Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
7 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

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

I suspect statsman actually does believe it.

No, I don't believe there'd be more UT fans at a Tech game in Lubbock.

At Houston, Dallas, and maybe Ft. Worth? Sure

Posted
15 hours 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.

 

14 hours ago, statsman said:

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. 

If the world were mine every program would play a sleight of say 7 games against their cousins, defined by their most common opponents.  It would never happen, because UT's cousins are OU and the old SWC. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

 

If the world were mine every program would play a sleight of say 7 games against their cousins, defined by their most common opponents.  It would never happen, because UT's cousins are OU and the old SWC. 

One thing I like about the status quo is we have 3 of our cousins on the conference slate (KSU, KU, Ok St) and 1 (Iowa) every year in non conference.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

I wish the Cy-Hawk game wasn’t at 11:00, the same as the Horns.  I thoroughly enjoy watching that game annually and will DVR it and catch up during commercial TOs.  Really like ISU and their chances this year to win the B12.  Just saying as a CFB fan.

Hook’em!!!

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

 

If the world were mine every program would play a sleight of say 7 games against their cousins, defined by their most common opponents.  It would never happen, because UT's cousins are OU and the old SWC. 

Baylor, Rice, SMU and TCU have long series with Texas because there was a railroad between those cities. The series all got established before cars and buses, let alone airplanes. 
 
I see ND had a long series with Indiana in the late 19th and early 20th century, presumably for the same reasons. I don’t know why they stopped playing much for the last six decades. Are you ok with ND being given a slate that has them playing g Indiana every year? Because of the history?

Posted

As a fan of the sport with no rooting interest in either side, Texas playing SMU would be way more interesting to me than Texas playing Ole Miss.

In-state/regional games are what make the day to day grind go round, IMO.  This idea that every game has to be a clash of blue bloods is only going to lead to those games being kinda meaningless.  It's fun and exciting now, but that's largely because it's rare.  It was such a big fucking deal that Texas and Ohio State played last week because Texas and Ohio State rarely play.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

As a fan of the sport with no rooting interest in either side, Texas playing SMU would be way more interesting to me than Texas playing Ole Miss.

 

Why? Are you as interested in watching TCU-SMU, an even more regional rivalry? Would you rather watch that, than, say, USC-PSU? I’m curious as to why…

Texas plays SHSU, out of Huntsville, closer than Dallas. Does that regional game interest you? Why or why not?

Edited by statsman
Posted
17 minutes ago, statsman said:

Why? Are you as interested in watching TCU-SMU, an even more regional rivalry? Would you rather watch that, than, say, USC-PSU? I’m curious as to why…

Texas plays SHSU, out of Huntsville, closer than Dallas. Does that regional game interest you? Why or why not?

I love the Iron Skillet game - it's bullshit that they aren't playing going forward.  And I would rather watch that game than USC/PSU because those schools hate each other and that makes for a more interesting match up to me than about anything else in the sport.  It's a cross-town rivalary.

Texas vs an in-state G5 is absolutely more interesting than Texas vs an out-of-state G5.  Of course, the odds of SHSU being competitive are extremely low.

The odds of TCU/SMU/Baylor being competitive with Texas are much, much higher.  We've seen it many times.

USC/PSU is a fun one off.  I would find PSU/Pitt and USC/Cal to be more interesting games in general though.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
12 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I love the Iron Skillet game - it's bullshit that they aren't playing going forward.  And I would rather watch that game than USC/PSU because those schools hate each other and that makes for a more interesting match up to me than about anything else in the sport.  It's a cross-town rivalary.

Texas vs an in-state G5 is absolutely more interesting than Texas vs an out-of-state G5.  Of course, the odds of SHSU being competitive are extremely low.

The odds of TCU/SMU/Baylor being competitive with Texas are much, much higher.  We've seen it many times.

USC/PSU is a fun one off.  I would find PSU/Pitt and USC/Cal to be more interesting games in general though.

