Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I don't think Notre Dame will ever go B1G. I would bet the B1G's top (realistic) targets are UNC, UVA, and Florida State. I would think the SEC is similarly after UNC and UVA and assume they're also interested in FSU and Clemson.

Posted

Guess ACC money not enough for "TREE"...   what a joke

IMG_20250810_235802.jpg.1b242e8ea74df4ca7056c7585e6ea81f.jpg

Blaming the policies of President Donald Trump's administration, Stanford University is revealing plans to cut more than 350 full-time positions -- with nearly 10% of those jobs in the school's athletics department. 

Stanford earlier this summer announced as a school that it would pare some $140 million from its operating budget.

This week, the University revealed that a significant portion of those cuts would come in the form of layoffs to more than 360 employees.

Midday Thursday, veteran West Coast reporter John Canzano first reported that Stanford's cuts included approximately 30 Cardinal athletics department employees.

FootballScoop reached out directly to Stanford University's athletics communications and athletics director for comment but has not received response at this time.

Stanford just last week hired former Nike executive John Donahoe as its athletics director. The school has not disclosed Donahoe's salary nor terms of his contract, but he arrives at the school after making roughly $60 million in compensation from Nike in 2023-24 per multiple reports.

It's been just one year since Stanford formally joined the ACC for its conference home in NCAA athletics as the then-Pac-12 disintegrated. That move instantly incurred a marked increase in operating expenses for the Cardinal, which saw its football team in 2024 play road games at Syracuse, Clemson, Notre Dame and North Carolina State, among others. 

The school issued a general statement on the widespread cuts.

"Stanford is in the process of making budget reductions. Last week, many schools and units made staff workforce reductions," the statement read. "In total, 363 layoffs occurred."

Stanford athletics has still thrived overall in the NCAA landscape, placing third nationally in the most recent Learfield Director's Cup that measures total athletic department success.

But the Cardinal football program is just 10-26 in its last three seasons. The school has fired two different coaches during that time: David Shaw, after his program slipped from perennial conference-title contenders and his replacement, Troy Taylor, for allegations of a hostile workplace.

The school has hired Andrew Luck as its general manager for football, and he brought in his former pro coach -- Frank Reich of the Colts -- to serve as Stanford's interim head coach for the 2025 season.

As Canzano notes, attendance at Cardinal football games also is anemic. The Cardinal drew fewer than 24,000 fans for three of its home games in 2024 and has had just one sellout, its 2023 rivalry contest against Cal in the 'Big Game,' since 2022. That contest also marks the only time Stanford has drawn more than 40,000 for a home game.

Stanford opens its 2025 season in 16 days, playing a Week 0 game at Hawaii on Aug. 23. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, LTtxfan said:

Guess ACC money not enough for "TREE"...   what a joke

IMG_20250810_235802.jpg.1b242e8ea74df4ca7056c7585e6ea81f.jpg

Blaming the policies of President Donald Trump's administration, Stanford University is revealing plans to cut more than 350 full-time positions -- with nearly 10% of those jobs in the school's athletics department. 

Stanford earlier this summer announced as a school that it would pare some $140 million from its operating budget.

This week, the University revealed that a significant portion of those cuts would come in the form of layoffs to more than 360 employees.

Midday Thursday, veteran West Coast reporter John Canzano first reported that Stanford's cuts included approximately 30 Cardinal athletics department employees.

FootballScoop reached out directly to Stanford University's athletics communications and athletics director for comment but has not received response at this time.

Stanford just last week hired former Nike executive John Donahoe as its athletics director. The school has not disclosed Donahoe's salary nor terms of his contract, but he arrives at the school after making roughly $60 million in compensation from Nike in 2023-24 per multiple reports.

It's been just one year since Stanford formally joined the ACC for its conference home in NCAA athletics as the then-Pac-12 disintegrated. That move instantly incurred a marked increase in operating expenses for the Cardinal, which saw its football team in 2024 play road games at Syracuse, Clemson, Notre Dame and North Carolina State, among others. 

The school issued a general statement on the widespread cuts.

"Stanford is in the process of making budget reductions. Last week, many schools and units made staff workforce reductions," the statement read. "In total, 363 layoffs occurred."

