Jump to content

Uncle Nate

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Uncle Nate

  1. 41 minutes ago, Had Enough said:

    Just to make Tech people feel better, I would have preferred the Big 12. But the pre-NIL under the table payments, SEC hype train required action if you wanted to compete with it. It is the money, but the competitive environment was skewed. Who else was going to act? PAC-12? I doubt it. The ACC still is sitting on their hands.

    The playoff and subsequent expansion made conference shifts a certainty. The SEC and Big 10 still and will always want what is their “right.” The most seats at that table, which in their minds, is my 3 loss team is better than your 1 loss team.

    Tech and Baylor are our rivals. Maybe not the primary ones but rivals nonetheless. History and living amongst each other make the best rivalries. We have/had that. Losing them forever, that’s hard to reconcile. Supplement that with great and varied non conference matchups, and you have a winner.

    I’m not a big trash talker, and a great part of road game experiences are the brief bonding experiences with opposing football fans who appreciate the moment. Winning is enough. Losing is painful enough. All the rest is bullshit.

    Nobody asked my opinion. And no one gives a shit about my opinion now, but each step closer to the NFL this becomes the less great it becomes to me.

    Amen. 

  2. 55 minutes ago, Pancho said:

    Does the unity and happiness come now that you know who is going to be in your conference because it sure as fuck wasn’t there when it got leaked that we were leaving. 

    I still can’t believe the politicians from tech, tcu, and Baylor trying to block UT from leaving. By doing that, they were admitting that UT was subsidizing your/their athletic department. And if we weren’t, why would they give a shit? 

    And why would tech put that billboard up in Austin? 

    There’s just too many examples of tech being really, really ass hurt about it but I think I agree with you and @Brian Fantana that y’all have calmed down now that you know who is coming to the B12. 

    Well, not just because we got the four corners to join and help stabilize us, but even more so the fact we have a seat at the CFP table. Once they expanded to 12 and the Big12 could rely on at least one team getting in barring just a crappy season across the conference, then I was good. Just wanted that opportunity and we got it. 
     

    So I’m good. And I honestly think Yormark, being the consummate promoter, said those words purposely to create this exact stir and build up that last conference game. It wouldn’t surprise me if he even called CDC ahead of time and said, “Hey Chris…I’m going to say this stuff at the RRC luncheon and get the press in a frenzy. Just doing it to build up the drama for that last game.”  And knowing CDC like I do, he probably laughed and said do it, it will be fun. I wouldn’t put it past either guy because they are both two guys who know the power of promoting stuff like this. 

  3. 8 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

    Even Aggy voted YES.

    Did they really want to though?

    spacer.png

     

    They are still crying in the corner about it everytime I visit Texags or talk to my aggy friends.  I'll be honest, the heartbreak this has caused aggy nation, and the knowledge you have to deal with those freaks again, has been my most favoritist part of the whole thing.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    • Rage+1 1
  4. Anyone listening to today's Monty Show?  He is sharing a rumor that ESPN has reached out to the Big 12 to consider taking Stanford and Cal if/when ACC turns them down.

    Over the past year, he has been way more right than he has been wrong.

    But I do not see this happening.  I don't bet, but I would bet good money that this will never happen.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 21 minutes ago, slorch said:

    We haven't blamed anyone else for 13 seasons.

    GS.jpg

     

    I've been more specific than that...here is who to blame in chronological order.

    1. Tommy Tuberville

    2. Kliff "I have to recruit?" Kingsbury

    3.  Matt "Bueller, Bueller, Bueller" Wells.

  6. 37 minutes ago, Pancho said:

    I’m actually not wound up about anything. The Yackmark and Joseph McGillicutty comments about blue bloods and beating UT in Austin didn’t upset me at all. If anything, I wondered why UT fans took it so seriously when it is clear why they both made those comments.

    But to suggest that tech is glad Texas is gone and glad to be rid of them is absurd considering what Tech admin, fans, and donors pulled in trying to get the state lege to stop UT from leaving, the tech billboard in Austin whining about UT not scheduling them, and the constant snide remarks on social media, at events, etc. 