Same. I'll take regional rivalries any day. If I want national games, they're indeed fun a few times a year but mostly that's what the NFL is for. I'll watch the Backyard Brawl, Bedlam, Farmageddon, the Iron Skillet, the Egg Bowl, etc. any day I can. That's why I hope the Big XII goes to making all the Texas teams play each other every year, plus protecting Farmageddon and a few others. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Posted
5 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

 

In-state/regional games are what make the day to day grind go round, IMO. 

Yeah, I skipped Baylor/Auburn in person to watch on tv last week but will be in Dallas tomorrow to watch them play SMU. It's just more fun for me to be playing peer institutions.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Yeah, I skipped Baylor/Auburn in person to watch on tv last week but will be in Dallas tomorrow to watch them play SMU. It's just more fun for me to be playing peer institutions.

I'm not sure it will ever work out, but I'd be happy to see SMU in the Big XII someday. Heck, would have liked having them over UH. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, LTbear said:

I'm not sure it will ever work out, but I'd be happy to see SMU in the Big XII someday. Heck, would have liked having them over UH. 

When the ACC brand schools leave for the Big 10 and SEC, I'd imagine the mid tier ACC schools like SMU, Louisville, Pitt, NC State, Cuse, etc will join up with the Big 12 in a 3rd conference.

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, LTbear said:

I'm not sure it will ever work out, but I'd be happy to see SMU in the Big XII someday. Heck, would have liked having them over UH. 

Same, and I was/am all for UH in the B12.

If it were up to me I'd have TCU, SMU, Tech, UH, Rice, and oSu on the schedule every year.

 

The future schedule for the "mid-tier" Texas teams is really sad. Baylor, UH, Tech, and TCU all have SMU & Rice on their schedules 0 times after next year. 

Edited by SimonBolivar
Posted
6 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

As a fan of the sport with no rooting interest in either side, Texas playing SMU would be way more interesting to me than Texas playing Ole Miss.

In-state/regional games are what make the day to day grind go round, IMO.  This idea that every game has to be a clash of blue bloods is only going to lead to those games being kinda meaningless.  It's fun and exciting now, but that's largely because it's rare.  It was such a big fucking deal that Texas and Ohio State played last week because Texas and Ohio State rarely play.

As a fan of the sport with no rooting interest in either side, Iowa State playing Drake and Northern Iowa is way more interesting to me than Iowa State playing Wyoming.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

As a fan of the sport with no rooting interest in either side, Iowa State playing Drake and Northern Iowa is way more interesting to me than Iowa State playing Wyoming.

I realize you're being facetious, but I'd rather play those games than Wyoming.  I absolutely hate that we quit playing them in hoops (total bitch move on our part, but the committee kinda forced it on us).

That said, a home and home in Laramie would be fun as hell I suspect.

Edited by Al_4_ISU
Posted
47 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

When the ACC brand schools leave for the Big 10 and SEC, I'd imagine the mid tier ACC schools like SMU, Louisville, Pitt, NC State, Cuse, etc will join up with the Big 12 in a 3rd conference.

That would be great for sure. I just wonder if the B1G would ever try to snag a foothold in Texas. If they did, I'd kinda think SMU might have the best chance? Not a good chance, mind you, just a touch better than the rest. 

33 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I realize you're being facetious, but I'd rather play those games than Wyoming.  I absolutely hate that we quit playing them in hoops (total bitch move on our part, but the committee kinda forced it on us).

That said, a home and home in Laramie would be fun as hell I suspect.

Laramie is a fun game day 

Posted
48 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Same, and I was/am all for UH in the B12.

If it were up to me I'd have TCU, SMU, Tech, UH, Rice, and oSu on the schedule every year.

 

The future schedule for the "mid-tier" Texas teams is really sad. Baylor, UH, Tech, and TCU all have SMU & Rice on their schedules 0 times after next year. 

TCU vs SMU ending should be a crime. I have no particular feelings on Rice just because we haven't played them during my football-watching lifetime. I'd love to play OSU every year but I don't know if they'd rather be more attached to the old Big 8 schools.

Posted
On 8/29/2025 at 11:49 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

I’ve been saying for a while one Super Best Friends Conference with 12 separate pods.

