T1B

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:45 am**

This is something else

How can a guy be academically ineligible to play in Virginia, move to Oklahoma to play ball for the state powerhouse, costs them to forfeit 8 wins from the previous year, not eligible to play this year due to grades and is still offered and is accepting a scholarship to OU?

I cannot wait to hear this.....

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:01 am**

Believe the Heupel wrote:Heh. Yeah, no shady business ever goes on with district changes in Texas High Schools like ever.

And Texas has never offered a scholarship to a kid at academic risk. Edorian McCollough was a genius. That's why he was 21 when he graduated from high school.

Not endorsing Trimble's actions at all, but BFD on being offered a scholarship. It's not like he was driving dru..er, texting while driving and crashed through someone's wall and fled the scene.

This isn't about Texas. This is about OU offering a scholarship that is academically ineligible. Not 1 year but 2 years. Edorian McCullough was 1 and done at Texas because he could not get the grades. If I am not mistaken, he was also offered by OU. There is a difference between academic risk and a kid who is ineligible or not 1 but 2 years. If he could not make the grades as a junior in high school how in the hell is he going to make it into college? That's right, he is trying to get in to OU.....who evidently will take a kid who could not pass high school in Virginia.

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:20 am**

Why not go back to Proposition 48...or whatever the hell it was, in the Big 12? A kid could be dumber than a box of rocks and get a degree in polishing rocks and possibly get a shot at the NFL. I don't see what's so wrong with that. Oh yeah...Texas would be at a disadvantage, hence the reason they INSISTED the plug be pulled on that when the Big 12 formed. Ann Richards is the reason we got shit schools like Baylor in the conference. We're Texas. Blow me.

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:27 am**

I don't think the Big-12 will ever be confused with an academic conference. If you can't get into a Big-12 school, you're a retard.

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:47 am**

TheJON wrote:I don't think the Big-12 will ever be confused with an academic conference. If you can't get into a Big-12 school, you're a retard.

I dunno about that. A&M and Tejas might disagree with that. Nebraska also has the NCAA record for academic All-Americans.

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:57 am**

TheJON wrote:I don't think the Big-10 will ever be confused with an academic conference. If you can't get into Iowa, you're a retard.

FTFY

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:06 am**

H4ever wrote:Why not go back to Proposition 48...or whatever the hell it was, in the Big 12? A kid could be dumber than a box of rocks and get a degree in polishing rocks and possibly get a shot at the NFL. I don't see what's so wrong with that. Oh yeah...Texas would be at a disadvantage, hence the reason they INSISTED the plug be pulled on that when the Big 12 formed. Ann Richards is the reason we got shit schools like Baylor in the conference. We're Texas. Blow me.

Texas does not take Prop 48 athletes. That was a sticking point when we joined the Big XII. Nebraska had their "county" scholarship program. That too was a problem. Nebraska basically got the counties of great football players to pay for their school so they didn't count against the scholarships for football. All the great players from Nebraska counted against the county not the football total. Funny how NU has fallen since they can't have 135 players to choose from.

Texas was not at a disadvantage because of Prop 48. I cannot name the last juco transfer to Texas. Hard to believe that you would have a problem with a "student" athlete being a moron and getting a free education to do nothing. Dexter Manley has a degree from OSU and could not read. That makes the school look really good. College is for learning and playing a sport because you can get a 2.0 gpa in High Shcool and score 700 on your SAT's. Yeah, Texas is bad for wanting some standards in the conference.

I do agree that Baylor should not be in the Big XII, it should have been TCU.

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:31 am**

For the record, OU and ATM also supported Texas and their position on prop 48 athletes. The compromise was each school could take one male and one female prop 48 athlete each calendar year. Nebraska used there's in football each year, OU and Texas didn't take any, and ATM took one. Recently that was changed to no prop 48s at all.

As for adding Baylor, everyone was behind that move at the time. TCU was in horrible shape and Baylor was thought to be on the rise. We all know why you want to have a private school in the conference. I would argue that if TCU was taken into the Big XII instead of Baylor, you would see their recent history reversed. Baylor would be a better team for not having to go up against the Big XII and would have success in WAC/Mt West. TCU on the other hand would be getting their head beaten in game in and game out in the Big XII.

As for Nebraska and their "Academic All Americans" I say BS. Unless you are at one of the military schools, an Ivy, RICE, etc, football players are not required to do much. Sure individual guys can be great students, but don't talk to me about how studious your players are. Further, the next time I see Nebraska ranked in the top 15 of schools by US News will be the first, get in line behind, Texas, ATM, CU, KU and most of the time OU. And any Nebraska graduate that points to the academic success of prop 48 students at Nebraska devalues their own degree. You are saying that someone who couldn't maintain a D average or score at the level of an average 8th grader on the college boards, can graduate from the same school as you and holds the same degree? Doesn't say much for that framed piece of paper on your wall.

As for recruiting questionable athletes, if your school is going after the guy it is because he was misunderstood, overlooked, or a product of the system. Your school will give him all the tools he needs to be successful and a fresh start. If you school isn't recruiting a questionable athlete it is because he is the worst human since Hitler, can't read, write, or think, and helped Mike Vick kill baby puppies.

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:17 am**

Oklahoma cheating? I can't believe that. Next thing you'll try to convince me of is how they steal land and conference titles

Those silly Okies sure could use some good ole fashion Texas values like honesty, moral fortitude, and unquestionable ethics.

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:17 am**

Oklahoma cheating? I can't believe that. Next thing you'll try to convince me of is how they steal land and conference titles

Those silly Okies sure could use some good ole fashion Texas values like honesty, moral fortitude, and unquestionable ethics.

