Jump to content

Welcome to HornSports

Join our community and talk about the latest in Texas Longhorns Athletics!

doc longhorn

Big 12 vs. SEC thread

Recommended Posts

Aggy performance hasn't really changed. Same records and finishes in the conference as they've always had. Bama beat them 59-0. OU beat them 77-0. What changed?

 

 

 

What changed is now they can ride the coattails of teams like Bama and Kentucky and celebrate their NCs since they're in the $ec. Don't believe me just go over to texags. That place is one big circle jerk on how good they are since they're now in the $ec. Sad but funny yet true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dang, great post. Was that originally your dissertation, Dr. Duke?

 

 

lol.

 

Attached is a copy of the annual report of the ag college from 1886. On p6 you can start reading "Questions have been raised by the Regents of the University as to the present system of control." It outlines the ag college's pleading not to be closed down and not to be severed from the university. Reading through page 8, you can get a sense of the reforms they were instituting, such as changing the ag college from a three year institution to a four year institution. The ags love to bleat they opened their doors before the main university, but they never admit they haven't been a four year institution as long as the university has. There are supposedly some really good letters in the university archives where one can get a sense of the animosity between the regents and the ag college directors.

 

https://archive.org/stream/annualreportofag1886agri#page/8/mode/2up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter which way you slice it, the SEC Network is wildly successful for a TV network in its infancy. 

 

No doubt, the SECn launch has been "wildly successful". Are you paraphrasing Andy Staples' SI article

 

My sincere hope - with A&M's new found TV riches - is that y'all stop using the "burnt orange yardstick" when measuring aggie success. Yes, I know your contempt for The University is deeply ingrained and has been hard-wired since birth if you're an aggie legacy. Otherwise, you were indoctrinated at Fish Camp. Whatever

 

Perhaps it's time to move on to a crimson or purple "rival"? I mean, neither ESPN nor SECn broadcast A&M's 1st Rd NCAA baseball game against TSU. Why is that? Your next battle - now that you've been unburdened of Bevo's oppressive yoke - is raising A&M's profile in Birmingham.

 

Time to refocus and redirect your angst. Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt, the SECn launch has been wildly successful. Are you paraphrasing Andy Staples' SI article

 

My sincere hope - with A&M's new found TV riches - is that y'all stop using the "burnt orange yardstick" when measuring aggie success. Yes, I know, your contempt for The University is deeply ingrained and has been hard-wired since birth if you're an aggie legacy. Otherwise, you were indoctrinated at Fish Camp. Whatever

 

Perhaps it's time to move on to a crimson or purple "rival"? I mean, neither ESPN nor SECn broadcast A&M's 1st Rd NCAA baseball game against TSU. Why is that? Your next battle - now that you've been unburdened of Bevo's oppressive yoke - is raising A&M's profile in Birmingham.

 

Time to refocus and redirect your angst. Good luck!

There are changes that have already been put in motion and won't be reversed that will make the difference between UT Austin and TAMU College Station moving forward far greater than most people realize.

 

With the opening of the med school, the operating budget of UT Austin will make it the second individual system institution with a budget larger than the entire TAMU system (right now the UT Austin operating budget is roughly $2.5 billion, for aggy iis roughly $1.3 billion). Also, the UT Austin non-PUF endowment is almost $10 billion, after the latest $3.1 billion raise. Compare that to the entire TAMU System non-PUF endowment (The TAMU Foundation)which is only $1.5 billion. Regents Rule 80303 grants UT Austin an allocation from the PUF income (the AUF) equal to that of the entire TAMU system.

 

Add all this together and you have UT Austin (36,000 undergrads, 48,000 total students) with far greater resources than the entire TAMU System which educates almost 140,000 students today and which will be educating almost 160,000 when aggy fully implements Rick Perry's "reforms." Currently UT Austin spends in excess of $40,000/full time student equivalent while for aggy, the number s less than $25,000/FTSE. Add more students and that number goes for aggy continues to decline while the non-PUF endowment of UT Austin that is 6X the size of the entire TAMU system non-PUF endowment continues to drive the number higher at UT Austin.