Stanford athletics has still thrived overall in the NCAA landscape, placing third nationally in the most recent Learfield Director's Cup that measures total athletic department success.

But the Cardinal football program is just 10-26 in its last three seasons. The school has fired two different coaches during that time: David Shaw, after his program slipped from perennial conference-title contenders and his replacement, Troy Taylor, for allegations of a hostile workplace.

The school has hired Andrew Luck as its general manager for football, and he brought in his former pro coach -- Frank Reich of the Colts -- to serve as Stanford's interim head coach for the 2025 season.

As Canzano notes, attendance at Cardinal football games also is anemic. The Cardinal drew fewer than 24,000 fans for three of its home games in 2024 and has had just one sellout, its 2023 rivalry contest against Cal in the 'Big Game,' since 2022. That contest also marks the only time Stanford has drawn more than 40,000 for a home game.

Stanford opens its 2025 season in 16 days, playing a Week 0 game at Hawaii on Aug. 23. 

 

Poor Stanford, clearly struggling to make ends meet. I'm sure Donahoe and Luck are working pro-bono to reduce other staffing cuts.

Stanford is a $9.7 billion enterprise.

Spoiler

In 2024–25, Stanford is a $9.7 billion enterprise. This figure represents the university’s consolidated budget for operations, a compilation of all annual operating and restricted budgets that support teaching, scholarship and research, including the budgets of all schools and administrative areas and the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. It does not include the $0.7 billion capital budget and excludes the budget for Stanford Health Care and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital. Visit the Stanford Business Affairs website.

Stanford Has No Money per Stanford

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
18 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

Poor Stanford, clearly struggling to make ends meet. I'm sure Donahoe and Luck are working pro-bono to reduce other staffing cuts.

Stanford is a $9.7 billion enterprise.

  Hide contents

In 2024–25, Stanford is a $9.7 billion enterprise. This figure represents the university’s consolidated budget for operations, a compilation of all annual operating and restricted budgets that support teaching, scholarship and research, including the budgets of all schools and administrative areas and the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. It does not include the $0.7 billion capital budget and excludes the budget for Stanford Health Care and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital. Visit the Stanford Business Affairs website.

Stanford Has No Money per Stanford

I doubt all of that STEM project money is fungible for anything else.

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

I doubt all of that STEM project money is fungible for anything else.

I absolutely agree but the bigger point is really any tie in from the $140m decrease in operating budget of $9.7m basically tieing it to the loss of 30 people in their athletics department (in addition to 330 others). Stanford fields 36 teams 20 in women's sport and 16 in men's. They just hired in AD that was making $60m at his last job, and Shaw was making about $6M per year so a safe guess is Troy $2-4m range. 

So lets do a comparison to Vanderbilt as they are on a similar plane on academics, atheletics success (Baseball good, football meh) budget and student enrollment. 

Stanford enrollment:

Est 17,000

Vandy Enrollement:

13575

Stanford + Stanford Health Operating Budget:

$10.4 billion

Vandy + VUMC Operating Budget:

$8.9 billion

Stanford Avergage Attendance Per Game 2024

26,035

Vandy Average Attendance Per Game 2024

28,091

Stanford Athletic teams:

36 Total

20 women, 16 mens

Vandy Athletics teams:

17 total

11 womens, 6 mens

For the record, VUMC is cutting $300m budget cut and laying of 650 which I personally actually find extremely concerning. Main point is Stanford isn't the only ones seeing big budget cuts. 

TLDR: Politics isn't the main reason 30 athletic jobs were cut at Stanford. 

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
On 8/10/2025 at 10:47 AM, LTbear said:

I don't think Notre Dame will ever go B1G. I would bet the B1G's top (realistic) targets are UNC, UVA, and Florida State. I would think the SEC is similarly after UNC and UVA and assume they're also interested in FSU and Clemson.

They will have to eventually.  I just think they are in a good enough position, its not going to happen for at least 10-15 years.

Notre Dame also has a demographics problem.  The Irish and Catholics who love them are aging.  The subway alumni are dying off.  20 years from now they may not be nearly as valuable.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, bullet said:

They will have to eventually.  I just think they are in a good enough position, its not going to happen for at least 10-15 years.

Notre Dame also has a demographics problem.  The Irish and Catholics who love them are aging.  The subway alumni are dying off.  20 years from now they may not be nearly as valuable.

