Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, statsman said:

I don’t think it’s mean. The Athletic article quotes Campbell on what he wants- more media revenue sharing and more regional conferences. I don’t think he means that Tech should be in a conference with UTEP, do you?

That shouldn’t surprise anybody. Realistically, what would you expect a relatively young billionaire feeling his oats to do?

Posted
31 minutes ago, Satchel said:

That shouldn’t surprise anybody. Realistically, what would you expect a relatively young billionaire feeling his oats to do?

Two chicks at the same time.  Duh.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
Posted
On 5/15/2025 at 10:13 AM, utee94 said:

I like relegation in theory.

The biggest problem with relegation in college athletics is: Why would any of the have-not schools opt for a system that puts them further at a disadvantage?  And then, why would any of the have schools opt for a system that puts them at risk of becoming a have-not, if the ball bounces funny a few times?  Nobody's going to vote for relegation.

This is why a full breakaway is more likely than relegation/promotion.

 

They’d do it if it was forced upon them lol. If the top 40 schools leave and say “join this with the hopes you might climb the ranks, or you can stay in whatever league you’re in now”. And maybe they do it like they do the academic standards thing where it’s a running average over 3 years. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

That it’s turned political and people here are shitting on Campbell. Has nothing to do with anything other than his Trump allegiance by a bunch of envious, sniveling nerds. This website’s transformation to the personification of Brisket is complete. 

LMAO.  I don't recall you complaining when UT boards were the personification of Karl Rove for decades.  Enjoy.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

LMAO.  I don't recall you complaining when UT boards were the personification of Karl Rove for decades.  Enjoy.

The derangement never affected every other board, Karl Rove does not equate to Trump, and none of these boards have ever been right leaning, much less the personification of Rove. 

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

You keep telling yourself that.

I’m not telling myself anything. I’m telling reality deniers this. HF was somewhat neutral with an assload of Bush haters. Shag was more left leaning, though not to this level. Ultra critical of Bush, and Hayden started a November 2016 thread about what to tell his kids the day after election like a eunuch bitch. 

  • Haha 2
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m not telling myself anything. I’m telling reality deniers this. HF was somewhat neutral with an assload of Bush haters. Shag was more left leaning, though not to this level. Ultra critical of Bush, and Hayden started a November 2016 thread about what to tell his kids the day after election like a eunuch bitch. 

OK, this is not the forum, you brought up the politics, but as usual, you are fucking delusional.

Posted
15 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

That it’s turned political and people here are shitting on Campbell. Has nothing to do with anything other than his Trump allegiance by a bunch of envious, sniveling nerds. This website’s transformation to the personification of Brisket is complete. 

To be clear- I am a reactionary conservative, an old school Reagan Republican. I did not criticize Campbell because of his political affiliation. I criticized him, and characterized him as a foe, because of his sports affiliation, and only that. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, statsman said:

To be clear- I am a reactionary conservative, an old school Reagan Republican. I did not criticize Campbell because of his political affiliation. I criticized him, and characterized him as a foe, because of his sports affiliation, and only that. 

I know. Fair game. Read the other comments. It’s fucking ridiculous and embarrassing this is on the front page of the site. Pathetic losers. 

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, statsman said:

To be clear- I am a reactionary conservative, an old school Reagan Republican. I did not criticize Campbell because of his political affiliation. I criticized him, and characterized him as a foe, because of his sports affiliation, and only that. 

I vote straight ticket PFJ. A pox on all of you Romans!

image.png.a14f314a68c064734f8d9f468ae955f1.png

Edited by Magus Ossis
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

LMAO.  I don't recall you complaining when UT boards were the personification of Karl Rove for decades.  Enjoy.

The hostility toward the Tech guy is a little surprising. It’s not like he’s some bug eyed Marxist. He’s using The Federalist to make his appeals, for crissakes. What he’s doing IMO, is using his moment in the Sun to help rich people with aligned interests understand that there’s enough money to go around to keep them rolling in it in perpetuity. Jerry Jones did this and made his buddies richer beyond their wildest dreams. Where Campbell may differ from Jerry is in his desire to win. In the money game, winning is gravy to Jerry.

Again, those of us posting in this thread don’t concern them and their decision making in the least.