    So it’s really Tech who needs to “relax” and not UT, right? 

    For me, as someone who is both (1) sad that we won't be playing each other every year, and yet (2) happy to see how the new dynamic amongst the members of the new Big 12 has come about, I think it's perfectly o.k. for me to say I'm glad UT is gone but I wish we were still playing.  The two thoughts are not mutually-exclusive.

    There's no doubt that when Beebe was the commissioner and Dodds was the UT AD, UT threw its weight around and Beebe basically did whatever Dodds demanded.  Whether you all agree or not, the perception at least is that UT was the bully in the Big 12 room and there was a constant threat they would take their ball and leave if everyone didn't go along, which they did anyway.  It's also pretty apparent there was not a lot of unity in the Big 12 and a whole lot of distrust.   Whether that was on UT or not I'm sure is up for debate, but the bottom line is that we've never seen the Big 12 so unified and supportive of each other as we've seen this past year.  Would it be that way if OU and UT weren't leaving?  Honest question.

    So yes, I'm glad UT is leaving the conference because I do think it made the rest of the conference partners better together than what they were, but I'm sad UT is leaving because it means we no longer play each other.  I miss the original Big 12 of 1996-2010.  But I don't miss the division, distrust, and vitriol that was present between the members...and there was a lot of blame to go around on that one.

  7. No UT fan can bitch about officiating to a Tech fan.  The body of work of officiating between our games has heavily favored UT.  The worst example was 2006 in Lubbock where the officiating was so blatantly biased for UT it became obvious early there was nothing Tech could do to win the game.  Countless games in Austin where either Bible or Christal or both would call the most egregious calls that went in UT's favor.  Also the game at UT where they knocked out Potts with an obvious helmet-to-helmet violation and nothing was called.  2010 in Lubbock (I think was the year) was another one that was crazy blatant that it was something out of a movie it felt like (though 2006 was probably even worse than that).

    UT has been the beneficiary of so much ref bias over the years that a couple of times they didn't get it (and I admit that one OSU game in Austin was bad), all of a sudden it's a giant conspiracy against them.  So easy for them to whitewash the DECADES of ref bias that went in their favor.

    but you will soon be SEC's problem, and all I can say is, good riddance.  I've never seen the conference so united as it is now, and it's not a coincidence that UT leaving helped facilitate that.

    17 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

    Fuck Joey McGuire for those “So-called Blue Bloods” comments

    Yeah, but you are butthurt because you know it has a ring of truth to it.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 1
  8. 17 hours ago, Pancho said:

    Tech fans have gotten...just obsessive about UT:

     

    Fan.  Singular.

    I know no other Tech fan that would do something like that, whereas every single Sooner I know would do that in a heartbeat if it didn't eat into their meth budget.

  9. 1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

    Vandy?

    This is the correct answer.

    The thought that Tulane would have become the power that LSU became ignores the fact that Tulane is a highly-selective private school with an enrollment less than 15,000.  USC and Notre Dame, and for a short time relatively speaking Miami, are the only schools that have Tulane's selectivity and became major football powers (I don't count Stanford because they only had a brief moment a time or two).  But USC is in LA, Miami I'm certain bought their success (and it's Miami), and Notre Dame has the history and the Papists.  Tulane, if they had stayed in the SEC, wouldn't have had any of that.

    LSU, however, is the flagship university for the state and is not highly selective.  If Tulane had stayed in SEC, LSU would still have been the power they were,  the SEC would just have a 2nd Vandy to beat up on.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  10. 58 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

    You’re arguing both sides here.

    Basketball teams with good records miss the NCAA tournament all the time. You say that’s what you want but you’re actually arguing the opposite. Iowa State made the NCAA men’s basketball tournament as a 6 seed with a record of 19-13, meanwhile North Texas missed the tournament with a record of 26-7.

