2009/10 College Football Thread

[steve2112]

Wow, this guy seems a bit upset about the whole Big 12 situation. Check out the Fanhouse article here. The strange thing is I actually somewhat agree with him. It does seem like the Big 3 extorted money out of the 7 dwarfs left in the conference in order to keep it together.

 

[echeck]

From a fan's perspective, the MWC actually has a pretty decent TV deal. There's no money in it and the networks they operate on are small, but pretty much every football game—and a ton of baseball games—are on TV. That's more that I can say for the Big 12.

I hope this changes once Boise State begins playing in the MWC, but as of right now the only way I get Versus is to have a $65/month plan, or I've heard that I can pay an extra $12/month to get The Mtn, Versus, CBS Sports as well as a few other random stations.

I pay $35/month and I get ESPN. I don't want to pay more money to see the games. And from what I understand, not all games are televised. I think it was last year that two of TCU's games weren't even televised. That's complete BS. I want to see EVERY game whether we're playing TCU or SDSU.

In fact, it's my football fantasy for Utah to win a national championship and when the trophy is presented for Kyle Whittingham to completely blast the system and talk about how unfair it is.

There is no way that would ever happen. Heh.

For the record, I'm very happy for Utah getting the PAC-12 invite. It's a great school, and one Boise State can use as a wonderful example academically. In regards to football, we have a slightly better resume, but we need to back up athletic success with success in the classroom. It's coming, but it will take some time.

It does seem like the Big 3 extorted money out of the 7 dwarfs left in the conference in order to keep it together.

To be honest, I never had an opinion of Texas, but after everything has unfolded I can say that I do not respect them. They're just greedy and conniving. They were playing Larry Scott against Beebe just so they could get what they wanted.

 

[dmr727]

Wow, that definitely is one angry dude. But cowards? Please. If the Pac-10 offered more money, we'd be in the Pac-10. If the SEC offered more money, we'd be in the SEC. The situation is definitely unfair to the other seven, but you don't hear those schools complaining because they all know the alternative is far, far worse. Texas simply went to whomever offered the best deal (and allowed their network), and that ended up being the Big 12. Ruthless? Yep, but it's nothing any other school wouldn't do in their situation.

Now that said, I don't like it any more than anyone else does. I don't like that college football has become an arms race. I don't like that the game and the fans suffer as a result. It's basically become a professional sport that happens to attach itself in name to a University.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Wow, that definitely is one angry dude. But cowards? Please. If the Pac-10 offered more money, we'd be in the Pac-10. If the SEC offered more money, we'd be in the SEC. The situation is definitely unfair to the other seven, but you don't hear those schools complaining because they all know the alternative is far, far worse. Texas simply went to whomever offered the best deal (and allowed their network), and that ended up being the Big 12. Ruthless? Yep, but it's nothing any other school wouldn't do in their situation.

Now that said, I don't like it any more than anyone else does. I don't like that college football has become an arms race. I don't like that the game and the fans suffer as a result. It's basically become a professional sport that happens to attach itself in name to a University.

you know now that Texas got its own network it sets a presidents that will allow the other big 12 schools to make their own network as well.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

If the Pac-10 offered more money, we'd be in the Pac-10.

They did, but the package didn't include the allowance for BEVOnet, which apparently was the deal-breaker.

If the SEC offered more money, we'd be in the SEC.

I'm not really sure why UT is so anti-SEC. There is clearly more money there than in either the Pac-16 or the new Big 12, plus the SEC allows teams to keep their third-tier rights and negotiate individual TV deals with local media (or, in the 'horns case, their own network altogether).

The only answer that makes any sense is the one everyone was talking about when A&M was flirting with the SEC, and that is that UT doesn't want to give the Alabama, Florida, etc. a stage on which to make themselves even more attractive to Texas high school players. Understandable, but a little cowardly considering how good UT has been for the last decade-plus.

you know now that Texas got its own network it sets a presidents that will allow the other big 12 schools to make their own network as well.

