Should The University of Texas ... ???

[JJWalker]

Should The University of Texas kick Texas A&M out of UT's conference?

[JJWalker]

I say, "Yes" because it makes this discussion much more fun ... and if I were UT ... I'd consider it. It would set a good precedence for other teams to strongly consider what they would be giving up in their current conference, before they make themselves look like a joke.

And it would give A&M a chance to be independent like Notre Dame, so the Aggies could negotiate their own TV deal.

[RoyceTTU]

Either it's my browser or the poll is a whole bunch of fail. You can't read options.

[JJWalker]

Either it's my browser or the poll is a whole bunch of fail. You can't read options.

Yep ... it failed ... it was a nice try though. :(

[bobcat1]

It worked for me. I voted no

[OldNavy]

It worked for me. I voted no

I guess it worked for me. I voted, but I can't tell whether I voted yes or no because it is not labled on my screen.

[Emerson1]

Top is yes bottom is now. It's white text on a little less white background. iPhone 4 screen ftw.

[LionFan72]

Gotta have a place for the JV'ers to play some ball, besides Notre Dame.:cheerl:

[Macarthur]

Should The University of Texas kick Texas A&M out of UT's conference?

the fact that this sentence should even be uttered points directly to the reason why this issue exists. Texas should not have the power and financial winfall they enjoy in this conference. Equal distribution of revenues is the only way to have a healthy long-term viable conference.

[Old Tiger]

the fact that this sentence should even be uttered points directly to the reason why this issue exists. Texas should not have the power and financial winfall they enjoy in this conference. Equal distribution of revenues is the only way to have a healthy long-term viable conference.A&M, Texas, and OU each get 23 million dollars in equal revenue while the other 7 teams in the big 12 is only getting around 17-18 million. A&M agreed to that....Texas has been #1 and #2 in the country the past 5-7 years in revenue generated thus they have the marketability to earn the LHN contract which they have gotten. So should they really be complaining about unequal revenue sharing?

[Macarthur]

A&M, Texas, and OU each get 23 million dollars in equal revenue while the other 7 teams in the big 12 is only getting around 17-18 million. A&M agreed to that....Texas has been #1 and #2 in the country the past 5-7 years in revenue generated thus they have the marketability to earn the LHN contract which they have gotten. So should they really be complaining about unequal revenue sharing?

The fact that Texas has the right to do this, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. There's a reason why the Pac 10, Big 10 and SEC are much more healthy than the Big 12. They share the revenue equally and no team can have their own network. They have conference networks.

And yes, the schools did sign off on this, but OU and A&M are now saying that this LHN has grown into much more than what all the Big 12 schools originally agreed to.

A&M has a chance to join the best conference in the nation and earn more money. Why would anyone blame them for doing it?

[Macarthur]

I just don't get those that support UT's right to get all they can, and then in the same breath bash the Aggies for trying to maximize their opportunities.

[Old Tiger]

The fact that Texas has the right to do this, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. There's a reason why the Pac 10, Big 10 and SEC are much more healthy than the Big 12. They share the revenue equally and no team can have their own network. They have conference networks.

And yes, the schools did sign off on this, but OU and A&M are now saying that this LHN has grown into much more than what all the Big 12 schools originally agreed to.

A&M has a chance to join the best conference in the nation and earn more money. Why would anyone blame them for doing it?Texas proposed a conference network and it was voted down 11-1.

Texas then wanted to create a Lone Star Network with A&M that would of shared revenue equally, A&M said no.

Now A&M wants to make Texas out to be the bad person bully but aggy has backed themself into a corner and are scratching and clawing to get out. This has turned out to be a PR nightmare...all the ESPN pundits are basically saying its a bad move for A&M to want to go to the ESPN and SEC fans would rather have OU and Texas to the SEC than A&M.


Just because you join the SEC doesn't mean you will have same success. Last time A&M defeated an SEC team was 1995.


In the Big 12 A&M would receieve 23 million per year in tv revenue through conference tv deal. In SEC they would only make around 17-18 million per year from tv contract revenue sharing.


I haven't heard many OU people including higher ups complaining about the LHN as much as A&M has.

[RoyceTTU]

The fact that Texas has the right to do this, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. There's a reason why the Pac 10, Big 10 and SEC are much more healthy than the Big 12. They share the revenue equally and no team can have their own network. They have conference networks.

