Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Uncle Nate said:

No they weren’t you ignorant fuck. Their accreditation was delayed because they didn’t fully meet the assessment documentation requirements. It is literally one of the most common deficiencies in the 10-year SACSCOC review. They had it reconciled within a year. They were never in danger of losing accreditation.

But please continue to spout bs that shows you have no idea what you’re taking about. 
 

 

You'd think with all that Cody Campbell cash Tech could have a paperwork guy on payroll to keep track of that stuff...

Office Space GIF by 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
On 8/26/2025 at 9:13 PM, DFW Horn said:

You're right - the Big 12 should've made it.

But, the same internal jealousy, bickering (Prop 48 eligibility?), and lack of foresight killed it. C'est la vie. Once aggy, CO, and Corn left it was over.

 

On 8/26/2025 at 9:21 PM, BurntOrange&White said:

But lets also remember the schools who voted alongside Texas in 3rd party media rights being able to be handled the way they were, ya know schools who left the conference like A&M, Nebraska, Colorado. 

Lulz, both of you forgot about Missouri. While they didn't bitch nearly as much as those 3 they did make a stink too on their way out with aggie. The best part is how well all 4 of them have done in their new conferences without evil Texas since their departure.

Posted
Just now, BurntEyes said:

 

Lulz, both of you forgot about Missouri. While they didn't bitch nearly as much as those 3 they did make a stink too on their way out with aggie. The best part is how well all 4 of them have done in their new conferences without evil Texas since their departure.

Mizzou has done better than they did in the Big 12 with 2 east division titles.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

No they weren’t you ignorant fuck. Their accreditation was delayed because they didn’t fully meet the assessment documentation requirements. It is literally one of the most common deficiencies in the 10-year SACSCOC review. They had it reconciled within a year. They were never in danger of losing accreditation.

But please continue to spout bs that shows you have no idea what you’re taking about. 
 

 

Apparently, the form they submitted, entitled "Documentation SACSCOC" did not impress the accreditation review team.

  • Haha 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Mizzou has done better than they did in the Big 12 with 2 east division titles.

Well, it was a pretty low bar they set for themselves. 

Posted
42 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

No they weren’t you ignorant fuck. Their accreditation was delayed because they didn’t fully meet the assessment documentation requirements. It is literally one of the most common deficiencies in the 10-year SACSCOC review. They had it reconciled within a year. They were never in danger of losing accreditation.

But please continue to spout bs that shows you have no idea what you’re taking about. 

Did they not use the new cover sheet for their TPS report?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 7
Posted

An OSU fan somewhere sold their soul and the future of the program for those two last Bedlam home wins. He looked damn good in the two dives he got. Defense was a lot better. OL still stinks.

Posted
18 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

Mizzou has done better than they did in the Big 12 with 2 east division titles.

Not going to argue where they've done better, but if you're basing it winning the SEC East twice, Missouri won the Big 12 North twice. In 2007, they were #1 in the AP and BCS going into the Big 12 Championship game. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

Not going to argue where they've done better, but if you're basing it winning the SEC East twice, Missouri won the Big 12 North twice. In 2007, they were #1 in the AP and BCS going into the Big 12 Championship game. 

Did they? Hell, I always forget about Mizzou

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, gernblansten said:

Not going to argue where they've done better, but if you're basing it winning the SEC East twice, Missouri won the Big 12 North twice. In 2007, they were #1 in the AP and BCS going into the Big 12 Championship game. 

 

And yet, they’re still a mid-low also-ran.

Fuck em. 

 

ETA: Hope that win against UCA was worth it last night. 

Edited by thunderlounge
Posted
13 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Mizzou felt like they should be Big10 even when they were BigXII.  They still do, IMHO. 
 

Lotsa pasty white people. 

 

They did initially, but those SEC checks shut them up pretty good. I’m sure in some circles on their campus they may pine for the b1g, but it’s not a publicly made sentiment. 

Posted
3 hours ago, 'stache said:

An OSU fan somewhere sold their soul and the future of the program for those two last Bedlam home wins. He looked damn good in the two dives he got. Defense was a lot better. OL still stinks.

Thanks for taking Meach off our hands.  