Winners of each pod go to the playoffs. One TV contract for the 84 members.

Posted
1 minute ago, LTbear said:

TCU vs SMU ending should be a crime. I have no particular feelings on Rice just because we haven't played them during my football-watching lifetime. I'd love to play OSU every year but I don't know if they'd rather be more attached to the old Big 8 schools.

OSU fans would prefer to stick with the old Big 12 South schools. We recruit heavily out of Texas and we split from the old Big 8 nearly 30 years ago and as long as we play them on a rotation it doesn't need to be annual. A scheduling quadrant of OSU, TCU, Tech, and Baylor is perfect.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

 

If the world were mine every program would play a sleight of say 7 games against their cousins, defined by their most common opponents.  It would never happen, because UT's cousins are OU and the old SWC. 

*slate

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
49 minutes ago, 'stache said:

OSU fans would prefer to stick with the old Big 12 South schools. We recruit heavily out of Texas and we split from the old Big 8 nearly 30 years ago and as long as we play them on a rotation it doesn't need to be annual. A scheduling quadrant of OSU, TCU, Tech, and Baylor is perfect.

It seems like there are a ton of oSu grads in DFW too which I'm sure is an extra reason to come south.

Posted
9 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

As a fan of the sport with no rooting interest in either side, Texas playing SMU would be way more interesting to me than Texas playing Ole Miss.

Agreed

IDK when beating Ole Miss became a big deal. Joey Freshwater has a bird's nest on the ground there. He can keep his job going 8-4 or 9-3 every year playing a dogshit OOC sked.

Posted
11 hours ago, statsman said:

I see ND had a long series with Indiana in the late 19th and early 20th century, presumably for the same reasons. I don’t know why they stopped playing much for the last six decades. Are you ok with ND being given a slate that has them playing g Indiana every year? Because of the history?

Probably bc Indiana and Purdue got tired of getting beaten by ND's hired, Chicago thugs. 

Posted
3 hours ago, LTbear said:

I have no particular feelings on Rice just because we haven't played them during my football-watching lifetime.

You aren't missing anything.

Rice is a goofy, nerdy, wannabe Ivy League school that doesn't take football seriously enough to stay in FBS. The first CFB game I ever saw in person was Rice vs Bayor at their cavernous stadium in 1980. Walter Abercrombie took the opening toss sweep 80 yards for a TD on the first play of the game, and it didn't get any better from there.

TXST > Rice

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 8/29/2025 at 10:26 AM, 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. 

Presidents are sometimes clueless.  They love those schools academically, but will they pay the bills?  I think they are both just filler after FSU, Clemson and Miami.

Posted
On 8/29/2025 at 11:29 AM, TxEx84 said:

The only reason the SEC wants UNC and UVa is to complete the Confederacy. 

Well they have 11 of the 13 stars (KY and MO had rump secesh legislatures).

Posted
On 9/4/2025 at 1:50 PM, 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”. 

Actually, the TNT games are the ones that would have gone on ESPN+.  They aren't "dumped."  They are upgraded.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, bullet said:

Presidents are sometimes clueless.  They love those schools academically, but will they pay the bills?  I think they are both just filler after FSU, Clemson and Miami.

They love them for academics, and their basketball/baseball, and general well rounded athletic departments.

They also love that both states combined have 20mil people that they can tap into. The theory (rightly or wrongly) is that these states will watch more SEC or B1G sports if their flagship programs were included.

These programs check nearly every box you would look for other than FOOTBALL.

UNC, UVA, FSU, and Clemson would be an absolute slam dunk expansion for the SEC.

Personally I’d prefer to keep them in the ACC (and for the SEC to remain at 16 for a long time) but also recognize that this ~2030 expansion is more about future positioning of the conference against the B1G, NCAA, and outside influencers…more so than any immediate/direct monetary/competitive benefits for the SEC.

Posted
21 hours ago, statsman said:

Baylor, Rice, SMU and TCU have long series with Texas because there was a railroad between those cities. The series all got established before cars and buses, let alone airplanes. 
 