And yes, the schools did sign off on this, but OU and A&M are now saying that this LHN has grown into much more than what all the Big 12 schools originally agreed to.

A&M has a chance to join the best conference in the nation and earn more money. Why would anyone blame them for doing it?


FYI - The Pac has a provision, that if they don't make XXX dollars in revenue per year, USC and Cal get an extra bonus. I believe if they don't make 170 mil then those two schools are guaranteed an extra 2 mil because they market share is bigger.

But I agree with the rest of your statement :2thumbsup

[RoyceTTU]

Texas proposed a conference network and it was voted down 11-1.

Texas then wanted to create a Lone Star Network with A&M that would of shared revenue equally, A&M said no.

Now A&M wants to make Texas out to be the bad person bully but aggy has backed themself into a corner and are scratching and clawing to get out. This has turned out to be a PR nightmare...all the ESPN pundits are basically saying its a bad move for A&M to want to go to the ESPN and SEC fans would rather have OU and Texas to the SEC than A&M.


Just because you join the SEC doesn't mean you will have same success. Last time A&M defeated an SEC team was 1995.


In the Big 12 A&M would receieve 23 million per year in tv revenue through conference tv deal. In SEC they would only make around 17-18 million per year from tv contract revenue sharing.


I haven't heard many OU people including higher ups complaining about the LHN as much as A&M has.


Wasn't that lone vote Nebraska?

[Old Tiger]

Wasn't that lone vote Nebraska?I'm not sure on the details of who voted what.



Does anyone know the financial situation of A&M at this point? I know a few years ago there were something like 16 million dollars in a loan to repay all the short falls of the athletcs program.


How does A&M expect to pay they're buyout fee with the lack of money in the athletic department? Not to mention that they will upset lawmakers if they go against there wishes which could limit funds to the university.

[RoyceTTU]

I'm not sure on the details of who voted what.

I obviously can't get ahold of the official transcrips but I googled it and it was reported that NU was the lone vote.




Does anyone know the financial situation of A&M at this point? I know a few years ago there were something like 16 million dollars in a loan to repay all the short falls of the athletcs program.


How does A&M expect to pay they're buyout fee with the lack of money in the athletic department? Not to mention that they will upset lawmakers if they go against there wishes which could limit funds to the university.

This is a very good question. After CU and NU left, they renegotiated the buyout so that it was more strict. I believe it is 25 million dollars now.

[Macarthur]

Texas proposed a conference network and it was voted down 11-1.

Yes, because UT wanted to control all of it.


Texas then wanted to create a Lone Star Network with A&M that would of shared revenue equally, A&M said no.

Same as above. You need to get some information other than ESPN. ESPN has invested $300 million in the LHN so ESPN is anything but objective in their reporting of this situation.



Now A&M wants to make Texas out to be the bad person bully but aggy has backed themself into a corner and are scratching and clawing to get out. This has turned out to be a PR nightmare...all the ESPN pundits are basically saying its a bad move for A&M to want to go to the ESPN and SEC fans would rather have OU and Texas to the SEC than A&M.

Gee, I wonder why ESPN would be thinking this is a bad move for A&M? Some critical thinking would do us all some good here.

Look, UT started all this last year with the Pac 10 thing. A&M didn't want to go to the Pac 10 due to them feeling that it wasn't a cultural fit. UT couldn't believe A&M wouldn't just go along with them.




Just because you join the SEC doesn't mean you will have same success. Last time A&M defeated an SEC team was 1995.

Completely irrelevant point. Sports are cyclical. It probably will take time for A&M to adjust, but they will get better.



In the Big 12 A&M would receieve 23 million per year in tv revenue through conference tv deal. In SEC they would only make around 17-18 million per year from tv contract revenue sharing.

Again, not sure where you're getting your info, but I've heard reports on the Ticket that A&M's share in the SEC would be in the neighborhood of $35 million.




I haven't heard many OU people including higher ups complaining about the LHN as much as A&M has.

Well, they are not directly involved like A&M is, but they are upset with UT, also. They have gone on the record much less, but if you read enough stuff out there, OU is not happy about this.