Every Domer grad thinks they hung the moon and invented football. I doubt they would lower themselves into joining a conference.

That said, if the BIG pulls the USC game, there will real panic in Domer Nation. The BIG has some leverage there, and that bitch made pussy Lincoln Riley doesn’t want to play the game. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, bullet said:

They will have to eventually.  I just think they are in a good enough position, its not going to happen for at least 10-15 years.

Notre Dame also has a demographics problem.  The Irish and Catholics who love them are aging.  The subway alumni are dying off.  20 years from now they may not be nearly as valuable.

They’ll still be more valuable than Purdue.
 

It’s like running from a lion, you just have to be faster than the slowest guy…

Posted (edited)

There's an easy way to make them join a conference AND standardize scheduling.

9 Conference games.  anything <9 equals a loss in the rankings. Period.

2 birds, one stone and all that jazz.

Edited by Iceman
Posted
27 minutes ago, bullet said:

They will have to eventually.  I just think they are in a good enough position, its not going to happen for at least 10-15 years.

Notre Dame also has a demographics problem.  The Irish and Catholics who love them are aging.  The subway alumni are dying off.  20 years from now they may not be nearly as valuable.

Their brand is way more than just Catholics 

Posted
On 7/1/2025 at 3:18 PM, GJ Winne said:

The only people referring to the PAC as a Power 5 conference are online shit stirrers.  Gould hasn't mentioned it once. 

G6 confirmed

 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
On 8/10/2025 at 10:47 AM, LTbear said:

I don't think Notre Dame will ever go B1G. I would bet the B1G's top (realistic) targets are UNC, UVA, and Florida State. I would think the SEC is similarly after UNC and UVA and assume they're also interested in FSU and Clemson.

Why would SEC want Virginia? Shitty at football, decent at basketball, ok at baseball. 
Minimal TV. They are basically a Vanderbilt redux. 

Just don’t see what they get you with in terms of strengthening conference. 

Posted

Brett McMurphy tweeted that the Maryland AD indicated the Big Ten would be at 20 schools in 2030. He indicated that UNC and Virginia were the tops choices for both conferences, and I also don't understand why anyone would want Virginia.

Posted
2 hours ago, BrazilHorn said:

Why would SEC want Virginia? Shitty at football, decent at basketball, ok at baseball. 
Minimal TV. They are basically a Vanderbilt redux. 

Just don’t see what they get you with in terms of strengthening conference. 

McMurphy (see above) and several others with contacts in the SEC and B1G have continually reiterated that UNC and Virginia are the two schools that both conferences want. 

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, LTbear said:

McMurphy (see above) and several others with contacts in the SEC and B1G have continually reiterated that UNC and Virginia are the two schools that both conferences want. 

Both will be better off in the SEC.

Let's see if UVA's academic snobs will consort with us. Add FSU and Clemson for a clean 20 and we're done.

* My preference is to stay at 16 with the new 9-game schedule where everybody plays home & homes every 4 years.

Edited by DFW Horn
Posted
31 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Huge conferences fucking suck. The only good thing about going to 20 is maybe we split into 10 someday. 

Yes I know it won't happen. 

Maybe when the superconferences split up, the new 10 team conferences could be geographically aligned

  • Haha 1
Posted

remember when we tried to help aggy and take them west with us?

and how they behaved?

and recall that aggy are still a branch of The University as per the Constitution of the State of Texas....

nc and nc state are a very similar situation

rather than get sucked in to that drama, the sec should just take the fruit off the board: clemson, florida state, georgia tech and miami

georgia won't like it

florida really won't like it

if georgia tech won't play ball, offer tulane or smu or 'offer' missouri to the b1g to keep it even - missouri is a b1g school stuck in the sec by accident (see: aggy, corn, colorado)

Posted
4 minutes ago, WBT said:

Maybe when the superconferences split up, the new 10 team conferences could be geographically aligned

64 teams 8 divisions 8 teams each

72 teams 8 divisions 9 teams each

80 teams 8 divisions 10 teams each

Texas will end up in the Southwest Division

Posted
On 8/29/2025 at 10:49 AM, Hagbard Celine said:

64 teams 8 divisions 8 teams each

72 teams 8 divisions 9 teams each

80 teams 8 divisions 10 teams each

Texas will end up in the Southwest Division

God help us if we end up back with a SWC redux of Tech, Baylor, UH, TCU, A&M, and SMU.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

God help us if we end up back with a SWC redux of Tech, Baylor, UH, TCU, A&M, and SMU.

