If I’m not mistaken, a West Virginia governor made Marshall and West Virginia play each other. That was about a decade ago.

(09-10-2019 02:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 01:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 01:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 10:12 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Possibly but I think it’s more difficult when you’re trying to compel a private entity by threatening public funding. Plus given the less than competitive rate they already fund the Flagships at now, I seriously doubt they’d threaten that too.

But hey who knows, politicians do dumber stuff than that all the time

I grew up with the SWC. I remember growing up with the Texas vs A&M game being a huge part of the college football season. I hate that we seem to be moving farther and farther from college football I remember as a kid. I'd have no problem with the Texas legislature requiring its two biggest public universities to play one another. I honestly think both fan bases would end up really enjoying the annual game (I know for a fact they sure as heck used to love it). That said---I like the idea because the game holds a great deal of nostalgic attraction for me---but thats just one persons feeling toward the game.

Your absolutely correct--there are more important issues----this is not life and death. Lol---of course we are talking about a state that took up up half their legislative session with the pressing issue of who could urinate in what bathroom last time around....so you never know.

I think we are getting very close to the point where a significant number of colleges could hoist the jolly roger and declare independence from the state and do just fine without state revenue. They'd have to change how they allocate some of their endowment revenue but it is very feasible.

The greatest surprise to me in realignment was the Big XII not preserving OU-Nebraska. I would expect Nebraska would have still defected but it would have been a much tougher conversation, plus have to wonder what the value of the Big XII contract would have been have OU-Nebraska been every year instead of rotating on and off.

Idk. That seems pretty far fetched to me. These schools are essentially arms of state government. The presidents and even coaches are state employees. I dont see how they could declare independence anymore than the Department of Public Safety can declare independence from the State of Texas.

The bigger question is, why would they give up what they get and take zero money from the state, even if the state comes nowhere near paying for everything. They wouldn't. Every time I get a UC Berkeley fundraising letter, they mention that the percentage of the budget that comes from the state gets lower all the time -- ok, sure, but that 14 percent of the annual budget is still about $400 million. Public universities are never going to say, no thanks, we don't want that money anymore.

(09-10-2019 01:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 10:12 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Possibly but I think it’s more difficult when you’re trying to compel a private entity by threatening public funding. Plus given the less than competitive rate they already fund the Flagships at now, I seriously doubt they’d threaten that too.

But hey who knows, politicians do dumber stuff than that all the time

I grew up with the SWC. I remember the Texas vs A&M game being a huge part of the college football season back then. I hate that we seem to be moving farther and farther from the college football traditions I remember as a kid. I'd have no problem with the Texas legislature requiring its two biggest public universities to play one another.

Like you, I miss the falling away of some traditions in college football, and sadly a big hot-spot for that has been the Big 8/SWC/Big 12 mess of the past 25 years. It's a shame that Texas and TAMU don't play annually anymore, that was a great and natural rivalry. Heck, each school's fight song mentions the other.

Nevertheless, I'd be 100% against a law mandating that they play. That should be up to the schools. You can't force that, it wouldn't feel the same.

(09-10-2019 02:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 01:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 10:12 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Possibly but I think it’s more difficult when you’re trying to compel a private entity by threatening public funding. Plus given the less than competitive rate they already fund the Flagships at now, I seriously doubt they’d threaten that too.

But hey who knows, politicians do dumber stuff than that all the time

I grew up with the SWC. I remember the Texas vs A&M game being a huge part of the college football season back then. I hate that we seem to be moving farther and farther from the college football traditions I remember as a kid. I'd have no problem with the Texas legislature requiring its two biggest public universities to play one another.

Like you, I miss the falling away of some traditions in college football, and sadly a big hot-spot for that has been the Big 8/SWC/Big 12 mess of the past 25 years. It's a shame that Texas and TAMU don't play annually anymore, that was a great and natural rivalry. Heck, each school's fight song mentions the other.

Nevertheless, I'd be 100% against a law mandating that they play. That should be up to the schools. You can't force that, it wouldn't feel the same.

The schools actually exist as part of the state. The concept behind the schools is that they function to benefit ALL Texans directly or indirectly--not just grads or current administrators. If this is something the vast majority of Texans want---then I have no issue with ordering an arm of Texas government to comply with the wishes of the people of Texas. We arent talking about anything that threatens the quality of the education or the ability of schools to properly function. That said---while I personally want the game to return---if 10th Mountain is correct that the athletic programs are private entities---I'd have an issue with the principal of ordering these private entities to play a game they dont want to play. However, even if they are private---I know at the very least----there is a lot of overlap between the "private" part of athletics and the state. For instance---I know for a fact that football coaches are state employees. So---this may be something that doesnt really fit neatly into the typical private or public categories.