[Old Tiger]

Completely irrelevant point. Sports are cyclical. It probably will take time for A&M to adjust, but they will get better.

A&M had 1 decade of above average football and that was in the 90s and involved Jackie Sherrell


OU is upset but they aren't going to run off with their tail between there legs. OU knows who they are as a national football power and I don't think they care as much because they are in the works for starting their own network.


Right now SEC teams are making 17-18 million per team on TV revenue. I don't think the addition of A&M would nearly double that.

Success is judged by wins or losses on the field. Right now A&M is a middle of the pack Big 12 team. If they made the move to the SEC West they would be in the bottom two of that divison. If you start losing more often recruits are less likely to go to your school, fact.

[BEAST]

A&M had 1 decade of above average football and that was in the 90s and involved Jackie Sherrell


OU is upset but they aren't going to run off with their tail between there legs. OU knows who they are as a national football power and I don't think they care as much because they are in the works for starting their own network.


Right now SEC teams are making 17-18 million per team on TV revenue. I don't think the addition of A&M would nearly double that.

Success is judged by wins or losses on the field. Right now A&M is a middle of the pack Big 12 team. If they made the move to the SEC West they would be in the bottom two of that divison. If you start losing more often recruits are less likely to go to your school, fact.

Middle of the pack? They were Co-Champions of the South. They beat the team that represented the South head up.




BEAST

[Macarthur]

A&M had 1 decade of above average football and that was in the 90s and involved Jackie Sherrell.

Two things:

1. Irrelevant point - that makes no difference what so ever.

2. You are factually wrong - A&M is top 25 all time in wins and 19 conf titles
#24 in all time winning %
Since 1990 #21 in winning % (that's with the struggles in the Fran years)
That record is better than: Arkansas, Wisc., Oregon, Ole Miss, S Carolina & Miss St.

[Old Tiger]

Two things:

1. Irrelevant point - that makes no difference what so ever.

2. You are factually wrong - A&M is top 25 all time in wins and 19 conf titles
#24 in all time winning %
Since 1990 #21 in winning % (that's with the struggles in the Fran years)
That record is better than: Arkansas, Wisc., Oregon, Ole Miss, S Carolina & Miss St.How is it an irrelevent point...you said it was cyclical when it has never been cyclical with Texas and Texas A&M.

History doesn't start at a certain year or a certain decade. It starts from the beginning of your schools collegiate debut.

All-Time Information

Texas A&M
674–443–48 (.599) wnning percentage
13–18–0 (.419) - Bowl record
Claimed national titles: 1(1939)
Conference titles: 18


Texas
850–325–33 (.717)
25–22–2 (.541) bowl record
Claimed National Titles: 4(1963, 1969, 1970, 2005)
Conference Titles: 32

[RoyceTTU]

Middle of the pack? They were Co-Champions of the South. They beat the team that represented the South head up.




BEAST

OT is correct.

http://www.holyturf.com/2011/06/big-12-conference-records-for-the-last-decade/

1. Oklahoma (http://www.holyturf.com/2011/06/oklahoma-sooners-10-year-review/) 65-15
The Sooners have dominated the Big 12 winning six titles in the last 10 years.
2. Texas (http://www.holyturf.com/2011/06/texas-longhorns-10-year-review/) 63-17
The Longhorns are a great number two, but the gap in conference titles between Oklahoma (six) and Texas (2) is wider than the Red River.
3. Texas Tech (http://www.holyturf.com/2011/06/texas-tech-red-raiders-10-year-review/) 47-33
The Red Raiders are solid if not spectacular and finished third in the Big 12.
4. Oklahoma State (http://www.holyturf.com/2011/05/oklahoma-state-cowboys-10-year-review/) 41-39
The Cowboys are clearly hotter now than at the start of the decade. I expect their next decade to be much better than one game over .500!
5. Missouri (http://www.holyturf.com/2011/05/missouri-tigers-10-year-review/) 40-40
The Tigers played for and lost two Big 12 title games to Oklahoma in 2007 and 2008.
6. Texas A&M (http://www.holyturf.com/2011/05/texas-am-aggies-10-year-review/) 37-43
The Aggies still have a great following and power, but have not played for a Big 12 title in the last decade.
7. Kansas State (http://www.holyturf.com/2011/05/kansas-state-wildcats-10-year-review/) 36-44
Good work by Bill Snyder at the beginning and the end of the decade helped make up for the Ron Prince era.
T8. Kansas 25-55
The Jayhawks had a bright spot in 2007 going 7-1 before a loss to rival Missouri cost them a chance to play for the Big 12 title.
T9. Iowa State (http://www.holyturf.com/2011/06/iowa-state-cyclones-10-year-review/) 25-55
The Cyclones have finished with four wins and four losses four times in the last decade, but cannot get over.500 in conference.
10. Baylor (http://www.holyturf.com/2011/05/baylor-bears-10-year-review/) 15-65
Baylor won four conference games last year after winning only 11 Big 12 games in the previous nine years.