    The SEC and Big Ten will have a far more difficult strength of schedule (like Big 12 basketball did last year) and will be rewarded for it. I doubt you’ll see a 1 loss Big12/ACC team passed over for a 3 loss SEC/B1G team but I damn sure hope a 2 loss non conference champion for the B12/ACC doesn’t get in over a 3 loss SEC/B1G team. That is more in line with how the basketball tournament operates and is likely how this will shake out unless you are trying to get the SEC/B1G to breakaway.

    I disagree wholeheartedly.  The creation of the "P2" will give the illusion that they have a far more difficult strength of schedule and thus a self-fulfilling prophesy.  Kind of like the whole "well, these teams have better TV ratings" while leaving out the fact they were given the prime TV timeslots.

    If you go to the "premiere" league model, you are basically relegating these other teams that very well could be better than half or more of the teams in the P2 conferences.  But you've manipulated matchups in a way that says these are the best teams regardless when in fact they may not be....but if you "relegate" certain teams, you will never actually know.

    But in the end, regardless, if you tell 2/3 - 3/4 of the college fanbases in the country that their teams are on the outside looking in, you will not have the product that you think you are achieving with a P2 model.  That's my point that seems to be getting missed here.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  11. 6 minutes ago, ztejas said:

    You realize the B12 and ACC champs get a bye, correct? Which puts them in pole position to win a national championship. And you can have a nice season and not win your conference and still make the playoff. I just doubt that we're going to see 4 ACC and B12 teams every season. 

    How that still isn't a massive improvement over the 4 team joke of a playoff I'm not sure. Like I said - how many times has the SEC gotten half of the 4-team CFP bids? You like that system? As a Tech fan? A system where you have zero fucking chance of ever winning a national title?

    As currently constructed the new CFP format is so much better for non-traditional powers and middling former-P5 teams (like my own alma-mater). Like - light years better. 

    We'll see if that system sticks.

    My friend, I think we are taking about two different things.

    What you are talking about, which is what will be in existence for 2024 and 2025, is great.  Yes, I love it.  

    What I'm talking about is the idea that has been voiced in this thread that eventually it will be just SEC and BIG, with maybe token invites to Big12 and ACC (after 2025).  That mindset, that a 3 loss SEC or BIG team will get in over a 1-2 loss Big12 or ACC team, is what I'm talking about.  I want something more in line of what we have in basketball (not 64 teams, but just the idea of a more even distribution of access).

    Hope that makes sense.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  12. Just now, ztejas said:

    What on earth are you talking about. I'm talking about the distribution of teams that will make it in every year. I didn't say it would be the same teams.

    You don't think a playoff with 4 SEC teams, 4 B10 teams, 1 ACC team, 1 B12 team, and two total wildcards is entertaining? That sounds fucking awesome. And some years the B12 or ACC will absolutely get a couple teams in. 

    If a 3 loss SEC or BIG team consistently gets in over a 1-2 loss ACC or BIG12 team, then yeah, I and a lot of others will eventually check out. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 1
  13. 5 minutes ago, ztejas said:

    Yep. I'm not sure some people understand how big the gulf is right now between B10/SEC and the rest. Maybe because they haven't seen USC play Wisconsin in conference play yet. Or Texas or OU play LSU or Alabama.

    There is no P5. There is no "top 64 teams". There are two superconferences, there are two solid conferences, and there will be a 5th conference bridging the gap that should usually put in a solid dark horse. 

    That is how it will work until the CFP gets shuffled again. 

    Maybe stuff gets realigned further into a tight nfl-lite style package but until then, under the current or even predicted conference alignments, the B12 and ACC are going to be lucky to get 2 teams in every year. If you think 11-2 Kansas State is getting into the playoffs over 10-3 Texas or Ohio State you're delusional. We've had two SEC teams make the fucking four team playoff - how many times now?

    So the same teams get into the playoffs every year. That sounds so exciting. So entertaining. Yes let’s watch the same 20 teams every year battle it out. Sounds like fun. 
     

    Again, this mindset ignores why college football is unique from the NFL and why it will lose viewership if this becomes the reality. 
     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  14. 29 minutes ago, Richard Kimball said:

    Why is that motherfucker wearing two watches?