Very true. OU has been talking about putting together their own network for a few years now, and A&M has an internet-based network (though CBS Sports) where they show pretty much every home game in every sport other than football online, for free. The roadmap is certainly there for all three to advance to the point of having Big 10 Network-style deals. I wonder, then, why they wouldn't do a joint venture and share the startup costs before breaking apart into three different networks somewhere down the line.

 

[echeck]

What do you guys think of the Houston lawmakers trying to push the BIG 12(10) in to inviting University of Houston in to the conference?

I think it's ridiculous and mostly pathetic.

But I have to ask, what is it with all these Texas schools thinking they have to always be together? Is it simply the lawmakers trying to make sure they all get the biggest money, or is it some sort of mentality of "Texas is better than everyone else, and we gotta stick together!" ...??

I'm all for state pride, but I'm not going to sit here and whine about University of Idaho not being in the MWC, or Idaho State not being in the FBS...

Maybe it simply comes down to lawmakers trying to please their constituents by pretending to have their best interests in mind

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

What do you guys think of the Houston lawmakers trying to push the BIG 12(10) in to inviting University of Houston in to the conference?

I think it's ridiculous and mostly pathetic.

But I have to ask, what is it with all these Texas schools thinking they have to always be together? Is it simply the lawmakers trying to make sure they all get the biggest money, or is it some sort of mentality of "Texas is better than everyone else, and we gotta stick together!" ...??

I'm all for state pride, but I'm not going to sit here and whine about University of Idaho not being in the MWC, or Idaho State not being in the FBS...

Maybe it simply comes down to lawmakers trying to please their constituents by pretending to have their best interests in mind

It's ridiculous and very pathetic. The problem is that all the Texas schools were together for so long, the "little" guys (UH, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, etc.) think it's their right to have the same revenue and exposure as the flagship universities despite not bringing anything to the table other than the occasionally good team (and by now even the lest cynical among us knows that none of this has to do with on-field competition).

The UH move is unlikely to come to anything at all, but if it does, the few people at A&M who actually supported staying in the Big 12 will start raising holy hell, and I would imagine a lot of the big money folks in Austin would feel the same way. While it's nice to be running the show in a weaker league, eventually it erodes national perception, which ultimately impacts the all-important bottom line.

 

[Tomorrow]

But I have to ask, what is it with all these Texas schools thinking they have to always be together? Is it simply the lawmakers trying to make sure they all get the biggest money, or is it some sort of mentality of "Texas is better than everyone else, and we gotta stick together!" ...??

You're partly right. It's the lawmakers lobbying for their alma maters, or whatever school they have some sort of stake in, to be invited into the conference; and it's nostalgia for the old SWC.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

It's ridiculous and very pathetic. The problem is that all the Texas schools were together for so long, the "little" guys (UH, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, etc.) think it's their right to have the same revenue and exposure as the flagship universities despite not bringing anything to the table other than the occasionally good team (and by now even the lest cynical among us knows that none of this has to do with on-field competition).

The UH move is unlikely to come to anything at all, but if it does, the few people at A&M who actually supported staying in the Big 12 will start raising holy hell, and I would imagine a lot of the big money folks in Austin would feel the same way. While it's nice to be running the show in a weaker league, eventually it erodes national perception, which ultimately impacts the all-important bottom line.

And when was the last time A&M had a good foot ball team? They went threw a very long drought for a while if they are still not in it. Big 12 south for years came out with OU/UT, OSU/TT, A&M then Baylor.
Not counting last year because I did not really follow Texas Tech was higher than A&M for years at the end of the season.

I know 2 years ago it was a joke at work we did to the Agies, Who is A&M going to lose to this week?

Personally I think Texas could and should have 3 flag ship schools. Texas Tech, A&M and UT. That and the land grant money need to change out is split up because right now only UT and A&M get it. That was set up to fund all the higher ed in the state so all the public institution should get a share of the money based on student pop and what teir it is.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

And when was the last time A&M had a good foot ball team?

