45 PM)TStatebobcat Wrote:  Honestly I don't think its in Texas A&M's best interest to renew the series just yet. Aggie culture was entirely based on being jealous of UT's accomplishments. Kinda like Jan to Marcia Brady. The aggies just need to move on and realize their potential as a top tier program.

A lot of UT fans aren't interested in playing the Aggies until they grow up. As long as they are like Jan, no interest.

(02-14-2014 05:17 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-14-2014 04:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  I agree with all the folks who feel keeping the games at home are better than most neutral site contests. That being said, I don't have a problem with some of the made for TV season kickoff games, when they make some geographic sense.

What I just can't understand is why Mexico City? What is to be gained by introducing American college football to our neighbors to the south? Do we expect them to sign up for the Longhorn Network? Are we looking for another recruiting ground as yet unplumbed? I just don't get it.

Probably like the Ireland games and others the schools are getting paid out by a group that wants to create a local spectacle.

How big does the payout have to be to make it worthwhile for UT and USC to give up those prime home games with each other? Think what UT can charge for 100,000 tickets to a game in Austin vs. USC, add in increased donations because mandatory donations will be required to secure prime seats, plus all the ancillary game-day revenue.... That $6 million that Michigan is getting paid to play at Jerryworld wouldn't be nearly enough money to get USC and UT to play in Mexico instead of LA and Austin. Try doubling that amount.

(02-14-2014 06:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-14-2014 05:17 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-14-2014 04:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  I agree with all the folks who feel keeping the games at home are better than most neutral site contests. That being said, I don't have a problem with some of the made for TV season kickoff games, when they make some geographic sense.

What I just can't understand is why Mexico City? What is to be gained by introducing American college football to our neighbors to the south? Do we expect them to sign up for the Longhorn Network? Are we looking for another recruiting ground as yet unplumbed? I just don't get it.

Probably like the Ireland games and others the schools are getting paid out by a group that wants to create a local spectacle.

How big does the payout have to be to make it worthwhile for UT and USC to give up those prime home games with each other? Think what UT can charge for 100,000 tickets to a game in Austin vs. USC, add in increased donations because mandatory donations will be required to secure prime seats, plus all the ancillary game-day revenue.... That $6 million that Michigan is getting paid to play at Jerryworld wouldn't be nearly enough money to get USC and UT to play in Mexico instead of LA and Austin. Try doubling that amount.

I suspect this is just shoot from the hip stuff. I can't imagine UT giving up a home game vs. USC, especially when we have OU in Dallas every year.

(02-14-2014 12:24 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think playing USC in Austin probably makes the most sense. Why do school's put all the $ into stadiums but than move games off-campus? Yet, I do like the idea of Michigan State and USC playing 1 game in Rome.

Now that would really be cool if they played in the original Coliseum.