[Macarthur]

I do find it amusing how the last decade or so of 'dominance' by UT has their fans misrepresenting their record over the years. Since 1990, they are only #14 in winning %. That's INCLUDING them going basically 11-2 the last decade. A&M owned the 90s and the last half of the 80s. Since 1972 (when the NCAA introduced scholarship limitations) UT is 20-19 versus the Aggies.

[NastySlot]

Gotta have a place for the JV'ers to play some ball, besides Notre Dame.:cheerl:

and out of the other side of your mouth you probably brag how Texas H.S football and Texas H.S players are the greatest the country...typical.

[Macarthur]

How is it an irrelevent point...you said it was cyclical when it has never been cyclical with Texas and Texas A&M.

In the modern era of college football, the series is almost a dead heat. It has been cyclical. How about 1984-1994 when A&M won 10 of 11 games? Is that not cyclical?



History doesn't start at a certain year or a certain decade. It starts from the beginning of your schools collegiate debut.

I realize that, but you have be honest and admit that college football post and pre WW2 was a very different landscape than it is now. Also, it is a very different landscape since 1972 when scholarship limitations were instituted.

UT was well known to give out scholarhips to kids that never had a chance to compete there so they could keep them away from other in-state schools, not just A&M. That is a historical fact. The playing field was anything but level and for you to not acknowledge that is just being obtuse.

[Old Tiger]

I do find it amusing how the last decade or so of 'dominance' by UT has their fans misrepresenting their record over the years. Since 1990, they are only #14 in winning %. That's INCLUDING them going basically 11-2 the last decade. A&M owned the 90s and the last half of the 80s. Since 1972 (when the NCAA introduced scholarship limitations) UT is 20-19 versus the Aggies.


A&M ranks 29 in all time wins BTW...not top 25. They rank 30th all time by winning percentage as well.


I don't look at a teams success by starting at a certain year that makes <insert team name here> look like they are gods gift to the sport because they had a 12-15 year run circled around cheating



To me the modern era of football started with the integration of the forward pass because that changed the game to what it is today. So the year would be 1906 for that if my research on the subject stands correct.

[eagles_victory]

In the modern era of college football, the series is almost a dead heat. It has been cyclical. How about 1984-1994 when A&M won 10 of 11 games? Is that not cyclical?




I realize that, but you have be honest and admit that college football post and pre WW2 was a very different landscape than it is now. Also, it is a very different landscape since 1972 when scholarship limitations were instituted.

UT was well known to give out scholarhips to kids that never had a chance to compete there so they could keep them away from other in-state schools, not just A&M. That is a historical fact. The playing field was anything but level and for you to not acknowledge that is just being obtuse. g$$ is that you?

[NastySlot]

How is it an irrelevent point...you said it was cyclical when it has never been cyclical with Texas and Texas A&M.

History doesn't start at a certain year or a certain decade. It starts from the beginning of your schools collegiate debut.

All-Time Information

Texas A&M
674–443–48 (.599) wnning percentage
13–18–0 (.419) - Bowl record
Claimed national titles: 1(1939)
Conference titles: 18


Texas
850–325–33 (.717)
25–22–2 (.541) bowl record
Claimed National Titles: 4(1963, 1969, 1970, 2005)
Conference Titles: 32


you are so right...but your smart enough to know that the Aggies haven't always had a level playing field with the horns or most...no excuse it is what it is.............but A&M until what the 70's was like VMI or the Citadel. ...........so considering it it's amazing they have 27 wins at all.

not trying to make excuses....just saying.