It’s not gonna happen for a ton of reasons, but wouldn’t Texas be expected to dominate that division, and then have 5 non-con/non-division games to play other bluebloods? 

Posted
1 minute ago, &#x27;stache said:

It’s not gonna happen for a ton of reasons, but wouldn’t Texas be expected to dominate that division, and then have 5 non-con/non-division games to play other bluebloods? 

UT would if the media partners get their way. TV money is running the show now.

Posted
1 hour ago, &#x27;stache said:

It’s not gonna happen for a ton of reasons, but wouldn’t Texas be expected to dominate that division, and then have 5 non-con/non-division games to play other bluebloods? 

In theory but Texas plays best when we are challenged and can play up to our competition.  If we're playing Houston, SMU, and Tech those games mean 10X more to them than to us (aka "jihad") and we get complacent and soft.  That's not an excuse for losing those games, it's an observation of how it actually worked.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

In theory but Texas plays best when we are challenged and can play up to our competition.  If we're playing Houston, SMU, and Tech those games mean 10X more to them than to us (aka "jihad") and we get complacent and soft.  That's not an excuse for losing those games, it's an observation of how it actually worked.

Didn't you guys win natties in the SWC?  And your '05 Big 12 schedule looks pretty much identical in terms of strength to what you had in your last decade of Big 12 play.  The North sucked ass that year and OU and Aggy were both shitty.  Baylor was old Baylor and OK State was also dog shit.

I don't think Texas is winning because the competition is better.  It probably has more to do with Sark being a damn good coach who doesn't tolerate the shitty culture that had set in (see the bus rant after we beat your ass in '21).

Don't get me wrong, the SEC move is a clear success for Texas, but (pure outsider perspective) I think that has less to do with the SEC and more to do with Texas.

Posted
1 hour ago, &#x27;stache said:

It’s not gonna happen for a ton of reasons, but wouldn’t Texas be expected to dominate that division, and then have 5 non-con/non-division games to play other bluebloods? 

No. Texas would expect to have every one of those teams claim Texas is their number one rival, circle the date and fire up the players by telling them this is their chance to get back at Texas for not recruiting them. 
 
Texas would expect revenue to decrease, because, although everyone tunes into Texas-TT to see Texas, Texas has to share revenue with Tech. 
 
Been there, done that, have a shelf of plastic SWC beer mugs. 

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Didn't you guys win natties in the SWC?  And your '05 Big 12 schedule looks pretty much identical in terms of strength to what you had in your last decade of Big 12 play.  The North sucked ass that year and OU and Aggy were both shitty.  Baylor was old Baylor and OK State was also dog shit.

I don't think Texas is winning because the competition is better.  It probably has more to do with Sark being a damn good coach who doesn't tolerate the shitty culture that had set in (see the bus rant after we beat your ass in '21).

Don't get me wrong, the SEC move is a clear success for Texas, but (pure outsider perspective) I think that has less to do with the SEC and more to do with Texas.

This whole "playing to the level of competition" narrative is tiresome, bc you're right. 3 outta 4 (or 8 of 9 using SEC methodology) national championships came while UT was a member of the SWC. The "jihad" argument is somewhat true, but look at our records against SWC foes historically. Did it matter overall? Not really.

Great teams beat whoever they're matched up against. UT has been far from great for a while, until the past 2 years. We've done well against everybody but UGA and tOSU.

Edited by DFW Horn
  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, statsman said:

No. Texas would expect to have every one of those teams claim Texas is their number one rival, circle the date and fire up the players by telling them this is their chance to get back at Texas for not recruiting them. 
 
Texas would expect revenue to decrease, because, although everyone tunes into Texas-TT to see Texas, Texas has to share revenue with Tech. 
 
Been there, done that, have a shelf of plastic SWC beer mugs. 

 

Just now, DFW Horn said:

This whole "playing to the level of competition" narrative is tiresome, bc you're right. 3 outta 4 (or 8 of 9 using SEC methodology) national championships came while UT was a member of the SWC. The "jihad" argument is somewhat true, but look at our records against SWC foes historically. Did it matter overall? Not really.

