(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 more total dollars (and mostly out of state dollars) now from LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, etc that are now regular visiting fan bases and far more than it ever got from the Big 12

(09-11-2019 05:46 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  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).

That's some spin. Utah bought out the series. State officials thought that was a waste of money.

"Not all Mormons are BYU fans."

"Mormon politicians are forcing us to schedule games with BYU."

Pick one.

The coach paid the buyout out of his own pocket. the audit was punitive retaliation, and withdrawl of academic funding was threatened. As a voting block, Mormons still hold disproportionate power relative to numbers. Just like elsewhere in the US, older whiter people vote more. In Utah old and white is largely synonymous with Mormon (and is the only demographic that supports BYU).

http://riseandshout.net/

(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.

No question, the universities are organs of the state, so of course the state government has the power to order them to play.

Still, IMO that is inappropriate micro-management. I think you list some very good reasons as to why UT and TAMU *should* play. I can only think of good reasons to do so as well.

Nevertheless, in the end, I think it should be up to them.

(09-12-2019 01:08 AM)ManleyPointer Wrote:  That's some spin. Utah bought out the series. State officials thought that was a waste of money.

"Not all Mormons are BYU fans."

"Mormon politicians are forcing us to schedule games with BYU."

Pick one.

Those aren't mutually exclusive by any stretch. Absolutely silly to demand picking one.

When was the last time The Razorbacks played another school from Arkansas? I read their 1st game in the early days was Arkansas beat Ouachita Baptist. 1st game in Oklahoma was Tulsa vs Bacone. Oklahoma State used to do home and home with Central Oklahoma. Pooks almost came losing to them.

(09-12-2019 07:56 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  When was the last time The Razorbacks played another school from Arkansas? I read their 1st game in the early days was Arkansas beat Ouachita Baptist. 1st game in Oklahoma was Tulsa vs Bacone. Oklahoma State used to do home and home with Central Oklahoma. Pooks almost came losing to them.

Historically, in states where you have one dominant Flagship/P5, it's rare for them to play other in-state schools because there's no advantage for them to do so. Most such matchups are between peers - e.g., UCLA vs Stanford, FSU vs Miami, Arizona vs Arizona State, etc.

In recent years, budget cuts have put political pressure on the big flagship to play G5 or FCS in-state schools, so as to keep that buy-game money within the commonwealth. But other than that, there's no incentive for the big school to do it.

I believe Iowa and Iowa State are compelled to play UNI every other year in football. I am not sure if there was actual law passed but there was mega political pressure.

Honestly, with as much money that is involved in DI sports I do think it's time some states mandated this. Texas and Texas A&M are great examples. How many Billions of state dollars are spent annually to fund those schools. If the constituents of Texas want to see them resume the rivalry then the state of Texas should mandate it. We can't save all of the good annual regional rivalries that were lost to realignment (OU vs NE, NE vs CU, KU vs Mizzou, WVU vs Pitt just to name a few that I grew up looking forward to) but if the States step up we can save or help create some others.

(09-12-2019 07:56 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  When was the last time The Razorbacks played another school from Arkansas? I read their 1st game in the early days was Arkansas beat Ouachita Baptist. 1st game in Oklahoma was Tulsa vs Bacone. Oklahoma State used to do home and home with Central Oklahoma. Pooks almost came losing to them.

Women's hoops plays UALR this season. Baseball played UALR (lost to the Trojans) and UAPB.

Current policy is UA system schools can be scheduled effective last Spring.

(09-13-2019 06:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:56 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  When was the last time The Razorbacks played another school from Arkansas? I read their 1st game in the early days was Arkansas beat Ouachita Baptist. 1st game in Oklahoma was Tulsa vs Bacone. Oklahoma State used to do home and home with Central Oklahoma. Pooks almost came losing to them.

Historically, in states where you have one dominant Flagship/P5, it's rare for them to play other in-state schools because there's no advantage for them to do so. Most such matchups are between peers - e.g., UCLA vs Stanford, FSU vs Miami, Arizona vs Arizona State, etc.