Posted
1 hour ago, thunderlounge said:

 

They did initially, but those SEC checks shut them up pretty good. I’m sure in some circles on their campus they may pine for the b1g, but it’s not a publicly made sentiment. 

I’m really surprised SEC took them. 

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, PGFrog said:

Dude, they took the Ags.  

I mean Aggies are racist south-ish shitbags (with a huge alumni / TV base) and the long game to get Texas worked so it made sense then and now. 

Posted
1 minute ago, troph said:

I mean Aggies are racist south-ish shitbags (with a huge alumni / TV base) and the long game to get Texas worked so it made sense then and now. 

Season 4 Netflix GIF by On My Block

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)

Re Farmageddon:

So both ADs want it protected like BYU-Utah, etc., but the other programs don’t? I can’t think of a single reason the other programs would care much less be actively opposed. The unanimous opinion should be to protect the game. Is there anything out there providing any reasoning? @Al_4_ISU?
 

 

IMG_6797.jpeg

Edited by 'stache
Posted

I have no idea.

If Gene and Jamie want to keep it going, just fucking play it as a non-con game in '27.

I've heard guys suggesting that we get a bunch of washed up ex-ISU and KSU players to meet up on a high school field somewhere in NW MO or SE NE (to keep it neutral) and keep the streak alive.  Fuck the suits.

Posted
5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Re Farmageddon:

So both ADs want it protected like BYU-Utah, etc., but the other programs don’t? I can’t think of a single reason the other programs would care much less be actively opposed. The unanimous opinion should be to protect the game. Is there anything out there providing any reasoning? @Al_4_ISU?
 

 

IMG_6797.jpeg

It seems to me that if you’re a second tier conference in this environment, one thing you can do to generate interest is to preserve what historical rivalries exist and make sure that they are played every year. Keep the UT AZ, and KS in-state games, the games between the old SWC and Big 8 members, and Farmageddon is definitely on that list. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I do think it's kinda dumb that people keep saying it's "going away".  It's not going away.  It's just getting played 75% of the time.

KU/Mizzou went away.  UT/Aggy went away.  Backyard Brawl went away.  This isn't the same.  It's dumb, but it's going to keep getting played on a regular basis as a conference games.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Duane Moore said:

It seems to me that if you’re a second tier conference in this environment, one thing you can do to generate interest is to preserve what historical rivalries exist and make sure that they are played every year. Keep the UT AZ, and KS in-state games, the games between the old SWC and Big 8 members, and Farmageddon is definitely on that list. 

I’m focused in their statement that it was the other programs that opposed. Why would Utah, OKST, Tech, UCF, etc., be actively opposed to protecting that game? You can’t just say something like that without support.

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I’m focused in their statement that it was the other programs that opposed. Why would Utah, OKST, Tech, UCF, etc., be actively opposed to protecting that game? You can’t just say something like that without support.

My guess is they weren't opposed to Farmageddon specifically - they were opposed to schools having differing numbers of protected rivalries, so the compromise was in-state games only.

Edited by Al_4_ISU
Posted
14 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

My guess is they weren't opposed to Farmageddon specifically - they were opposed to schools having differing numbers of protected rivalries, so the compromise was in-state games only.

They were opposed to schools having differing numbers of protected rivalries based on whether they have rivals in the Big 12, so they decided to give teams different numbers of protected rivalries based on whether they have another in-state team in the Big 12.

Posted
23 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

My guess is they weren't opposed to Farmageddon specifically - they were opposed to schools having differing numbers of protected rivalries, so the compromise was in-state games only.

This reminds me of the WTF moment back in the mid-90's when the OU - Corn rivalry wasn't protected.

Good thinkin' Big 12 B16 (see the 6 kinda looks like a G. Take that, B1G!)

Posted
4 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

This reminds me of the WTF moment back in the mid-90's when the OU - Corn rivalry wasn't protected.

Good thinkin' Big 12 B16 (see the 6 kinda looks like a G. Take that, B1G!)

I think those two schools were a bit more complicit in it.  With UT becoming a conference game, I think OU was just fine not having Nebraska every year.

Now of course they said that was a reason things went south, but that's exactly like Nebraska leaving for equal revenue after they voted against it forever.