Great teams beat whoever they're matched up against. UT has been far from great for a while, until the past 2 years.

Seriously, what a bitchass thought coming from a fan of a blueblood program. "They try too hard to beat us, oh noes!" And to be clear, this scenario would have payouts based on TV ratings, so UT still gets paid way more, and can bank playing other bluebloods with the 5 non-con/non-division games of their choosing, which would not affect their division standings and path to the playoff. The only part of Cody Campbell's proposal that stood out to me is collectively bargaining the TV contract expanding the overall pie. The bluebloods would still rake in the lion's share based on TV ratings. The future is not going to have even media distributions. 

Posted
1 minute ago, &#x27;stache said:

The future is not going to have even media distributions. 

Nope

The bluebloods and ratings-drivers will want a commensurate piece of the overall pie. This is why we broke away from the NCAA for TV contracts in the first place. OU, among others, was dissatisfied with its share. 

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

 

Seriously, what a bitchass thought coming from a fan of a blueblood program. "They try too hard to beat us, oh noes!" And to be clear, this scenario would have payouts based on TV ratings, so UT still gets paid way more, and can bank playing other bluebloods with the 5 non-con/non-division games of their choosing, which would not affect their division standings and path to the playoff. The only part of Cody Campbell's proposal that stood out to me is collectively bargaining the TV contract expanding the overall pie. The bluebloods would still rake in the lion's share based on TV ratings. The future is not going to have even media distributions. 

Hypothetical: if Texas created a conference that included TSU, UTSA, Rice, UNT, OSU, OU, Arkansas, and Tulsa, and excluded TT, BU, UH and TCU, how do you think things would look in ten years?

Myself? I think the fortunes of the included would be drastically better and those of the excluded drastically worse. I really don’t think the Left Behinds really bring anything of value to the table. 

Edited by statsman
Posted
Just now, statsman said:

Hypothetical: if Texas created a conference that included TSU, UTSA, Rice, UNT, OSU, OU, Arkansas, and Tulsa, and excluded TT, BU, UH, SMU and TCU, how do you think things would look in ten years?

Myself? I think the fortunes of the included would be drastically better and those of the excluded drastically worse. I really don’t think the Left Behinds really bring anything of value to the table. 

Well yeah, they'd be better, but it's a dumb hypothetical. TT, BU, and TCU have established far supperior fanbases and national interest to TSU, UTSA, Rice, UNT, and Tulsa. SMU is showing it belongs in P4 competitively and the fanbase appears to be growing. UH has potential but I still don't think they belong, it is what it is at this point.

Look, I get it, non-bluebloods that play UT regularly get a boost in tv ratings and interest. Neither I, nor Al, nor anyone else from that tier program that post on surly has disagreed. You keep saying, over and over and fucking over again that these programs bring "nothing" to the table and that "nobody" watches and "nobody" cares. That's just fucking dumb and wrong. If your vision is a separate division solely for bluebloods, just say it, there has been plenty of discussion about that possibility. The hyperbole about how "valueless" the current Big XII teams are is what is tiresome. 

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

TT, BU, and TCU have established far supperior fanbases and national interest to TSU, UTSA, Rice, UNT, and Tulsa. SMU is showing it belongs in P4 competitively and the fanbase appears to be growing. UH has potential but I still don't think they belong, it is what it is at this point.

Look, I get it, non-bluebloods that play UT regularly get a boost in tv ratings and interest. Neither I, nor Al, nor anyone else from that tier program that post on surly has disagreed. You keep saying, over and over and fucking over again that these programs bring "nothing" to the table and that "nobody" watches and "nobody" cares. That's just fucking dumb and wrong. If your vision is a separate division solely for bluebloods, just say it, there has been plenty of discussion about that possibility. The hyperbole about how "valueless" the current Big XII teams are is what is tiresome. 

It is simple. The B12 has a nice media contract. I contend a portion of it is a payoff to let Texas and OU out a little early. 
 
ESPN and Fox got a look at what ratings the B12 could draw without those schools, last year. This year, the B12 is putting on as many games as it can on off days, and off weeks, to attract more viewers. ESPN is dumping games onTNT to salvage some value. Baylor won the B12 four years ago and half its games are on streaming. 
 