 

What Bill Powers did in stunting Rick Perry's "reforms" cannot be forgotten. One of the main reasons aggy had to go to the SEC is so they had new schools to compare themselves to. The difference between UT and aggy is going to expand significantly. The burnt orange shadow they were living in is getting bigger, not smaller. They had to escape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I just don't argue with aggies on this subject matter because you are so butt hurt over LHN. The fact that you are writing a novel on the subject matter pretty much proves my point. You have no clue the financials behind UT's LHN contract to begin with and trying to argue with aggies on this subject matter is a lost cause. Aggies have nothing to show for in terms of actual results so this is what they dig in on. You like to make fun of randolph duke on here when you are more butt hurt over the possibility of Texas making money off LHN than he is on any subject matter. This is what makes you aggies so pathetic, you probably got all excited over those Clay Travis articles didn't you? 

In nowhere in the long paragraph was there any angst about the LHN making money for UT. However, you made a misrepresentation about the TV revenue generated from the contract and I corrected that. There is little doubt that if A&M could have started a network at the time, we likely would have done it. However, the landscape actually makes the conference networks more profitable for each conference member. The LHN is a short-term success but lacks understanding of what the Big 10 Network's foundation signified. Texas will likely make 35-40 million a year for the next 10 years from television revenue while it likely would have made 40-50 million in the latter part of the decade if it had dedicated its effort to starting a Big 12 network that was wanted by its constituents or joined a conference doing the same. Plain and simple, both ESPN and Texas took on a product that lacked forward thinking, and ultimately Texas will still benefit while ESPN takes the hit.

 

As for your points, there are numerous sources that have contract details of the LHN through open-records request, and Kristi Dosh was on top of the issue back when the news was pertinent to everyone. My one-two spars a month on here with well-thought out posts are much more reticent of someone with tact than your daily spars with Twitter Aggies and play-by-plays of every game you watch on Twitter with no retweets. The idea of understanding and appreciating the landscape of the parts of college football that casual fans don't appreciate is the part of fanhood that is fun in the offseason.

 

As for Randolph Duke he just wrote paragraphs of "stuff" from the 1800s that you won't find any normal person that truly gives a shit, Aggies and Longhorns alike.I know the basis of the argument he makes because he pastes it on post after post and my buddy always asks me how I feel about his stuff. If A&M is a branch school of UT, we sure have done a great job of breaking free from "daddy". UCLA and Cal have this relationship but most consider them equals and great institutes of learning, you won't find many in this great state that feel much differently about UT &  A&M's relationship, regardless of how many essays or publications he puts out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"would have made 40-50 million in the latter part of the decade if it had dedicated its effort to starting a Big 12 network that was wanted by its constituents "

 

You just exposed your ignorance as you have many times before. Texas pushed for a big 12 network but the league voted and only Oklahoma voted with us. Texas then went to A&M to try to start up a joint network and dollar bill and Dr. bowtie turned it down.

Like all aggy you bend history to suit your agenda. You have a persecution complex which is shared by every aggy I have ever known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Randolph Duke he just wrote paragraphs of "stuff" from the 1800s that you won't find any normal person that truly gives a shit, Aggies and Longhorns alike.I know the basis of the argument he makes because he pastes it on post after post and my buddy always asks me how I feel about his stuff. If A&M is a branch school of UT, we sure have done a great job of breaking free from "daddy". UCLA and Cal have this relationship but most consider them equals and great institutes of learning, you won't find many in this great state that feel much differently about UT &A&M's relationship, regardless of how many essays or publications he puts out.

And the only people who consider UT and TAMU equals are aggys. The difference between the two schools is significant and becoming more pronounced every year.

 

Cal and UCLA are both UC system schools. One was never a branch of the other. They were always separate and distinct institutions. Maybe if you did give a shit you would get the facts straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The LHN is a short-term success but lacks understanding of what the Big 10 Network's foundation signified. Texas will likely make 35-40 million a year for the next 10 years from television revenue while it likely would have made 40-50 million in the latter part of the decade if it had dedicated its effort to starting a Big 12 network that was wanted by its constituents or joined a conference doing the same. Plain and simple, both ESPN and Texas took on a product that lacked forward thinking, and ultimately Texas will still benefit while ESPN takes the hit.

 

To the contrary, I think UT is absolutely tickled to be making any money at all on LHN. I agree some of the programming isn't interesting and has low ratings, but The University's leadership likes broadcasting commencement, the arts, political forums, etc. It's niche marketing to promote The University as a whole - not just athletics.