Like I said, performance on the field has very little to do with it. The fact that A&M is one of two flagship universities in the state, has a student population approaching 50,000 and has lots of influential alumni with lots of dollars has much more to do with their conference status than how many games their crummy football team has won the last few years.

Personally I think Texas could and should have 3 flag ship schools. Texas Tech, A&M and UT. That and the land grant money need to change out is split up because right now only UT and A&M get it. That was set up to fund all the higher ed in the state so all the public institution should get a share of the money based on student pop and what teir it is.

I'm fine with that; UT has too big a share of the PUF, anyway. But Tech's academics are a joke right now. They have a long way to go just to achieve Tier 1 status, which is only one of the criteria they need to meet before they deserve flagship status.

 

[echeck]

Random thought...

I think this coming season could provide a tougher conference schedule for those teams that have decided to realign. I know I would be a little more fired up for that last chance to get the win against a team on the move.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Like I said, performance on the field has very little to do with it. The fact that A&M is one of two flagship universities in the state, has a student population approaching 50,000 and has lots of influential alumni with lots of dollars has much more to do with their conference status than how many games their crummy football team has won the last few years.


I'm fine with that; UT has too big a share of the PUF, anyway. But Tech's academics are a joke right now. They have a long way to go just to achieve Tier 1 status, which is only one of the criteria they need to meet before they deserve flagship status.

A&M is rather hated by some of the proffesors I had in Civil Engineering because of how they would get their finger in everything and A&M would try to come in and steal research grants out from under them. It REALLY annoyed them when A&M would try to steal wind research from Texas Tech because at one point TT wind research is considered one of the best in the world and I want to say at one point they held number 1 spot in that category. Small little thing but on structures that was something that they had a high specialty in.

That and they would try to steal projects that really did not make since and more belong in west Texas. REALLY annoyed that one professor. But that is another story. I know more about Texas Tech engineering program which is one of the better ones in this country. As for the other colleges I do not know as much about. The areas I do know about they are very highly rated. Their Construction Engineering Technology program is very highly ranked compared to other Construction programs. UofH has another good technology program. I know little about A&M Construction Management program other than it is just a management program and its graduated can not get test for a PE done the road.

That being said yes I know the university has a little ways to go to become a 4th Texas Tier 1 school but I do feel Texas Tech should at some point in the future become the 3rd flag ship school of the state. The current 3 tier 1 schools in Texas are UT, A&M and Rice.

As for the PUF fund UT gets majority of it and then from my understanding the promised A&M like 30% or something if they agreed to fight any motion to have the money split up like it should be. Which is a mixture of student population and Tier status. A Tier 1 school would get more money per student than a Tier 2 school but any public higher ed in the state should get a cut of the puf fund. If anything it would really help out the budgeting for most of the schools in the state.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

A&M is rather hated by some of the proffesors I had in Civil Engineering because of how they would get their finger in everything and A&M would try to come in and steal research grants out from under them. It REALLY annoyed them when A&M would try to steal wind research from Texas Tech because at one point TT wind research is considered one of the best in the world and I want to say at one point they held number 1 spot in that category. Small little thing but on structures that was something that they had a high specialty in.

That and they would try to steal projects that really did not make since and more belong in west Texas. REALLY annoyed that one professor. But that is another story. I know more about Texas Tech engineering program which is one of the better ones in this country. As for the other colleges I do not know as much about. The areas I do know about they are very highly rated. Their Construction Engineering Technology program is very highly ranked compared to other Construction programs. UofH has another good technology program. I know little about A&M Construction Management program other than it is just a management program and its graduated can not get test for a PE done the road.

I don't know about the stealing stuff because I'm not in the industry, but I do know that A&M is very highly ranked in every engineering field they offer, and overall as high as #9 in the nation in undergrad ranks and #6 nationally in grad school rank. They are also third nationally in engineering research dollars. I can't imagine all of that is stolen from Tech.

As for the Construction Management program, I confess I do not know much about it, but I do know that my friend who just got her Masters in the program had an excellent, high-paying job waiting for her in Austin when she walked across the stage.