Does the B12 have value? We’ll find out how much in the next media contract. Until then, Cody Campbell will try to drive national media revenue sharing. 😂
 
If any Left Behind wants to play a non-con game in Austin, or maybe even a 2-1 split, I suggest they begin their call with CDC’s assistant with, “Thank you for carrying us for all those decades”. 

Edited by statsman
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, statsman said:

Does the B12 have value? We’ll find out how much in the next media contract. Until then, Cody Campbell will try to drive national media revenue sharing. 😂
 
If any Left Behind wants to play a non-con game in Austin, or maybe even a 2-1 split, I suggest they begin their call with CDC’s assistant with, “Thank you for carrying us for all those decades”. 

UT's home games are all sold out, correct?

We'll see how the actual gate and revenue get hit with the 3 spares we have lined up: SJSU, UTEP, and Sam. Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to a 2 for 1 with Tech or Okie St. UH, TCU, and Baylor can rightfully fuck off, though.

Posted
35 minutes ago, statsman said:

It is simple. The B12 has a nice media contract. I contend a portion of it is a payoff to let Texas and OU out a little early. 
 
ESPN and Fox got a look at what ratings the B12 could draw without those schools, last year. This year, the B12 is putting on as many games as it can on off days, and off weeks, to attract more viewers. ESPN is dumping games onTNT to salvage some value. Baylor won the B12 four years ago and half its games are on streaming. 
 
Does the B12 have value? We’ll find out how much in the next media contract. Until then, Cody Campbell will try to drive national media revenue sharing. 😂
 
If any Left Behind wants to play a non-con game in Austin, or maybe even a 2-1 split, I suggest they begin their call with CDC’s assistant with, “Thank you for carrying us for all those decades”. 

You'd also make them promise not to circle the game and not to give any extra effort, lol.

11 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

UT's home games are all sold out, correct?

We'll see how the actual gate and revenue get hit with the 3 spares we have lined up: SJSU, UTEP, and Sam. Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to a 2 for 1 with Tech or Okie St. UH, TCU, and Baylor can rightfully fuck off, though.

No P4 is going to agree to 2 for 1. It doesn't work that way. It will always be a home-and-home. If UT doesn't want that, then pay for G6 home game or go home-and-home with bluebloods only. Looking at your future non-con, that appears to be the approach, though it does show home-and-home with Arizona State for 2032 and 2033.  

Posted
7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

 

No P4 is going to agree to 2 for 1. It doesn't work that way. It will always be a home-and-home. If UT doesn't want that, then pay for G6 home game or go home-and-home with bluebloods only. Looking at your future non-con, that appears to be the approach, though it does show home-and-home with Arizona State for 2032 and 2033.  

There is no reason for Texas to ever play at TT, TCU, BU, or SMU. There are more Texas fans there than the home fans. Why would Texas even do that to its fans?

 
Rice, on the other hand, has a huge stadium. 
 
Why would one of those teams agree to play just an away game in Austin? I don’t know- ask TCU why they did that in 2007? 

Posted
Just now, statsman said:

There is no reason for Texas to ever play at TT, TCU, BU, or SMU. There are more Texas fans there than the home fans. Why would Texas even do that to its fans?

 
Rice, on the other hand, has a huge stadium. 
 
Why would one of those teams agree to play just an away game in Austin? I don’t know- ask TCU why they did that in 2007? 

Because TCU was G5 at the time? Maybe?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, statsman said:

There is no reason for Texas to ever play at TT, TCU, BU, or SMU. There are more Texas fans there than the home fans. Why would Texas even do that to its fans?

 
Rice, on the other hand, has a huge stadium. 
 
Why would one of those teams agree to play just an away game in Austin? I don’t know- ask TCU why they did that in 2007? 

Do you really think there are more UT fans than Tech fans at a game in Lubbock?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Do you really think there are more UT fans than Tech fans at a game in Lubbock?

No, unless Tech season ticket holders are unloading their seats for a premium on the secondary market.

Posted
11 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

No, unless Tech season ticket holders are unloading their seats for a premium on the secondary market.

I know YOU don't think that.  You've always seemed pretty rational.

I suspect statsman actually does believe it.

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...