 

Edited by Satchel
Posted
15 minutes ago, Satchel said:

The hostility toward the Tech guy is a little surprising. It’s not like he’s some bug eyed Marxist. He’s using The Federalist to make his appeals, for crissakes. What he’s doing IMO, is using his moment in the Sun to help rich people with aligned interests understand that there’s enough money to go around to keep them rolling in it in perpetuity. Jerry Jones did this and made his buddies richer beyond their wildest dreams. Where Campbell may differ from Jerry is in his desire to win. In the money game, winning is gravy to Jerry.

Again, those of us posting in this thread don’t concern them and their decision making in the least.

 

A real discussion point. CC is in it for Tech, and as a non-Tech fan but one fond of my alma mater, that’s just fine with me. I can make fun of Tech and their propensity to be whiny bitches, and still like the guy.  The comparison to Jerry is interesting. CC is the leader of a group of wealthy Tech cigars that collectively run things with the goal of winning. Jerry wants to win too, but he will not cede or share power, and is too football stupid/stubborn to ever win big again. I think you’re correct in your contrast. 

Posted

I am actually gruntled when I see less-than-blueblood programs, particularly from Texas (like Tech and SMU) working the NIL game and getting better.  It has no effect on us save maybe the random recruiting battle we might lose.

A&M could be on fire and I wouldn't piss on 'em.  I revel in their failure.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I am actually gruntled when I see less-than-blueblood programs, particularly from Texas (like Tech and SMU) working the NIL game and getting better.  It has no effect on us save maybe the random recruiting battle we might lose.

A&M could be on fire and I wouldn't piss on 'em.  I revel in their failure.

Agreed. I would include TCU in your upper paragraph and Baylor in your lower. 

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

To be clear- I am a reactionary conservative, an old school Reagan Republican. I did not criticize Campbell because of his political affiliation. I criticized him, and characterized him as a foe, because of his sports affiliation, and only that. 

This you?

17 hours ago, statsman said:

Sounds like Campbell wants revenue sharing and more regional conference alignments (i.e., he wants Texas’ media money and for Texas to have to play Tech). Just another wealthy west Texas communist. Screw him. 

I'm sorry, you were lying? Would you like to continue?

  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Satchel said:

The hostility toward the Tech guy is a little surprising. It’s not like he’s some bug eyed Marxist. He’s using The Federalist to make his appeals, for crissakes. What he’s doing IMO, is using his moment in the Sun to help rich people with aligned interests understand that there’s enough money to go around to keep them rolling in it in perpetuity. Jerry Jones did this and made his buddies richer beyond their wildest dreams. Where Campbell may differ from Jerry is in his desire to win. In the money game, winning is gravy to Jerry.

Again, those of us posting in this thread don’t concern them and their decision making in the least.

 

Thats (revenue sharing, regional alignment) all great for making money for all. Thats all great if your goal is making money. 
 
What if your goal is to win? To win big? And you don’t care about other programs’ welfare and prosperity? Because, that’s where the Longhorns are. 
 
Campbell’s goals are not aligned with UT’s. Neither are Saban’s. Screw them. 

Posted
24 minutes ago, statsman said:

Campbell’s goals are not aligned with UT’s. Neither are Saban’s. Screw them. 

This is a totally rational position to take, as a fan of any school, in my opinion. Of course his goals aren't aligned with UT's. He's not a UT alum or UT booster. He's trying to boost the profile of the school he played for and pours money into.

I've had numerous disagreements with the guy. He's not perfect and he'll be the first to tell you so. He's actually quite active in Tech online circles, readily engages with Tech fans and tries to be as transparent as possible, and I respect him for that. 

That said, when he was a fledgling billionaire, he was trying to throw his weight around in the exact wrong way, and tried to push first Dana Holgersen, and then Art fucking Briles on the Tech AD. When he didn't get his way, he actually started trying to get Kirby Hocutt fired. He was apparently so obnoxious that his access to the department was effectively cut off, and it went beyond that, but I don't feel like getting into the rest right now. Luckily all that shit happened mostly out of the public eye. Suffice to say, he seemingly stopped being selfish, cleaned up his act, repaired his relationship with the AD, and is now a regent and has been making pretty good moves for Tech ever since.

Will it pay off? Who knows. The money and support is certainly there, and it seems to be getting there, but all that will matter are the results in the end. If they spend all this money and can't get in the CFP, oh boy.