I see ND had a long series with Indiana in the late 19th and early 20th century, presumably for the same reasons. I don’t know why they stopped playing much for the last six decades. Are you ok with ND being given a slate that has them playing g Indiana every year? Because of the history?

IU is not even in our top 10 list of most often played opponents.  The story on campus was that we would schedule them in football as soon as they reciprocated in basketball (probably no longer true).  There was also a pseudo-boycott of Bug10 schools way back.  So no to IU, yes to Purdue. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

The question is will the networks pay for them and there's no way they will pay for Virginia's bad football program that has had 2 seasons over .500 in the last 13 years. I'm sure the Big Ten presidents loved Cal and Stanford but the networks wouldn't pay so it didn't happen.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

You aren't missing anything.

Rice is a goofy, nerdy, wannabe Ivy League school that doesn't take football seriously enough to stay in FBS. The first CFB game I ever saw in person was Rice vs Bayor at their cavernous stadium in 1980. Walter Abercrombie took the opening toss sweep 80 yards for a TD on the first play of the game, and it didn't get any better from there.

TXST > Rice

You shut your dirty whore mouth!

Rice's cavernous, uncomfortable stadium is greatness, the site of Super Bowl 8 when Miami defeated the Viqueens.

The MOB ... who infuriated aggy so much, in 1973, they had to be transported out of the stadium in food service trucks to avoid aggy angst.

And of course, Valhalla... a true dive bar in the basement of the Chemistry building on campus.

A lot to do in Houston.

So, save us the comparison to the Texas State Teacher's School.

  • Haha 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Lidig8r said:

You shut your dirty whore mouth!

Rice's cavernous, uncomfortable stadium is greatness, the site of Super Bowl 8 when Miami defeated the Viqueens.

The MOB ... who infuriated aggy so much, in 1973, they had to be transported out of the stadium in food service trucks to avoid aggy angst.

And of course, Valhalla... a true dive bar in the basement of the Chemistry building on campus.

A lot to do in Houston.

So, save us the comparison to the Texas State Teacher's School.

Hey, I'm from Houston so I know a little bit about Rice and its culture. Sorry to have never enjoyed a drink at Valhalla, so I'll take your word on its charms. To your point, The MOB is probably the coolest thing about that place.

Posted
1 hour ago, DFW Horn said:

Hey, I'm from Houston so I know a little bit about Rice and its culture. Sorry to have never enjoyed a drink at Valhalla, so I'll take your word on its charms. To your point, The MOB is probably the coolest thing about that place.

Yeah... hard to disagree with you there.

Imagine a dive bar, filled with Nerds who are in the top 1% of SAT scores, the smell of spilled beer and urine in the air, while the few female coeds who brave the place look like Christians in the Roman Colosseum right before the lions made their entrance.

If ever there was a place for Houston Surlytians ... this is it!

https://www.yelp.com/biz/valhalla-houston

Posted
11 hours ago, bullet said:

Actually, the TNT games are the ones that would have gone on ESPN+.  They aren't "dumped."  They are upgraded.

ESPN didn’t buy them to sublet them. They’re making the best of a bad contract 

Posted

One gigantic area I'm on board with Tech's Cody Campbell on, is a singular "pooled" TV contract. I personally believe the time for conferences is over. There's really not much benefit to them anymore especially when you can pool value from multiple sports together with gigantic brands. There's more money to be had and much better opportunity for scheduling. I personally would love for the "premier league" (no relegation bullshit) but a "right size" of the top of college football to be split north and south consisting of roughly 64ish teams total. Work out some permanent/semi-permanent rivals and have a rotation of brands playing somewhat regularly. 

 

Would look at lot like this: 

Texas - A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tech

Semi permanent: Baylor, TCU, Rice, SMU

Rotation based on a H&H basis (at least once per decade): Michigan, USC, Notre Dame, Alabama, LSU, Nebraska, Penn St, Miami, Florida

Fill in games with teams on the level of: Boston College, Cal, Arizona St, Purdue, etc.