    He needs to keep track of both mountain and pacific time. 
     

    If only we could make watches or phones capable of showing multiple time zones. That’s probably 22nd century Star Trek technology. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 5
  15. 11 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

     

     

     

    Thanks for the responses gentlemen.  Forgot to add @Uncle Nate- would also be interested in your take on whether you'd watch a "super league".

     

    Based on the 66% decline in viewership that would result from this small sample size of responses, that lines up with the idea that the networks/BIG/SEC would be setting themselves up to fail if they try to set up a breakaway league with its own playoff, or a BIG-SEC only playoff.  It would be a huge mistake.

    We'll have to keep living with polls and committees, but at least if they keep 4-5 auto-bids (depending on the ACC's status over time), every team in the top 4-5 conferences will have a direct path to the playoffs based off on-field results, and the beauty pageant aspect will only apply to at-large teams.

    I'd like to see them keep something similar to the current playoff structure from 2026 onwards, but start the season earlier, do the early rounds on campus, then play the semis on NYD in the Rose and Sugar.  That would preserve some great CFB traditions even as the sport changes dramatically.  It would also keep CFB from having to compete with the NFL playoffs into January.

     

    My opinion is similar to LTBear's and 'stache's.

    I already have the NFL.  I don't need mini-me NFL.  I'm a fanatical college football fan because I graduated from Texas Tech and most, if not all, of the games I watch either have a direct or indirect effect/relationship to Tech.  Same with basketball.

    If my alma mater gets relegated, I'm spending more time on the golf course in the fall and only watching Tech's games.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  16. 5 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

     

    Screenshot_20230816-151025_kindlephoto-14502395.png.69043db98a90b381b840eaba11162dc5.png

    Do-overs? Absolutely, Kirk Schulz has a list of decisions he’d like back following the collapse of the Pac-12.

    The Washington State president and chair of the Pac-12 board was heavily involved in the media rights saga that spanned 13 months and ended last week in a failed effort to save the conference.

    “We should have had a more robust conversations about our value in the marketplace,” Schulz told the Hotline on Friday.

    The failure to accept market reality led the Pac-12 presidents last fall to reject an offer of $30 million per year (per school) from ESPN for the entirety of the conference’s football and men’s basketball media inventory, according to JohnCanzano.com.

    Instead, the presidents instructed commissioner George Kliavkoff to pursue a deal in the $50 million per-school range.

    “Two or three schools were interested in that number,” Schulz said. “The discussions were that we really had to close the gap on the Big Ten. The commissioner went off with those numbers, which were unrealistic for sure.”

    A source familiar with the negotiations told the Hotline this week that one president even believed the valuation “should be in the 50s” — meaning, more than $50 million per school. (The source declined to identify the president.)

    ESPN declined the Pac-12’s counteroffer.

    “They couldn’t save those guys from themselves,” the source said. “The people with expertise were telling them there was a path to a deal in the $30 millions …

    “(But) if George had come to the presidents in October and said there was a deal out there at $32 million or so, they would have thrown him out of the room.”

    Asked if Kliavkoff should have pushed back against the presidents, Schulz said: “I don’t know what the individual conversations were like between George and those schools.”

    Kliavkoff declined to comment for this story.

    The push for $50 million per school came after the Big Ten announced a deal with Fox, CBS and NBC valued in the $65 million range (per school per year) but before the Big 12 presidents agreed to a partnership with ESPN and Fox for $31.7 million per year.

    Schulz served on the Pac-12’s three-person executive committee for the first year of the media negotiations, along with Washington’s Ana Mari Cauce and Stanford’s Marc Tessier-Lavigne; he became chair in July.

    “Nobody wants to hear it,” Schulz said, “but sometimes you need a reality check …  rather than spending too much time chasing fantasy numbers.”

     

    I have a feeling Kirk Shulz's days at WSU are numbered.  That big-tittied Regent with the "groundhog day" comment a few months back was probably ready to fire him then.

    • Haha 1
×
×
  • Create New...