In recent years, budget cuts have put political pressure on the big flagship to play G5 or FCS in-state schools, so as to keep that buy-game money within the commonwealth. But other than that, there's no incentive for the big school to do it.

The college football economy has changed dramatically.

When ABC was constantly having to kick about to find a game that they WANTED to show that wouldn't run afoul of the school cap on telecasts a smaller in-state upsetting the larger might be enough to pick up the smaller school later in the season.

With 10 to 12 bowl games smaller schools were rarely considered for bids unless it was the champion bid of a conference with a bowl tie but a smaller school with a notable win, might crack the bowl line up.

It was very logical to not play in-state prior to the NCAA TV monopoly being struck down and prior to the deregulation of bowls.

Today it doesn't matter if Troy plays Bama and upsets them. It won't get Troy TV exposures remotely similar to Bama, it won't alter Troy's typical home schedules, and outside of the possibility of Access appearance, won't change Troy's bowl opportunities.

The opportunities to unintentionally vault your in-state neighbor to relevance just don't exist today.

(09-13-2019 09:58 AM)Shox Wrote:  I believe Iowa and Iowa State are compelled to play UNI every other year in football. I am not sure if there was actual law passed but there was mega political pressure.

Honestly, with as much money that is involved in DI sports I do think it's time some states mandated this. Texas and Texas A&M are great examples. How many Billions of state dollars are spent annually to fund those schools. If the constituents of Texas want to see them resume the rivalry then the state of Texas should mandate it. We can't save all of the good annual regional rivalries that were lost to realignment (OU vs NE, NE vs CU, KU vs Mizzou, WVU vs Pitt just to name a few that I grew up looking forward to) but if the States step up we can save or help create some others.

If that is the case. Would there be some incentives to bring up large D2 schools to help keep money in state? I am seeing the Texas schools to move up for football purposes. Strange talking about move ups. Look at Dixie State after announcing moving to D1, they are getting schools lined up quickly to schedule them. Any schools west of the Mississippi river and the northeast would bring some new blood. Merrimack and LIU teams were moved up this year, and they seemed to have schools in the northeast to schedule them as well.

(09-13-2019 11:27 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 09:58 AM)Shox Wrote:  I believe Iowa and Iowa State are compelled to play UNI every other year in football. I am not sure if there was actual law passed but there was mega political pressure.

Honestly, with as much money that is involved in DI sports I do think it's time some states mandated this. Texas and Texas A&M are great examples. How many Billions of state dollars are spent annually to fund those schools. If the constituents of Texas want to see them resume the rivalry then the state of Texas should mandate it. We can't save all of the good annual regional rivalries that were lost to realignment (OU vs NE, NE vs CU, KU vs Mizzou, WVU vs Pitt just to name a few that I grew up looking forward to) but if the States step up we can save or help create some others.

If that is the case. Would there be some incentives to bring up large D2 schools to help keep money in state? I am seeing the Texas schools to move up for football purposes. Strange talking about move ups. Look at Dixie State after announcing moving to D1, they are getting schools lined up quickly to schedule them. Any schools west of the Mississippi river and the northeast would bring some new blood. Merrimack and LIU teams were moved up this year, and they seemed to have schools in the northeast to schedule them as well.

I am not sure how it happened, but D2 has a stigma about it that turns off average fans and media alike. D3 doesn't have near the trouble with this and most seem to be comfortable with who they are. There is nothing wrong with D2 and truthfully it's a great fit for most of the schools in it. In fact, to stabilize D1, I wish there was a way to further subsidize D2 to encourage sports networks to show more of their games and playoffs. There is a pile of DI schools who institutionally fit better in D2 but can't go back to it because of the amount of money and perceived publicity they would lose.

Maybe a good start would be to allow low majors to schedule 2-3 D2 games a year in basketball without it negatively affecting their NET as long as they win. To further that, require CBS to air the D2 elite 8. Another idea would be to make it easier for D2 schools to move up in a single sport or 2 like in Hockey. Anyways, imo the best way to strengthen D1 is make D2 a more attractive option for schools.