[Macarthur]

A&M ranks 29 in all time wins BTW...not top 25. They rank 30th all time by winning percentage as well.

I said winning %. They are top 25.



I don't look at a teams success by starting at a certain year that makes <insert team name here> look like they are gods gift to the sport because they had a 12-15 year run circled around cheating

I never said you should ignore those stats. But for you to not acknowledge that prior to certain era's, there were significant differences in the landscape of college sports is being obtuse. All I'm saying is that when the playing field was leveled in 1972, UT and A&M are .500 in games against each other.




To me the modern era of football started with the integration of the forward pass because that changed the game to what it is today.

That could be one landmark that changed the game. But there are others, such as scholarship limitations.

[Old Tiger]

So what your saying is that when things started becoming "more fair" for A&M is when the modern era of college football started?

[Macarthur]

So what your saying is that when things started becoming "more fair" for A&M is when the modern era of college football started?

This is not just about A&M. For the record, my fav team is TCU. Most folks that I've read place the 'modern ear' as post WW2 - so 1945.

I do think that 1972 is an important date, but I would not call that the modern era.

[Old Tiger]

Quote from A&M BOR meeting


4:24
KBTX: "It's not what wrong with the B12 as much as what's right for TAMU."

4:25 KBTX: Looking at it as a positive thing...greater visibility.




These parts are hilarious

4:27
KBTX: Today's mtg means one thing: I am authorized to take actions. Asked if there was a timeline: "Not for me."


4:30
KBTX: Said he didn't expect anything to come from yesterday's SEC mtg. "Their press release speaks for itself."


He's authorized to take actions on nothing?

[Macarthur]

One interesting thing I read not too long ago was someone making the argument that 1982 should be considered the start of the modern era due to the SMU issues and how that drastically changed the recruiting landscape in college football.

Also, some folks have used the integration issue as that benchmark (desegregation).

It's subjective, but I think most everyone agrees that college football is much different than it was pre-WW2.

[Old Tiger]

Loftin doing some backtracking now trying to get back into good graces of Big 12..

4:36
KBTX: Anything we do will be in the best interest of TAMU, State of TX. Also concerned about other B12 members.

[Old Tiger]

4:37
KBTX: Money is important...this is a 100-yr decision...B12 bylaws are confusing...must be clear on all things before taking steps.
4:37
KBTX: There is a chance A&M could stay in the B12: "Certainly."

[coach]

Texas proposed a conference network and it was voted down 11-1.

Texas then wanted to create a Lone Star Network with A&M that would of shared revenue equally, A&M said no.

Now A&M wants to make Texas out to be the bad person bully but aggy has backed themself into a corner and are scratching and clawing to get out. This has turned out to be a PR nightmare...all the ESPN pundits are basically saying its a bad move for A&M to want to go to the ESPN and SEC fans would rather have OU and Texas to the SEC than A&M.


Just because you join the SEC doesn't mean you will have same success. Last time A&M defeated an SEC team was 1995.


In the Big 12 A&M would receieve 23 million per year in tv revenue through conference tv deal. In SEC they would only make around 17-18 million per year from tv contract revenue sharing.


I haven't heard many OU people including higher ups complaining about the LHN as much as A&M has.


and i havent heard ou complaining about atm's move either... all i hear is ut complaining.....

[Macarthur]

Here's a good article showing espn's hypocrisy.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/806898-sec-realignment-why-is-espn-afraid-of-texas-am

[Old Tiger]

Here's a good article showing espn's hypocrisy.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/806898-sec-realignment-why-is-espn-afraid-of-texas-ambleacher report is the most credible article you can find?

[rockdale80]

This is not just about A&M. For the record, my fav team is TCU. Most folks that I've read place the 'modern ear' as post WW2 - so 1945.

I do think that 1972 is an important date, but I would not call that the modern era.

That sounds socialist. What happened to the free market?

[Macarthur]

bleacher report is the most credible article you can find?

Bleacher report is not one of my favorites but this article is correct. Espn has a huge conflict of interest on this one in how negatively they are slanting this.

By the way, they're not the only ones pointing out espn's hypocrisy. Leach and Jack arute were hammering them good on the radio today.