 

What "forward-thinking" did we lack not emulating the B1G Network? Seems to me pushing for a conference network would've been an easier road. But - to Bear19's point - the Big12 membership didn't want it for whatever reason. It's documented that DeLoss invited A&M to partner in a Lone Star Network. Your leadership turned it down.

 

The numbers you're throwing out there are just more pie-in-the-sky. Kristi Dosh is okay, but she's a Clay Travis protege' and SEC homer. I take most of what she's written with a grain of salt.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you love doing research, go out and do a survey of 5-10 communites that aren't within 100 miles of either university and see if you get anywhere near an overwhelming consensus that one is clearly better than the other. I lived in 4 smaller communities (1000-6000) growing up and you would find very few knowledgeable people that would take that position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you love doing research, go out and do a survey of 5-10 communites that aren't within 100 miles of either university and see if you get anywhere near an overwhelming consensus that one is clearly better than the other. I lived in 4 smaller communities (1000-6000) growing up and you would find very few knowledgeable people that would take that position.

That's a dodge and you know it. You misstated the facts about Texas and it's network now you want to change the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for Randolph Duke he just wrote paragraphs of "stuff" from the 1800s that you won't find any normal person that truly gives a shit, Aggies and Longhorns alike.I know the basis of the argument he makes because he pastes it on post after post and my buddy always asks me how I feel about his stuff. If A&M is a branch school of UT, we sure have done a great job of breaking free from "daddy". UCLA and Cal have this relationship but most consider them equals and great institutes of learning, you won't find many in this great state that feel much differently about UT &  A&M's relationship, regardless of how many essays or publications he puts out.

 

 

Actually, I really appreciate RD's research and find it fascinating that A&M is still constitutionally a branch of The University.

 

No argument that both universities are fine schools in their own rights, but RD's revelation sheds an unflattering light on the "A&M was the first public college in TX narrative". That's just another Fish Camp story that's been woven into aggie mythology over the years. But, your leadership is smart not to change its branch status.

 

I'm sure your 1/3 of the AUF isn't chump change. It'd be a shame to forfeit that money over hubris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dang, great post. Was that originally your dissertation, Dr. Duke?

 

Agree. I'm copying that to a Word doc for read & review.

I knew just a few small points of it some time ago but never the lineup and complete story.

Great work!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you love doing research, go out and do a survey of 5-10 communites that aren't within 100 miles of either university and see if you get anywhere near an overwhelming consensus that one is clearly better than the other. I lived in 4 smaller communities (1000-6000) growing up and you would find very few knowledgeable people that would take that position.

According to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board's 2015 Almanac, TAMU College Station educated approximately 56,000 students on an operating budget of $1.3 billion with direct state support of an average of $9,500/student. For UT Austin, it is 51,000 students on an operating budget of $2.5 billion with the state contributing $13,000/student.

 

If TAMU was able to produce results indistinguishable from those of UT Austin, UT Austin would be running on the same model as TAMU. The legislature wouldn't be providing UT Austin financial support 40% higher per student than TAMU and UT Austin wouldn't be spending more than $1 billion in additional dollars each year. The UT Austin operating budget is more than those of TAMU College Station and OU Norman combined. Ask anyone at TAMU if the educational experience would be markedly improved if the university's operating budget was increased by $1 billion/ year.

 

When the university was established, the legislature was concerned that taxpayer funds would be spent on lavish and ornate buildings, such as had been done at eastern and European universities. Restrictions were put in place to ensure only endowment dollars were spent on construction and that taxpayers would help fund operating expenses. As I said, Regents Rule 80303 ensures the AUF allocation of UT Austin is the same as the allocation to the entire TAMU system. The other 1/3 is given to the other UT System schools. Not only does the UT Austin operating budget dwarf that of TAMU College Station, infrastructure spending on labs, classrooms and the like at UT Austin dwarfs that of TAMU College Station.

 

You want us to believe in Texas, a state not known for profligate spending, that UT Austin is getting an AUF allocation equal to the entire TAMU System; 40% higher support than TAMU from the legislature; is spending well in excess of $1 billion more each year for salaries, supplies, labs, etc; TAMU is providing results indistinguishable from those of UT and neither a single person in the legislature nor a single person in the press has objected?! The legislature makes sure UT Austin gets billions in additional resources because those billions go to produce fundamentally different results. Fewer students, more money, and it is money well spent. If the same results truly could be replicated by instituting the TAMU operational model, it would have been done long ago and the billions given to UT Austin would have been given back to the taxpayers.