In the end---I doubt anything comes of this---and if it does---I suspect the students and alums of both schools would end up enjoying the rivalry as much as earlier students/alums did back in the day.

(09-10-2019 02:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 01:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 01:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 10:12 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Possibly but I think it’s more difficult when you’re trying to compel a private entity by threatening public funding. Plus given the less than competitive rate they already fund the Flagships at now, I seriously doubt they’d threaten that too.

But hey who knows, politicians do dumber stuff than that all the time

I grew up with the SWC. I remember growing up with the Texas vs A&M game being a huge part of the college football season. I hate that we seem to be moving farther and farther from college football I remember as a kid. I'd have no problem with the Texas legislature requiring its two biggest public universities to play one another. I honestly think both fan bases would end up really enjoying the annual game (I know for a fact they sure as heck used to love it). That said---I like the idea because the game holds a great deal of nostalgic attraction for me---but thats just one persons feeling toward the game.

Your absolutely correct--there are more important issues----this is not life and death. Lol---of course we are talking about a state that took up up half their legislative session with the pressing issue of who could urinate in what bathroom last time around....so you never know.

I think we are getting very close to the point where a significant number of colleges could hoist the jolly roger and declare independence from the state and do just fine without state revenue. They'd have to change how they allocate some of their endowment revenue but it is very feasible.

The greatest surprise to me in realignment was the Big XII not preserving OU-Nebraska. I would expect Nebraska would have still defected but it would have been a much tougher conversation, plus have to wonder what the value of the Big XII contract would have been have OU-Nebraska been every year instead of rotating on and off.

Idk. That seems pretty far fetched to me. These schools are essentially arms of state government. The presidents and even coaches are state employees. I don't see how they could declare independence anymore than the Department of Public Safety can declare independence from the State of Texas. That said---the way I see it---they could be "granted" independence if the legislature believe its in the best interests of the people of Texas---but I dont see how these schools could unilaterally elect to just "declare" their independence without legislative action.

There is no legal mechanism in Arkansas and probably not anyplace else to unilaterally become independent but then again Louisiana seriously contemplated the idea of freeing a number of schools from state control and making them private colleges.

Closest we had in Arkansas was when the schools in Little Rock were shut down to avoid integration, the school district which ran Little Rock Junior College freed it to become a private college and it became Little Rock University and didn't join the UA System until about 15 years later.

That said a few years back there was a legislator in Arkansas who wanted to remove all state funding for UA-Fayetteville because UArk provided benefits to same sex partners. This was about a decade before Obergefell was decided by the US Supreme Court.

It's not outside the realm of possibility in today's political climate that a legislature and governor could get sideways with a university over a hot button issue and the university could call the bet and become essentially independent.

LSU's AD has basically done that with their athletic department declaring he would no longer commit to any specific annual fund transfer to the university presumably he got the blessing of the president prior to doing so.

(09-10-2019 03:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 02:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 01:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 01:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 10:12 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Possibly but I think it’s more difficult when you’re trying to compel a private entity by threatening public funding. Plus given the less than competitive rate they already fund the Flagships at now, I seriously doubt they’d threaten that too.

But hey who knows, politicians do dumber stuff than that all the time

I grew up with the SWC. I remember growing up with the Texas vs A&M game being a huge part of the college football season. I hate that we seem to be moving farther and farther from college football I remember as a kid. I'd have no problem with the Texas legislature requiring its two biggest public universities to play one another. I honestly think both fan bases would end up really enjoying the annual game (I know for a fact they sure as heck used to love it). That said---I like the idea because the game holds a great deal of nostalgic attraction for me---but thats just one persons feeling toward the game.

Your absolutely correct--there are more important issues----this is not life and death. Lol---of course we are talking about a state that took up up half their legislative session with the pressing issue of who could urinate in what bathroom last time around....so you never know.

I think we are getting very close to the point where a significant number of colleges could hoist the jolly roger and declare independence from the state and do just fine without state revenue. They'd have to change how they allocate some of their endowment revenue but it is very feasible.

The greatest surprise to me in realignment was the Big XII not preserving OU-Nebraska. I would expect Nebraska would have still defected but it would have been a much tougher conversation, plus have to wonder what the value of the Big XII contract would have been have OU-Nebraska been every year instead of rotating on and off.