 

These next few weeks over college football show the lack of vision in the sport. There are hardly any good games. A really poor showcase for TV audience. Games against G5 not as big of a problem, but these FCS games are a complete waste of everyone's time except the FCS school playing the part of a prostitute taking an ass pounding for a big payday. 

Posted
On 9/4/2025 at 1:40 PM, 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? 

Gary wanted that game in 2007 to provide exposure for his program.  

Granted, that game didn't go the way he hoped, but it did provide a benchmark for the young players on that roster who became the core of the team that beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl and finished in the top 5 that season.

Also remembered that Gay was willing to play whichever power program would play him be it Texas, LSU, Ohio State, and OU who the Frogs beat at Norman in 2005.  

Posted
21 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I love the Iron Skillet game - it's bullshit that they aren't playing going forward.  And I would rather watch that game than USC/PSU because those schools hate each other and that makes for a more interesting match up to me than about anything else in the sport.  It's a cross-town rivalary.

Texas vs an in-state G5 is absolutely more interesting than Texas vs an out-of-state G5.  Of course, the odds of SHSU being competitive are extremely low.

The odds of TCU/SMU/Baylor being competitive with Texas are much, much higher.  We've seen it many times.

USC/PSU is a fun one off.  I would find PSU/Pitt and USC/Cal to be more interesting games in general though.

The TCU - SMU game has some history and not just a place in Texas football history.  Grantland Rice traveled by train from NYC to Ft Worth to personally cover the "Game of the Century" in 1935, BUT the name iron skillet game rings very hollow for me.

At no time during my time at TCU did I ever hear the game called the iron skillet game, fuck, I never heard the story until the skillet somehow was found in closest in one of the school's athletic department.  Personally, I think Del Conte sent an intern to Academy to buy one and would bet the trophy has Lodge stamped on it somewhere.  

The lack of a trophy or a name doesn't diminish the game to me and actually feels forced and rings very manufactured to me.  Don't get me started on that fucking bullshit Ubben tried to create for the TCU - Baylor game .  

Posted
9 hours ago, Lidig8r said:

You shut your dirty whore mouth!

Rice's cavernous, uncomfortable stadium is greatness, the site of Super Bowl 8 when Miami defeated the Viqueens.

The MOB ... who infuriated aggy so much, in 1973, they had to be transported out of the stadium in food service trucks to avoid aggy angst.

And of course, Valhalla... a true dive bar in the basement of the Chemistry building on campus.

A lot to do in Houston.

So, save us the comparison to the Texas State Teacher's School.

Chemistry building?  Does that mean they drink the 95% ethyl alcohol out of the blue jugs?

Posted
5 hours ago, RoyalBevo21 said:

One gigantic area I'm on board with Tech's Cody Campbell on, is a singular "pooled" TV contract. I personally believe the time for conferences is over. There's really not much benefit to them anymore especially when you can pool value from multiple sports together with gigantic brands. There's more money to be had and much better opportunity for scheduling. I personally would love for the "premier league" (no relegation bullshit) but a "right size" of the top of college football to be split north and south consisting of roughly 64ish teams total. Work out some permanent/semi-permanent rivals and have a rotation of brands playing somewhat regularly. 

 

Would look at lot like this: 

Texas - A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tech

Semi permanent: Baylor, TCU, Rice, SMU

Rotation based on a H&H basis (at least once per decade): Michigan, USC, Notre Dame, Alabama, LSU, Nebraska, Penn St, Miami, Florida

Fill in games with teams on the level of: Boston College, Cal, Arizona St, Purdue, etc.

 

These next few weeks over college football show the lack of vision in the sport. There are hardly any good games. A really poor showcase for TV audience. Games against G5 not as big of a problem, but these FCS games are a complete waste of everyone's time except the FCS school playing the part of a prostitute taking an ass pounding for a big payday. 

I know it’ll never happen but I think there should be promotion and relegation. All it takes now is a rich guy to make a team great. Loss of a benefactor can also cause a team to go to shit. SMU is the perfect example of moving up. OU and I suspect Alabama will be examples of bluebloods fading.

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...