 

I don't have to go to small towns and ask people anything. I just have to look at the reality of how the two schools operate. UT Austin is fundamentally different from TAMU College Station and pretty much the only people in Texas who don't realize it are aggys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In nowhere in the long paragraph was there any angst about the LHN making money for UT. However, you made a misrepresentation about the TV revenue generated from the contract and I corrected that. There is little doubt that if A&M could have started a network at the time, we likely would have done it. However, the landscape actually makes the conference networks more profitable for each conference member. The LHN is a short-term success but lacks understanding of what the Big 10 Network's foundation signified. Texas will likely make 35-40 million a year for the next 10 years from television revenue while it likely would have made 40-50 million in the latter part of the decade if it had dedicated its effort to starting a Big 12 network that was wanted by its constituents or joined a conference doing the same. Plain and simple, both ESPN and Texas took on a product that lacked forward thinking, and ultimately Texas will still benefit while ESPN takes the hit.

 

As for your points, there are numerous sources that have contract details of the LHN through open-records request, and Kristi Dosh was on top of the issue back when the news was pertinent to everyone. My one-two spars a month on here with well-thought out posts are much more reticent of someone with tact than your daily spars with Twitter Aggies and play-by-plays of every game you watch on Twitter with no retweets. The idea of understanding and appreciating the landscape of the parts of college football that casual fans don't appreciate is the part of fanhood that is fun in the offseason.

 

As for Randolph Duke he just wrote paragraphs of "stuff" from the 1800s that you won't find any normal person that truly gives a shit, Aggies and Longhorns alike.I know the basis of the argument he makes because he pastes it on post after post and my buddy always asks me how I feel about his stuff. If A&M is a branch school of UT, we sure have done a great job of breaking free from "daddy". UCLA and Cal have this relationship but most consider them equals and great institutes of learning, you won't find many in this great state that feel much differently about UT &  A&M's relationship, regardless of how many essays or publications he puts out.

cliffnotes? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"would have made 40-50 million in the latter part of the decade if it had dedicated its effort to starting a Big 12 network that was wanted by its constituents "

 

You just exposed your ignorance as you have many times before. Texas pushed for a big 12 network but the league voted and only Oklahoma voted with us. Texas then went to A&M to try to start up a joint network and dollar bill and Dr. bowtie turned it down.

Like all aggy you bend history to suit your agenda. You have a persecution complex which is shared by every aggy I have ever known.

 

Their was an air of distrust around the big schools in the conference at the time, but if Texas, A&M, and OU had come to the drawing board laying out wishes to start a network and not seek other conference entry then that network would have happened. However, it became increasingly clear to most leadership that the Big 12 was in serious jeopardy, with Nebraska and Colorado leaving and Texas' flirtation with the Big 10 and the "Tech problem".

 

The Lone Star proposed network was never a serious consideration by Bill Byrne and he also indicated that the it was not a split revenue network with even investment. Work on this network didn't seem frugal when it would all be null and void if a conference change occurred, which seemed very likely at the time. Bottom line, if their would have been some stability in the conference starting with the top, a conference network would have came to fruition, as the conference commissioner Kevin Weiberg had been a big proponent of this concept, and ultimately he found work on the Big Ten Network.

 

The next question that needs to be asked is why the instability within the conference? Texas had originally flirted with the Big 10 which triggered the realignment landscape. Not long afterwards, there was a 6 team Big 12 team proposal to join the Pac 10, which was of course headed up by Texas AD DeLoss Dodds. The only part of realignment that I did not agree with amongst A&M leaders off the top of my head was the hypocritical nature of accepting a higher television revenue payout once Nebraska and Colorado left. We had been one of the uneven revenue complainers and proceeded to take the money as a bargaining chip to stay.

 

 

By the way, your notion that OU and Texas both voted in favor of a Big 12 network is erroneous:

 

http://newsok.com/the-big-12-conference-should-have-listened-to-kevin-weiberg/article/5338213?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter   

 

http://www.barkingcarnival.com/2010/05/18/the-big-12-nebraska-and-the-red-herrings

 

^ While that piece is opinion based, they borrowed it from an Omaha's newspaper's article on the Nebraska side of realignment which is also supported by this opinion piece: http://bigrednetwork.com/story/why_tom_osborne_hates_the_big_12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Texas had originally flirted with the Big 10 which triggered the realignment landscape.