Idk. That seems pretty far fetched to me. These schools are essentially arms of state government. The presidents and even coaches are state employees. I don't see how they could declare independence anymore than the Department of Public Safety can declare independence from the State of Texas. That said---the way I see it---they could be "granted" independence if the legislature believe its in the best interests of the people of Texas---but I dont see how these schools could unilaterally elect to just "declare" their independence without legislative action.

There is no legal mechanism in Arkansas and probably not anyplace else to unilaterally become independent but then again Louisiana seriously contemplated the idea of freeing a number of schools from state control and making them private colleges.

Closest we had in Arkansas was when the schools in Little Rock were shut down to avoid integration, the school district which ran Little Rock Junior College freed it to become a private college and it became Little Rock University and didn't join the UA System until about 15 years later.

That said a few years back there was a legislator in Arkansas who wanted to remove all state funding for UA-Fayetteville because UArk provided benefits to same sex partners. This was about a decade before Obergefell was decided by the US Supreme Court.

It's not outside the realm of possibility in today's political climate that a legislature and governor could get sideways with a university over a hot button issue and the university could call the bet and become essentially independent.

LSU's AD has basically done that with their athletic department declaring he would no longer commit to any specific annual fund transfer to the university presumably he got the blessing of the president prior to doing so.

LSU’s AD did that in response to a liberal arts professor writing an Op-Ed stating that athletics should not have been allowed to build a $28M locker room before academics get new buildings and funding. The problem was the $28M was entirely funded privately.

So the AD stated he would no longer allow athletic revenue to be transferred to the university without the AD’s oversight. Basically meaning, the academic side of the institution must request the transfer and state where it will be spent. Giving the AD oversight and the ability to say no to academics forces some critical academia to “bend the knee”.

(09-10-2019 02:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 02:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 01:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 10:12 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Possibly but I think it’s more difficult when you’re trying to compel a private entity by threatening public funding. Plus given the less than competitive rate they already fund the Flagships at now, I seriously doubt they’d threaten that too.

But hey who knows, politicians do dumber stuff than that all the time

I grew up with the SWC. I remember the Texas vs A&M game being a huge part of the college football season back then. I hate that we seem to be moving farther and farther from the college football traditions I remember as a kid. I'd have no problem with the Texas legislature requiring its two biggest public universities to play one another.

Like you, I miss the falling away of some traditions in college football, and sadly a big hot-spot for that has been the Big 8/SWC/Big 12 mess of the past 25 years. It's a shame that Texas and TAMU don't play annually anymore, that was a great and natural rivalry. Heck, each school's fight song mentions the other.

Nevertheless, I'd be 100% against a law mandating that they play. That should be up to the schools. You can't force that, it wouldn't feel the same.

The schools actually exist as part of the state. The concept behind the schools is that they function to benefit ALL Texans directly or indirectly--not just grads or current administrators. If this is something the vast majority of Texans want---then I have no issue with ordering an arm of Texas government to comply with the wishes of the people of Texas. We arent talking about anything that threatens the quality of the education or the ability of schools to properly function. That said---while I personally want the game to return---if 10th Mountain is correct that the athletic programs are private entities---I'd have an issue with the principal of ordering these private entities to play a game they dont want to play. However, even if they are private---I know at the very least----there is a lot of overlap between the "private" part of athletics and the state. For instance---I know for a fact that football coaches are state employees. So---this may be something that doesnt really fit neatly into the typical private or public categories.

In the end---I doubt anything comes of this---and if it does---I suspect the students and alums of both schools would end up enjoying the rivalry as much as earlier students/alums did back in the day.

It’s an interesting legal issue

As far as I know, Jimbo Fisher and Tom Herman are, at least in name, state employees. But their salaries are from revenue made by and private donations made to privately run athletic departments.

How much authority if any does the state of Texas actually have over the AD of these two schools if they are actually privately run foundations?

That’s a good one for the lawyers

(09-10-2019 04:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 02:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 02:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 01:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 10:12 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Possibly but I think it’s more difficult when you’re trying to compel a private entity by threatening public funding. Plus given the less than competitive rate they already fund the Flagships at now, I seriously doubt they’d threaten that too.

But hey who knows, politicians do dumber stuff than that all the time

I grew up with the SWC. I remember the Texas vs A&M game being a huge part of the college football season back then. I hate that we seem to be moving farther and farther from the college football traditions I remember as a kid. I'd have no problem with the Texas legislature requiring its two biggest public universities to play one another.