That being said yes I know the university has a little ways to go to become a 4th Texas Tier 1 school but I do feel Texas Tech should at some point in the future become the 3rd flag ship school of the state. The current 3 tier 1 schools in Texas are UT, A&M and Rice.

Again, I'm totally fine with that, but I think they need to achieve the standards befitting such a status before they receive flagship school status. They, along with six other schools, have been given the opportunity to get there by some recent legislation (which, incidentally, was supported by both A&M and UT).

As for the PUF fund UT gets majority of it and then from my understanding the promised A&M like 30% or something if they agreed to fight any motion to have the money split up like it should be. Which is a mixture of student population and Tier status. A Tier 1 school would get more money per student than a Tier 2 school but any public higher ed in the state should get a cut of the puf fund. If anything it would really help out the budgeting for most of the schools in the state.

I think the PUF is split thusly: 2/3 goes to UT, 1/3 goes to A&M. As for the notion that A&M only gets its share if they help UT keep the status quo, I don't think that's quite true. The PUF was set up back in 1876 (when A&M was founded and the idea of UT was first funded...the actual school would open eight years later). It takes an act of legislation to change the allocation (I believe by a 2/3 majority), so things are not changing anytime soon. If Tech and some of the other schools manage to achieve Tier 1 status (they are Tier 3 right now, I don't think there even is such a thing as Tier 2), we might see a more serious push for changing the PUF, but as long as UT holds the cards it holds in the government, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

 

[echeck]

Sports sponsorships are largely annoying (read: Boise State Basketball's Taco Bell Arena), but they are a way of life anymore.

With FedEx pulling their Orange Bowl sponsorship last month, and now reports of Citi breaking ties with the Rose Bowl, it got me thinking...

What major sponsors out there would be natural BCS Bowl Game sponsors?

The first one that comes to my mind is NIKE. I'm actually quite surprised that NIKE hasn't stepped up and sponsored a Bowl. I would think the Rose Bowl would be perfect for NIKE.

What do you guys think?

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Sports sponsorships are largely annoying (read: Boise State Basketball's Taco Bell Arena), but they are a way of life anymore.

With FedEx pulling their Orange Bowl sponsorship last month, and now reports of Citi breaking ties with the Rose Bowl, it got me thinking...

What major sponsors out there would be natural BCS Bowl Game sponsors?

The first one that comes to my mind is NIKE. I'm actually quite surprised that NIKE hasn't stepped up and sponsored a Bowl. I would think the Rose Bowl would be perfect for NIKE.

What do you guys think?

Maybe Nike feels like it doesn't need to sponsor a bowl because their logo is on so many uniforms? Plus, how awkward would it be for them if the Rose Bowl was played between two Adidas teams?

I think FTD should sponsor the Rose Bowl.

 

[steve2112]

Maybe Apple should sponsor the Rose Bowl. They have tons of cash lying around. They could do "I'm a Mac" type ads for the teams. "Hi, I'm a Duck. And I'm a Buckeye."

Anyway, I found this MS Pain mockup for a new Big 12 logo. It seems really fitting.

 

[echeck]

This is pretty interesting...

Oklahoma president says Oklahoma and Texas A&M both received SEC invites.

...

On a completely unrelated note...

Anyone here getting the iPhone 4? I had planned for it, but with a new mountain bike, Boise State season tickets, a baby coming in three weeks and now finding out that I need surgery on my ankle.... Finances are coming up a bit short. Heh.

I really hope I find a way though. I'm still rockin' the Original iPhone with EDGE. I can't even be online and on a call at the same time! ...lame

So, considering all of this, I'm officially taking donations!

 

[echeck]

Fall camp starts tomorrow.

GO BRONCOS!!



I think someone needs to start a new thread for the 2010-2011 season.

Whoever creates it, could you post the link here once it's made?

 

[steve2112]

Fall camp starts tomorrow.

GO BRONCOS!!



I think someone needs to start a new thread for the 2010-2011 season.

Whoever creates it, could you post the link here once it's made?

You mean like this one?