Posted
1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think those two schools were a bit more complicit in it.  With UT becoming a conference game, I think OU was just fine not having Nebraska every year.

Now of course they said that was a reason things went south, but that's exactly like Nebraska leaving for equal revenue after they voted against it forever.

Yeah, I remember reading something about neither wanting a rematch every year in the B12 championship game.

Posted
On 8/28/2025 at 7:56 PM, BurntEyes said:

 

Lulz, both of you forgot about Missouri. While they didn't bitch nearly as much as those 3 they did make a stink too on their way out with aggie. The best part is how well all 4 of them have done in their new conferences without evil Texas since their departure.

No one forgot about Mizzou. They just don't exist. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

Tech friend posted this in our group chat with "keep that bozo outta here" attached...but isn't Dave Portnoy exactly the kind of Bozo that Yormark is trying to get to bring attention to the Big 12? 

I mean, they had the tie-in with the WWE that led to Undertaker presenting Quinn Ewers with the Big 12 Title belt after the CG in 2023. 
IMG_2851.thumb.jpeg.f37691c13fdad5abd94c63c33a9ad35c.jpeg

Not that I consider ‘Taker to be a bozo. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

My guess is they weren't opposed to Farmageddon specifically - they were opposed to schools having differing numbers of protected rivalries, so the compromise was in-state games only.

You can still schedule them and have it be an OOC?

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

You can still schedule them and have it be an OOC?

Yes.

Army-Navy game is not an American Conference game.  Both are members of the American Conference, but America's Game takes place the weekend AFTER the CCG.

Edited by Iceman
Posted
2 hours ago, Duane Moore said:

I mean, they had the tie-in with the WWE that led to Undertaker presenting Quinn Ewers with the Big 12 Title belt after the CG in 2023. 
IMG_2851.thumb.jpeg.f37691c13fdad5abd94c63c33a9ad35c.jpeg

Not that I consider ‘Taker to be a bozo. 

Undertaker lives in Austin and is a big horn fan.  I doubt he will be tied to the Big 12 any longer.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

Tech friend posted this in our group chat with "keep that bozo outta here" attached...but isn't Dave Portnoy exactly the kind of Bozo that Yormark is trying to get to bring attention to the Big 12? 

 I can't think of a more on-brand celebrity than Portnoy for Texas Tech. In fact he's probably a little too classy for that fanbase. 

That is to say your Tech friend's comment amuses me.

Posted
4 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

This reminds me of the WTF moment back in the mid-90's when the OU - Corn rivalry wasn't protected.

Good thinkin' Big 12 B16 (see the 6 kinda looks like a G. Take that, B1G!)

 

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think those two schools were a bit more complicit in it.  With UT becoming a conference game, I think OU was just fine not having Nebraska every year.

Now of course they said that was a reason things went south, but that's exactly like Nebraska leaving for equal revenue after they voted against it forever.

Troof. Stoops didn't want the rivalry to continue, cause Nebraska was good back then, and he didn't want to be guaranteed to play Texas and Nebraska every year when no one else did. Considering ALL his recruiting was in Texas, there was no way he was going to give up the Texas game. That was Nebraska's original butt hurt, and they never got over it. Oklahoma was Nebraska's big rivalry, but Texas was Oklahoma's big rival. 

Posted
1 hour ago, ztejas said:

 I can't think of a more on-brand celebrity than Portnoy for Texas Tech. In fact he's probably a little too classy for that fanbase. 

That is to say your Tech friend's comment amuses me.

He's too classy for the Big 12.

Posted
On 8/29/2025 at 4:10 PM, Iceman said:

Mizzou felt like they should be Big10 even when they were BigXII.  They still do, IMHO. 
 

Lotsa pasty white people. 

At the time all members of the B1G were AAU and Missouri was not. But but Nebraska, yeah, they were, basically Texas got them and kept them there. Year after they joined the B1G, they got kicked. 

Posted
3 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

At the time all members of the B1G were AAU and Missouri was not. But but Nebraska, yeah, they were, basically Texas got them and kept them there. Year after they joined the B1G, they got kicked. 

Mizzou has been in the AAU since 1908.

  • Hook 'Em 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...