Page 2 of 2

Re: Conference realignment winners and losers?

Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:27 am
by Cornhusker
IndyFrisco wrote:While Texas is our main rival, they've earned their position by maintining the size and quality of their network of alumni and their athletic program. While I still have hope A&M can topple them someday, for now, they've earned what they have.
This is borderline sad..They've earned it how?
By providing entertainment for their fans and alumni as you pointed out...
So if their was no on for them to compete against, their commodity is non-existent..right? Thus they rule no more and they no longer profit.
Your comparison to the current administration (while accurate) is unfair, because last i checked, Baylor was working their ass off to succeed. ShaRhonda and her 12 fatherless kids, not so much.

Re: Conference realignment winners and losers?

Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:31 am
by Cuda
Cornhusker wrote:
Mace wrote:
And Mace, saying Texas cares not about the XII but only Texas and then saying Nebraska cared about the XII while bolting in the same sentence is laughable. Everyone cares about themselves first, rivalries next and then somewhere back there is conference.
I'm not aware that I said "Nebraska cared about the XII". When it appeared that Texas, OU, et al, were going to bail out of the conferece, leaving the rest of the schools to fend for themselves, they decided to look for greener pastures and found it in the Big 10. It was a matter of survival for Nebraska and a move that will put more money in their coffers. Had Texas not been shopping for a new conference, Nebraska would have remained in the Big 12. The fact that the lesser schools in the XII paid off Texas, OU, and A&M, by forfeiting the money paid to the conference by Nebraska and Colorado (a payoff to keep them in the conference...at least for now) is indicative of how things work in the Big 12. The rich get richer and the poor live off the scraps thrown to them. Equal payouts for a conference tv network should be mandatory, imo, to level the playing field, at least financially. The Big 12 was held hostage by Texas, OU, and a&m and they paid the ransom when they should have told them to kiss their ass and be on their way. The Big 12 would have been a lesser conference by doing so, but they could have survived by bringing in other teams to complete the conference. Unfortunately for the Big 12, they felt it was more important to give in to the big dogs to maintain the prestige of having them in the conference. A mistake that they will someday regret, imo, when they bail out for a super conference at some point in the future.

This is an un-biased take that is as accurate as possible. An Iowa fan that understands what has happened clearer that 80% of the Big 12ers.
And I know for a fact Mace has no love for Nebraska.
I have no love for nebraska either and Mace's take is dead-on

Re: Conference realignment winners and losers?

Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:53 am
by Cornhusker
King Crimson wrote:see, in your constant need to force your own narrative on this....you are making nonsensical statements. OK, you make argument all over the board that pre-Big 10 offer NU is a national draw, national program. Hoo boy, you betcha. Yet, now, you are claiming OU is regional? and that's it.
I didn't mean is as NU was a national draw moreso than OU. I'm curiuos as how a local TV broadcast plays nationally? You know, when say for example Barry's doing color; while that may play well in Enid and Broken Arrow, how does that translate in Chicago? I'm curiuos how university or local ETV broadcast plan on a handsome revenue share when you can watch 8 other games at the same time. Remember, you've got Iowa St. Kansas St. Baylor Kansas Misery Texas Tech Okie Lite EVERY YEAR NOW! Not to mention 2 OOC cupcakes.
have fun in the Big 10, i'm sure you guys will be kings of Chicago in no time. all the fans in Columbus will start wearing red overalls and UM fan will be smoking corn cob pipes....and who knows, maybe Sparty will start eating bugs.
I missed this I guess...but I like the thought! :lol:
your sanctimonious rantings are getting obsessively repetitive.

Ya maybe.
as far as UT screwing us again as some fate....you did see the part about OU getting an SEC offer? you are kind at odds with what's going on except what Tom Shatel tells you to think....seems. but, again, the rah rah Omaha/Lincoln sports media have always made actual sidelines cheerleading look like the Socratic method
Not so much as A&M and Bill Byrne's interest...but my question is...why not take it? Stoops is in Omaha this week and was quoted as saying he was intrigued with the PAC 10 talk..I was of the opinion OU was closer to the PAC 10 (package deal with satan) than the SEC, of course that was from the World Herald which you kindly reminded me was bullshit.

Re: Conference realignment winners and losers?

Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:55 am
by War Wagon
IndyFrisco wrote:
Seriously, I could care less Nebraska tucked tail and ran off to another conference. Few here have bashed Nebraska for the move until CornFan comes in puffing their Wags-like concave chest.
I was right with you until the concave chest part, which was uncool.

Make your time.

Re: Conference realignment winners and losers?

Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:43 pm
by indyfrisco
Cornhusker wrote:
IndyFrisco wrote:While Texas is our main rival, they've earned their position by maintining the size and quality of their network of alumni and their athletic program. While I still have hope A&M can topple them someday, for now, they've earned what they have.
This is borderline sad..They've earned it how?
By providing entertainment for their fans and alumni as you pointed out...
So if their was no on for them to compete against, their commodity is non-existent..right? Thus they rule no more and they no longer profit.
Your comparison to the current administration (while accurate) is unfair, because last i checked, Baylor was working their ass off to succeed. ShaRhonda and her 12 fatherless kids, not so much.
Texas has a dedicated alumni and fanbase who donate more money than all but Ohio State. You get out what you put in. I'm not saying having the most money wins it for you every year, but it damn well helps you stay at or near the top. Just ask the Yankees. It's a slow climb to the top. As I said, I hope someday A&M takes over. I doubt it will happen, but we almost did in the 90s before we got slapped with probation. I'm no apologist for the Whorns, but at the same time, I'm not going to let jealousy and hatred cloud my view of what they have done and why. For them, it was a selfish move. Anyone else would have done the same thing if they could have. End of story.

Re: Conference realignment winners and losers?

Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:46 pm
by SEC! SEC! SEC!
Sudden Sam wrote:
IndyFrisco wrote: Texas has a dedicated alumni and fanbase who donate more money than all but Ohio State. You get out what you put in. I'm not saying having the most money wins it for you every year, but it damn well helps you stay at or near the top.
Makes it that much tougher to deal with losing to poor ol' Alabama, LSU, and Florida, I guess.

:D
I love you man!

Image

Re: Conference realignment winners and losers?

Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:59 pm
by indyfrisco
War Wagon wrote:
IndyFrisco wrote:
Seriously, I could care less Nebraska tucked tail and ran off to another conference. Few here have bashed Nebraska for the move until CornFan comes in puffing their Wags-like concave chest.
I was right with you until the concave chest part, which was uncool.

Make your time.
Don't get so bent out of shape. I just used you as a prop as you have been the most outspoken.