 

I'd say Mizzou did that first, but whatever

 

We don't care about the "he said, she said" machinations of why A&M left the Big12, Mike. It's water under the bridge. If it makes aggies feel better about themselves to blame UT - power to you.

 

A&M made a business decision that was in their best interests financially. Good for you. But, was it in your best interests emotionally? You gave up an annual rivalry that meant a lot to aggies. So much that y'all spent decades building the world's largest campfire to signify "aggies' burning desire to beat tu".

 

I guess what really sticks in your aggie craw is the SEC power brokers; Bama, LSU, UF, etc. now take A&M even less seriously than UT did. Y'all sold out 100+ years of tradition for short-term branding success and a few extra TV dollars. Congratulations

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What aggy doesn't realize it's not why you left, it's how you left. If I have to explain that to you, it's a lost cause.

Bingo

 

aggie's PR did a good job selling the, "mean ol' UT wouldn't share their LHN windfall" line to the lamestream press. As usual, they can't wait to print a story like that while painting UT as the villain. As we're discovering more each day, truth has very little to do with journalism.

 

Let's ask aggie Mike a question. Would you want to continue doing business with somebody who said - and I'm paraphrasing - "F**k you, tsips, we don't need you! We're gonna take our ball and run to the SEC!"

 

I'm not interested in fraternizing with somebody like that, but maybe we should start a HS poll.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's safe to say that Colorado was the first to look towards the Pac-12, so I'll give you that, but Feb 2010 was when Texas began talks with the Big 10: http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/11/report-big-ten-texas-have-initial-talks/  This was well before Mizzou talks were in consideration with the Big 10, and by all accounts, Mizzou was second fiddle to the much bigger fish and never had an offer.

 

This isn't about who are the villains in realignment, but rather, that noone took a leadership role in the Big 12 when it needed it most. Time and time again we heard the story from Joe Castiglione, DeLoss Dodds, Bill Byrne, and R. Bowen Loftin that they were committed to the Big 12, but yet they kept flirting with other conferences in the pursuit of whatever suited them best. In the end, everyone made what they thought was the best business decision, but the lack of accountability and the constant appearance of covert motives was frustrating during the time.

 

This went way too far out of tangent, bottom line, SEC schools will be able to invest more in their athletic programs than they already have with this windfall, that is a bad look for other conferences falling behind in the arms race; Texas is the only Big 12 school with a semblance of competition in this aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This went way too far out of tangent, bottom line, SEC schools will be able to invest more in their athletic programs than they already have with this windfall, that is a bad look for other conferences falling behind in the arms race; Texas is the only Big 12 school with a semblance of competition in this aspect.

Heaven forbid SEC schools decide to forego subsidies from the academic side or, gasp!, even start sending money over to the academic side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I'm going strictly from memory.  There is not time to look it up right now.  

 

This is the way I remember it - the short version.  DeLoss approached Dollar Bill about starting the Lone Star Network.  Both would invest in the start up.  No one anticipated that it would become a dynamic source of income.  At the time, the Ags were really strapped for cash.  (If I recall, they owed A&M $5,000,000)  Dollar Bill said no way.  DeLoss had been investing in infrastructure for some time.  Dollar Bill was not such a progressive thinker, and he had not been doing so.

 

DeLoss continued with the plans for Texas to go it alone, and the rest is history.  Dollar Bill didn't tell the truth because he cost the Ags millions, so he spun a whopper and blamed it on The Sips.  The LHN is much like an oil well.  Investors put down their money in the beginning, not after the results are in.  The payoff is for those who take the risk, not for those who sit on the sidelines.

 

That's the short story, without spin. or embellishment.  A&M has never been progressive.  They throw money at the flavor of the month, and they have developed quite a reputation in the coaching ranks.  I cannot imagine a young, ambitious coach, with great prospects taking that job.  Look at the career paths of their most recent Head FB coaches.

     RC - fired and retired

     Franchioni - Texas State

     Sherman - Offensive Coordinator

     Sumlin - to be determined

 

Not exactly what you would call an upward trajectory.

 

By the way, Mike, in regards to the arms race, if Texas wanted to arm and re-arm, we have the funds.  Not to worry.  As it is, we continue to send funds to the academic side of the house.  Financially, we are fine.  

 

I'm out.  Ags, spin it any way you want.  We are still Texas, and you still aren't.

 

Hook 'em!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...