[Old Tiger]

Bleacher report is not one of my favorites but this article is correct. Espn has a huge conflict of interest on this one in how negatively they are slanting this.Tonight ESPN told the Jets to let Chris O score 2 touchdowns so they could talk about Texas, that's what I have heard from multiple reports.

[Macarthur]

That sounds socialist. What happened to the free market?

Huh?

[Old Tiger]

Is an A&M human centipede appropriate?

[Old Tiger]

Huh?I think he means it is very liberal and socialistic of the Aggies to want this. It goes strongly against there right wing roots.

[Macarthur]

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/aug/15/take-two/?sports.....

[rockdale80]

Huh?

Revenue Sharing...Equal playing field...Equal recruiting.

Its Socialist in nature.

[Macarthur]

So what? Tell the NFL it doesn't work.

[rockdale80]

So what? Tell the NFL it doesn't work.

I never said it didnt work. I just find this point to be hypocritical of some people.

[Txbroadcaster]

I never said it didnt work. I just find this point to be hypocritical of some people.

I agree..in America our buisness is all about capitalism..but sports end to be more socialistic...in Europe..the buisness is more to socialistic ideas, but soccer is all about the haves and have not

[Macarthur]

I never said it didnt work. I just find this point to be hypocritical of some people.

Who?

[1st and goal]

At some point, there might be grounds for a lawsuit (possibly class action) against ESPN. Possibly by conference members and other networks.

GoBlue, would you please explain to those of us who don't have the time to research why 11 members voted down a conference network?

[JJWalker]

Is an A&M human centipede appropriate?

Now that is funny! :clap:

[Old Tiger]

At some point, there might be grounds for a lawsuit (possibly class action) against ESPN. Possibly by conference members and other networks.

The lawsuit you bring up was being formulated by Baylor against A&M.

[rockdale80]

I agree..in America our buisness is all about capitalism..but sports end to be more socialistic...in Europe..the buisness is more to socialistic ideas, but soccer is all about the haves and have not

I dont have a problem with capitalism as long as the game isnt rigged from the beginning. The same problems will exist when everything is tilted one way and college sports is a microcosm of problems that exist on a macro level.

[JJWalker]

Oh come on guys, two more "Yes" votes and we can authorize the ousting of A&M.

And ... yes it is sour grapes that A&M is somehow voted to not be forced out of UT's conference.

[1st and goal]

University of Texas should worry.
:stirpot:

[HSFB]

Texas proposed a conference network and it was voted down 11-1.

Texas then wanted to create a Lone Star Network with A&M that would of shared revenue equally, A&M said no.

Now A&M wants to make Texas out to be the bad person bully but aggy has backed themself into a corner and are scratching and clawing to get out. This has turned out to be a PR nightmare...all the ESPN pundits are basically saying its a bad move for A&M to want to go to the ESPN and SEC fans would rather have OU and Texas to the SEC than A&M.


Just because you join the SEC doesn't mean you will have same success. Last time A&M defeated an SEC team was 1995.


In the Big 12 A&M would receieve 23 million per year in tv revenue through conference tv deal. In SEC they would only make around 17-18 million per year from tv contract revenue sharing.


I haven't heard many OU people including higher ups complaining about the LHN as much as A&M has.

you do not hear anything from ou due their sole existence depends on importing Texas HS boys to win their championships for them as they would be be barely a Div1 football school without the pipeline. Right not ou has free recruiting trips to Dallas, Lubbock, Waco and until now, College Station. So that gives them considerable exposure within the state. The less of those opportunities that they have then the more that hurts their recruiting.........so that is why you do not hear much from them as there is no way that they leave their bread and butter. You saw what happend to Arkansas when they severed their Texas HS recruiting ties and that could potentially happen to ou to a lesser extent. In fact, the best thing for the Texas Schools would be for ou leave the conference and severe all ties with the Texas schools. However, there is NO WAY they do this due to recruiting and the fact that they consistently kick Texas's azz.

Take a look at ou and okie states rosters......I'm telling you they would be like Iowa State or worse without them. Again, no way they pizz off Texas and leave and break ties with their annual high-profile recruiting trip to the DFW area and the state in general.

[HSFB]

University of Texas should worry.
:stirpot:

agreed. A&M now has something unique to sell to recruits. The SEC will certainly be a challenge but that damn near guarantees a big Texas A&M game on TV every single week in this region....and what does the Big 12 have to counter the Alabama's, LSU's, Auburn's, Florida's, Tenn's, Georgia's etc of world....well they have Kansas, Kansas St. Iowa St. Gaylor, okie st. etc.