Like you, I miss the falling away of some traditions in college football, and sadly a big hot-spot for that has been the Big 8/SWC/Big 12 mess of the past 25 years. It's a shame that Texas and TAMU don't play annually anymore, that was a great and natural rivalry. Heck, each school's fight song mentions the other.

Nevertheless, I'd be 100% against a law mandating that they play. That should be up to the schools. You can't force that, it wouldn't feel the same.

The schools actually exist as part of the state. The concept behind the schools is that they function to benefit ALL Texans directly or indirectly--not just grads or current administrators. If this is something the vast majority of Texans want---then I have no issue with ordering an arm of Texas government to comply with the wishes of the people of Texas. We arent talking about anything that threatens the quality of the education or the ability of schools to properly function. That said---while I personally want the game to return---if 10th Mountain is correct that the athletic programs are private entities---I'd have an issue with the principal of ordering these private entities to play a game they dont want to play. However, even if they are private---I know at the very least----there is a lot of overlap between the "private" part of athletics and the state. For instance---I know for a fact that football coaches are state employees. So---this may be something that doesnt really fit neatly into the typical private or public categories.

In the end---I doubt anything comes of this---and if it does---I suspect the students and alums of both schools would end up enjoying the rivalry as much as earlier students/alums did back in the day.

It’s an interesting legal issue

As far as I know, Jimbo Fisher and Tom Herman are, at least in name, state employees. But their salaries are from revenue made by and private donations made to privately run athletic departments.

How much authority if any does the state of Texas actually have over the AD of these two schools if they are actually privately run foundations?

That’s a good one for the lawyers

Yup. I remember when Sumlin was hired away to A&M. I was amazed at how much he was getting that didnt show up on the books--but was from private money---from the booster organizations I assume. So, there is no doubt in my head that plenty of private money is involved.

Hopefully the 3 largest supported Universities in Texas play each other when we are all reunited in the SEC.

Texas, Texas Tech and A&M bring eyeballs to TV sets across the nation. Add Oklahoma and the SEC is set across the state of Texas and Oklahoma.

No dwarfs in that group.

Nobody is trying to mandate anyone to play Tech

(09-10-2019 09:35 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Just can’t help the derails and trolling attempts can you?

He's not saying anything I haven't said. It's logical, profitable, and should the Big 12 suffer more defections even likely as a proposal, especially if we move to approval of divisionless formats for conference play.

On a side note the PAC is squaring off against the NCAA rules on payment to players.

There's a lot of stuff to play out over the next couple of years before the realignment issue is resolved.

But, as to adding value having 5 schools that command the majority of viewers' interest from a population base of 32 million plus is a T2 bonanza on top of OU and UT multiplying content values with 7 existing brands in the SEC. So like it or not the fact that it profits gives it legs.

And I wholeheartedly disagree and don’t believe there will ever be any other Texas schools in the SEC, much less this idea that we will absorb most of the old Big 12 south

Time will tell who is right

In the meantime, to stay on topic, I will reiterate that nobody in the TX legislature is trying mandate anyone to play Texas Tech

(09-10-2019 04:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  As far as I know, Jimbo Fisher and Tom Herman are, at least in name, state employees. But their salaries are from revenue made by and private donations made to privately run athletic departments.

How much authority if any does the state of Texas actually have over the AD of these two schools if they are actually privately run foundations?

The politicians don't need direct authority over athletic directors. If they cared about football games that much, they could simply reduce the state funding to those universities. Or, offer them more taxpayer money as an incentive. They did that when they cared enough about the result -- when they got Texas A&M to join the Big 12 deal by freeing up money for A&M to build a new basketball arena.

The only reasons that doesn't happen here is because the politicians don't care enough whether the game is played, and/or they don't want to tick off the people who would be annoyed by their meddling.

(09-10-2019 03:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  LSU's AD has basically done that with their athletic department declaring he would no longer commit to any specific annual fund transfer to the university presumably he got the blessing of the president prior to doing so.

LSU's Athletic Director hasn't yet changed the policy unilaterally, as he doesn't have the power to do so. From an August 26 article in the Baton Rouge Advocate:

“Athletics will always support the University, but we want to find a way to do it that is sustainable for all of LSU,” Senior Associate Athletic Director Robert Munson said. “We are working with the University to do just that, and any change would require approval of the president and the Board of Supervisors.”

No AD can unilaterally dictate to a university President what they will and will not do, LOL, the former works for the latter, not vice-versa.

