Texas Divided: Dallas Morning News.

[Redwood Forrest]

Very interesting article. It seems Texas A&M is responsible for the downturn of football in Texas and the Big 12.

For some reason I can't copy and paste but the SEC is getting more "Texas talent" than the Texas schools. Much more.

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/col...-plummeted?f=r

[BamaMoon]

Folks in Houston, based on the TV ratings, like to watch Bama!

[TideEngineer08]

The more I've read about the league, how it was founded and decisions made afterward, it was always doomed to failure. Nebraska leaving was a blow, but A&M leaving left a massive crater in the side of the ship.

It's true that it will help if Texas and Oklahoma get their act together (especially Texas as Oklahoma has still been a good team over the past 5 years). But this has been made much more difficult as this article lays out very well. I knew when A&M joined that more than giving A&M the cache of the SEC, it was going to give the SEC a very strong foothold in the state of Texas. And it has. We'll see how well Tom Herman does at Texas, but I suspect it's going to be a bit tougher for him to rebuild it than it was for Mack. I remember when Houston was clamoring to get invited to the Big 12, and one of the things they always pointed to was how well the SEC was doing with TV ratings in Houston, and how the Cougars were about the only non-SEC program on that top 10 list that's in this article. Of course, the Big 12 fans, Texas in particular, always scoffed at the notion that anyone "owned" the city of Houston. Oh well. They can continue scoffing. We'll continue winning.

[4Q Basket Case]

What doomed the Big 12 was the incredibly lopsided distribution of funds.

I'll never understand why schools like Oklahoma, Nebraska and aTm ever agreed to that.

As a result, UTw has the lion's share of a shrinking pie. They made their bed. Let them lie in it.

[Al A Bama]

There was a good article in the Houston Chronicle yesterday entitled "Bottom line proof UT, A & M don't need each other" written by Mike Finger. Hopefully you can access it. I would post but like in the past you may not be able to read it since you must be a subscriber to the Houston Chronicle. I'm not.

I guess the only way these two teams will ever play each other is if they are both in the College Football Playoff and that's like finding a needle in a hay stack.

One quote from the article: "It has been five years since Texas A & M left the Big 12 for the Southeastern Conference, putting an end to the state's best football rivalry. Since that departure, rarely has a month gone by without some Texas or Texas A & M coach or official being asked when the schools are going to play again." "But the truth is neither school wants the game to happen. At the beginning of the divorce, a vindictive UT wanted to punish A & M for bailing out of the Big 12 and putting the league in jeopardy, and the Aggies brilliantly made the Longhorns look like cowards by declaring themselves open to a rematch they knew wouldn't happen." "Both sides convinced themselves they owned the high ground. And because of that, both sides believed the only way they could lose it was by playing the other in football. And to this day, neither is willing to risk that."

Continuing: "So we are left with the modern version A & M - UT rivalry, which consists primarily of fans of each university arguing about which side needs the other less. The Aggies say they don't need UT because they are part of the highest-profile conference in the country. The Longhorns say they don't need A & M because they are still cashing ESPN's checks, and filling their schedules with games against Notre Dame, USC and Michigan. And both might be right."

Continuing: "Last week, when USA Today released its annual database of the wealthiest college athletics programs in the country, A & M ($194.4 million) and UT ($188 million) ranked first and second in revenue for the second year in a row."

"Around Thanksgiving, at least a few fans might argue with the sentiment. They will get wistful for the old days and shake their heads about why a great tradition had to end. But the balance sheets say the Longhorns and Aggies don't need each other, so the rest of us will have to wait. Until the balance sheets say they do."

I just hit some of the highlights. Will they eventually end up like au vs UA, forced by the legislature to play each other. Only time will answer that question.

[selmaborntidefan]

I can't think of a bigger name in college football that has done less with more than Texas.

Plain and simple.

I've lived here among these delusional nutbags since 2005. I've lived through them still laughing at how stupid those Alabama rednecks were to not think Franchione would leave Alabama for ATM. You see, fRan (in the Texas myth) REALLY wanted to coach the Longhorns but since he was never going to, he went to ATM to get even because - in the delusional world of the orange nutbag, Texas is the center of the universe.