If Texas is dead set against A&M leaving then that is a crystal clear message that it must be the right thing to do for A&M.

[NastySlot]

you do not hear anything from ou due their sole existence depends on importing Texas HS boys to win their championships for them as they would be be barely a Div1 football school without the pipeline. Right not ou has free recruiting trips to Dallas, Lubbock, Waco and until now, College Station. So that gives them considerable exposure within the state. The less of those opportunities that they have then the more that hurts their recruiting.........so that is why you do not hear much from them as there is no way that they leave their bread and butter. You saw what happend to Arkansas when they severed their Texas HS recruiting ties and that could potentially happen to ou to a lesser extent. In fact, the best thing for the Texas Schools would be for ou leave the conference and severe all ties with the Texas schools. However, there is NO WAY they do this due to recruiting and the fact that they consistently kick Texas's azz.

Take a look at ou and okie states rosters......I'm telling you they would be like Iowa State or worse without them. Again, no way they pizz off Texas and leave and break ties with their annual high-profile recruiting trip to the DFW area and the state in general.


Idk...........OU has had a great pipeline to Texas recruits for along time. I don't see them being hurt my moving to another conference. OU has seven national titles........and only one has been won while in the big xii with the Texas schools.

[Txbroadcaster]

Idk...........OU has had a great pipeline to Texas recruits for along time. I don't see them being hurt my moving to another conference. OU has seven national titles........and only one has been won while in the big xii with the Texas schools.

i agree..OU as long as they play Texas will have a pipeline into texas..u could actually argue that Texas playing them for so long when they were in different conference helped Ou way more than it helped Ut

[HSFB]

Idk...........OU has had a great pipeline to Texas recruits for along time. I don't see them being hurt my moving to another conference. OU has seven national titles........and only one has been won while in the big xii with the Texas schools.

...and all the while, and correct me if I'm wrong, they have had a huge annual recruiting trip to the DFW area to play Texas during that span. I'm just poinint out that there is no way that they do anything to disrupt that. Regardless of what they have accomplished in the past, this would clearly hurt them to some degree. In addition, it was much easier for other Texas schools to compete with ou and osu for recruites before the Big 12 so obviously getting exposure throughout the state with multiple Texas schools has paid off for them. I'm not saying that it would crash their program.....just saying that things would not be as easy.

[1st and goal]

you do not hear anything from ou due their sole existence depends on importing Texas HS boys to win their championships for them as they would be be barely a Div1 football school without the pipeline. Right not ou has free recruiting trips to Dallas, Lubbock, Waco and until now, College Station. So that gives them considerable exposure within the state. The less of those opportunities that they have then the more that hurts their recruiting.........so that is why you do not hear much from them as there is no way that they leave their bread and butter. You saw what happend to Arkansas when they severed their Texas HS recruiting ties and that could potentially happen to ou to a lesser extent. In fact, the best thing for the Texas Schools would be for ou leave the conference and severe all ties with the Texas schools. However, there is NO WAY they do this due to recruiting and the fact that they consistently kick Texas's azz.

Take a look at ou and okie states rosters......I'm telling you they would be like Iowa State or worse without them. Again, no way they pizz off Texas and leave and break ties with their annual high-profile recruiting trip to the DFW area and the state in general.

Good point. Many have pondered OU's quietness.

[JJWalker]

Well it looks like UT will not get the chance to kick A&M out, as the Aggies are quitting.

However, I hope every Big XII remnant team ... sends the Aggies off with a good old fashioned butt whooping.

Good riddance!

[Old Tiger]

Well it looks like UT will not get the chance to kick A&M out, as the Aggies are quitting.

However, I hope every Big XII remnant team ... sends the Aggies off with a good old fashioned butt whooping.

Good riddance!aggies never quit or lose...they just ran out of time on staying.


heard BYU and Big 12 have contacted each other.

[JJWalker]

aggies never quit or lose...they just ran out of time on staying.


heard BYU and Big 12 have contacted each other.

It's OK. I pretty much blame Kent Hance and Craig James for this too! :) :)