BTW, the impetus for this on the AD side is that despite the boom in SECN money, expenses are rising while that SECN money is presumed to have leveled off. The current policy is that (a) athletics transfers $7.2m annually to academics, then (b) if there is a "surplus" profit, athletics gets the first $3m, then the rest is split 50-50 with academics.

Problem is, that "surplus" has been shrinking - it was $17m in 2017 but fell to $8m last year, as expenses have continued to rise. As the big competitors like Alabama, Georgia, and Florida do not have this transfer policy, LSU athletics is at a disadvantage in the escalating arms race, so bottom line is that the president and BOS will almost certainly end the policy, or at least significantly cut the amount that athletics has to send over.

(09-10-2019 09:20 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  Hopefully the 3 largest supported Universities in Texas play each other when we are all reunited in the SEC.

Texas, Texas Tech and A&M bring eyeballs to TV sets across the nation. Add Oklahoma and the SEC is set across the state of Texas and Oklahoma.

No dwarfs in that group.

(09-10-2019 09:59 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  And I wholeheartedly disagree and don’t believe there will ever be any other Texas schools in the SEC, much less this idea that we will absorb most of the old Big 12 south

Time will tell who is right

In the meantime, to stay on topic, I will reiterate that nobody in the TX legislature is trying mandate anyone to play Texas Tech

Quit with the flirting, you two, and just kiss already.

It makes good fiscal sense to play other schools in your state. Kentucky is a poor state. State institutions are struggling, especially those in the G5 and FCS.

UofL paid Eastern Kentucky $600,000 to visit this season and Western Kentucky 1 million to visit last season. We will pay $600,000 to Murray State to visit next season.

This season we will play Eastern Kentucky, Western Kentucky and Kentucky. Better to keep money in the state than give it to a program out of state.

There shouldn’t have to be legislation to do what’s smart.

(09-11-2019 04:49 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 09:20 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  Hopefully the 3 largest supported Universities in Texas play each other when we are all reunited in the SEC.

Texas, Texas Tech and A&M bring eyeballs to TV sets across the nation. Add Oklahoma and the SEC is set across the state of Texas and Oklahoma.

No dwarfs in that group.

(09-10-2019 09:59 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  And I wholeheartedly disagree and don’t believe there will ever be any other Texas schools in the SEC, much less this idea that we will absorb most of the old Big 12 south

Time will tell who is right

In the meantime, to stay on topic, I will reiterate that nobody in the TX legislature is trying mandate anyone to play Texas Tech

Quit with the flirting, you two, and just kiss already.

Unless I missed it no one is mandating that UT and Tech play A&M. A few politicians in Texas want UT and A&M to play but it didn't go very far.

When UT and Tech join the SEC, A&M will be back on both of our schedules and therefore no need for a mandate.

I seriously doubt politicians will make the Big 3(UT, Tech and A&M) play TCU, SMU, UH or Baylor IF the Big 12 dissolves.

That said, Texas Tech will likely do H&H's with TCU like we have done with UH, Rice and SMU after the SWC dissolved. In fact, Texas Tech is the only P5 Texas school that has played TCU(MWC), SMU, Rice and UH in H/H's.

Mandating P5 vs P5 is too much unnecessary interference. If it's to keep money in the state, the P5 already plays 7 home games. Texas A&M and Texas would be playing home games in their stadiums anyways.

Utah was compelled to play BYU by the state legialature.
From the Mormon church's newspaper:
https://www.deseret.com/2016/2/28/205835...-athletics

The audits would have continued, expanded. and it was made clear to Utah administrators that the audits would have ultimately resulted in losing state funding (for academic activities in addition to athletics) had Utah not agreed to resume playing BYU in all sports.

There is no law on the books, but there is the clear threat of defunding the university. Which happened previously when the University broke from the Mormon church and was completely defunded by the state legislature. (Utah was the church and state school before the federal government enforced separation of church and state).

(09-11-2019 05:38 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Mandating P5 vs P5 is too much unnecessary interference. If it's to keep money in the state, the P5 already plays 7 home games. Texas A&M and Texas would be playing home games in their stadiums anyways.

I agree here.

Even though there have been many attempts to force Texas’ two Flagship schools to play each other (and nobody else) since we went our separate ways, I’ve never found the economics argument to be compelling.

Texans spending Texan money in Texas cities 90 miles apart is simply not a net gain for the Texas economy. At best it’s a small boost to the local economy.

But even then, the College Station economy is receiving far dollars (and all out of state dollars) now that LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, etc are regular visiting fan bases and far more than it ever got from the Big 12