Posted
3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I am actually gruntled when I see less-than-blueblood programs, particularly from Texas (like Tech and SMU) working the NIL game and getting better.  It has no effect on us save maybe the random recruiting battle we might lose.

A&M could be on fire and I wouldn't piss on 'em.  I revel in their failure.

If A&M is on fire, the proper etiquette is to wait until they've collapsed into a smoldering corpse and then piss on them.

After all, it will be your last chance.

Posted
6 hours ago, statsman said:

Thats (revenue sharing, regional alignment) all great for making money for all. Thats all great if your goal is making money. 
 
What if your goal is to win? To win big? And you don’t care about other programs’ welfare and prosperity? Because, that’s where the Longhorns are. 
 
Campbell’s goals are not aligned with UT’s. Neither are Saban’s. Screw them. 

Campbell is doing what any similarly situated Texas Ex would do. That much should not be surprising. And fwiw, Texas would not have the richest and most prosperous athletic department in history if its goal was just to win, especially given how cyclical winning has  been over the last 50 years. 

Posted
On 5/14/2025 at 3:56 PM, Satchel said:

All he has to do is give Trump a big bag in appreciation for allowing him to serve on his commission, tell him how smart he is and how good his hair and make up look, and pressure will be placed on ESPN to include Tech. Easy peasy.

Reminds me of how Baylor was allowed into the Big 12.  Different political players, different bagmen.

Posted
On 5/11/2025 at 12:33 PM, Hayduke said:

Virtually impossible to comment on this thread without going CR, but I will say that Saban is an enigma to me. On the minus side, there's primarily his association with Bama and what appears to be some hypocrisy on his part regarding NIL, but it's a pretty damn complex problem and therefore difficult to judge.

Also a minus is that it's exceedingly difficult to trust any power structure, and he just aligned with the structure when he's supposed to be "retired," whatever that means -- and I'm not going to trust anyone in that kind of role who's also paid to be a talking head.

On the plus side, he appears to have some ability to poke fun at himself, and for a guy with such a deadpan personality he milks it for everything it's worth. So I gotta respect that, too.

Nah, just got a bunch of people who can't control themselves.  But then it IS Surly.

You could just comment on Saban or how the commission can't make any laws.

Posted
On 5/13/2025 at 4:57 PM, 'stache said:

I can see even big schools wanting a limit of sorts. Every dollar a donor gives for payroll is money that isn't going elsewhere like facilities and yes academics. That's the strangest part of this new world to me, donors making huge donations for one year mercenary contracts. I gotta say as much as I love my alma mater I'm not sure I'd be up for giving millions every year just for one year of a player's salaries. At least the coach is a single person with a long term contract. 

That's really the issue as far as the schools are concerned.

That plus you have essentially legal bagmen.  Certain schools will be able to compete on that.

Posted
On 5/15/2025 at 11:13 AM, utee94 said:

I like relegation in theory.

The biggest problem with relegation in college athletics is: Why would any of the have-not schools opt for a system that puts them further at a disadvantage?  And then, why would any of the have schools opt for a system that puts them at risk of becoming a have-not, if the ball bounces funny a few times?  Nobody's going to vote for relegation.

This is why a full breakaway is more likely than relegation/promotion.

 

I think copying soccer on anything is stupid.

No relegation.  No giving extra guaranteed bids in the playoffs to the SEC and Big Ten.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 5/16/2025 at 4:22 PM, jimmyjazz said:

I am actually gruntled when I see less-than-blueblood programs, particularly from Texas (like Tech and SMU) working the NIL game and getting better.  It has no effect on us save maybe the random recruiting battle we might lose.

A&M could be on fire and I wouldn't piss on 'em.  I revel in their failure.

I don't know why anyone would be happy for SMU.

Posted
8 hours ago, bullet said:

That's really the issue as far as the schools are concerned.

That plus you have essentially legal bagmen.  Certain schools will be able to compete on that.

Rather have legal bagman then the old system where cheaters were rewarded

Posted
On 5/17/2025 at 1:02 AM, BurntOrange&White said:

Who actually gives a fuck about tech or Cody Campbell? Both of them can go fuck themselves. I hope tech continues to be a shit program for eternity. 

All of this. It’s a shit hole afterthought. 

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...