Saban is coming to Texas. Why? For those who were fortunate enough to NOT live here through that five-year period of nonsense.....
a) because we can pay him a hull lot more than y'all can (more on this in a moment)
b) because it's easier to win at Texas with all our money (keep in mind Minnesota has more NCs.....)
c) because Franchione left y'all
d) because Saban is a mercenary
e) because Saban left Miami after saying he wouldn't, so when he says he isn't leaving Alabama it means he's coming to Texas

(The whole "we can pay him more than Alabama" ASSUMES that because Texas takes in a lot more money than Alabama they can therefore pay him more........of course, since no team is going to pay a coach $50 million per year, it's only a question of how high that is REASONABLE to pay a coach can Texas outbid Alabama? They always forgot the REASONABLE part).


I also lived here when Texas blew the B12 apart and don't let anyone fool you - it was Texas that caused the whole damned thing.


What is the Big 12 really? Answer - something that provides a conference so that Texas or OU (and nobody else now that Colorado and Nebraska have flown the coop) with CONFERENCE titles that lock them in nine mostly easy games and 2-3 OOC cupcakes so they can then say, "We're a great team!!!"

The Big 12 is not there so Iowa State can win a national title; it's there so the big two have some guaranteed scrubs to scrub.

When the conference was imploding it was an everyday thing around here on Galloway - "Texas don't need ATM, let them walk." They always assumed ATM DID need UT, though to be fair ATM thought the same thing, which is why the rules were a conference could not invite Texas without taking ATM (state imposed rules).

In point of fact, Texas has had ONE period of relevancy (2002-2009) in the last forty years. Hell, the Iowa Hawkeyes have been relevant nationally in more seasons than Texas since 1977, even though Iowa hasn't even played for a title.

Auburn has had more years they contended for Pete's sake in the last forty years.
Georgia
LSU
Oregon

The list goes on

[KrAzY3]

When the Pac-12 move was being discussed, I hoped it would go down and that the SEC would add Texas A&M and Missouri. The way I saw it, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St. would struggle (a bit) to hold interest while playing on the west coast. On the other hand, the SEC would have Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, and LSU to appeal regionally. People would still watch Oklahoma and Texas of course, but it would be easy to see how the SEC might become a more attractive product overall.

It didn't quite go down like that. The Big 12 has Baylor and added TCU. They still have strong ties to the region, but their strong regional ties don't really make up for the inferior product. At least the Pac-12 with Oklahoma and Texas would have a great product. I'm not sure what happens from here, but it is hard to imagine the Big 12 (and Texas) ever completely making up for what they lost.

[JBama_in_PCOLA]

Very interesting article. It seems Texas A&M is responsible for the downturn of football in Texas and the Big 12.

For some reason I can't copy and paste but the SEC is getting more "Texas talent" than the Texas schools. Much more.

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/col...-plummeted?f=r

Good. Texas football is really the cause and we all know it. Now, I didn't like A&M joining the SEC and still don't, but I see the positives in it and Texas? Well, cry about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[GP for Bama]

I would like to see Texas vs A&M play a year-end game every year. Also I would like to see year end games for Missouri vs Kansas and Oklahoma vs Nebraska. Scheduling could be made to work and it would be GREAT for college football.

[CullmanTide]

I had always thought adding A&M would be a grand slam and Missouri a home run. I think that has proved to be true.

[PitMaster]

I hate Texas

[Redwood Forrest]

I'm not sure Missouri was a good deal after all. It appears parents don't want to send their children to Anarchy U. This hurts all their sports, not just football. They are renting dorm rooms to fans, LOL.

As Campus Reform has previously reported, the racially-motivated uprising that shut down Mizzou’s campus in 2015 cost the university close to a quarter of its freshmen class the following year, leaving the school worse off than it had initially anticipated.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/06...o-sports-fans/

[selmaborntidefan]

I'm not sure Missouri was a good deal after all. It appears parents don't want to send their children to Anarchy U. This hurts all their sports, not just football. They are renting dorm rooms to fans, LOL.

As Campus Reform has previously reported, the racially-motivated uprising that shut down Mizzou’s campus in 2015 cost the university close to a quarter of its freshmen class the following year, leaving the school worse off than it had initially anticipated.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/06...o-sports-fans/

Well yeah, but how in the world was the SEC supposed to know this would happen?

It's still better than what happened at either Baylor or Penn State.