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:27 pm**

Harvdog wrote:
TheJON wrote:I don't think the Big-10 will ever be confused with an academic conference. If you can't get into Iowa, you're a retard.
FTFY

Nice to see they teach KCMO 101 in Austin.

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:23 pm**

in Harv's world as demonstrated by his usual response over the last year or so....all BTPCF OU fan would need to do here is post about 500 words or a page or two of cut and paste "discussion" from one of the main OU boards on the topic and some bold-faced opinions of one of it's chief homer scribes (say, from Rivals) to satisfy the apparent criteria for "refutation" of accusations and systematic wrong-doing.

in his case, a long thread from orangebloods.com or hornfans.com and the unquestionable objectivity of someone like Geoff Ketchum usually suffices to re-establish UT's innocence, faux sanctimony and the standing belief that everyone else is made of less stern moral stuff than the Horns and thereby not only cheats to keep up with Texas but because they enjoy it and hate with all the fibers of their being true sportsmanship and competition.

it if weren't for Texas, all of BTPCF would be lost in a maelstrom of moral turpitude and soul-killing relativism where black is white and children hate their mothers.

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:18 pm**

Harvdog wrote:That was a sticking point when we joined the Big XII. Nebraska had their "county" scholarship program. That too was a problem. Nebraska basically got the counties of great football players to pay for their school so they didn't count against the scholarships for football.

What the livin fucking hell are you pulling out of your ass here? "County scholarship???" never heard of such a thing and I've been here a looong fucking time clueless,.... just link me up..
I wanna learn about this "county scholarship" thingy. And don't forget that NU's name must be tied to the facts.... I'll wait......

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:50 pm**

Apparently there's no self-imposed suspension from the buffett line.

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:15 pm**

Harvdog wrote:
TheJON wrote:I don't think the Big-10 will ever be confused with an academic conference. If you can't get into Iowa, you're a retard.
FTFY

That's odd.......

According to this link there are 4 Big-10 universities ranked ahead of ANY Big-12 school.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandrevie ... ngs/page+3

And Iowa would rank 2nd in the Big-12 behind Tejas........

Nice try, but...................FAIL!

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:33 pm**

H4ever wrote:
TheJON wrote:I don't think the Big-12 will ever be confused with an academic conference. If you can't get into a Big-12 school, you're a retard.

I dunno about that. A&M and Tejas might disagree with that. Nebraska also has the NCAA record for academic All-Americans.

What the fuck else is there to do there but study?

the_ouskull

Posted: **Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:36 pm**

...so long as he can pick up a ANY blitz.

FTFOU'sOffensiveLine

the_ouskull

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:39 am**

Left Seater wrote:For the record, OU and ATM also supported Texas and their position on prop 48 athletes. The compromise was each school could take one male and one female prop 48 athlete each calendar year. Nebraska used there's in football each year, OU and Texas didn't take any, and ATM took one. Recently that was changed to no prop 48s at all.

As for adding Baylor, everyone was behind that move at the time. TCU was in horrible shape and Baylor was thought to be on the rise. We all know why you want to have a private school in the conference. I would argue that if TCU was taken into the Big XII instead of Baylor, you would see their recent history reversed. Baylor would be a better team for not having to go up against the Big XII and would have success in WAC/Mt West. TCU on the other hand would be getting their head beaten in game in and game out in the Big XII.

As for Nebraska and their "Academic All Americans" I say BS. Unless you are at one of the military schools, an Ivy, RICE, etc, football players are not required to do much. Sure individual guys can be great students, but don't talk to me about how studious your players are. Further, the next time I see Nebraska ranked in the top 15 of schools by US News will be the first, get in line behind, Texas, ATM, CU, KU and most of the time OU. And any Nebraska graduate that points to the academic success of prop 48 students at Nebraska devalues their own degree. You are saying that someone who couldn't maintain a D average or score at the level of an average 8th grader on the college boards, can graduate from the same school as you and holds the same degree? Doesn't say much for that framed piece of paper on your wall.

As for recruiting questionable athletes, if your school is going after the guy it is because he was misunderstood, overlooked, or a product of the system. Your school will give him all the tools he needs to be successful and a fresh start. If you school isn't recruiting a questionable athlete it is because he is the worst human since Hitler, can't read, write, or think, and helped Mike Vick kill baby puppies.

The highest ranked Big 12 school in the US News rankings is Texas at #47, half the Pac 10 is ranked higher than 47

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:40 am**

Left Seater wrote:For the record, OU and ATM also supported Texas and their position on prop 48 athletes. The compromise was each school could take one male and one female prop 48 athlete each calendar year. Nebraska used there's in football each year, OU and Texas didn't take any, and ATM took one. Recently that was changed to no prop 48s at all.

As for adding Baylor, everyone was behind that move at the time. TCU was in horrible shape and Baylor was thought to be on the rise. We all know why you want to have a private school in the conference. I would argue that if TCU was taken into the Big XII instead of Baylor, you would see their recent history reversed. Baylor would be a better team for not having to go up against the Big XII and would have success in WAC/Mt West. TCU on the other hand would be getting their head beaten in game in and game out in the Big XII.

As for Nebraska and their "Academic All Americans" I say BS. Unless you are at one of the military schools, an Ivy, RICE, etc, football players are not required to do much. Sure individual guys can be great students, but don't talk to me about how studious your players are. Further, the next time I see Nebraska ranked in the top 15 of schools by US News will be the first, get in line behind, Texas, ATM, CU, KU and most of the time OU. And any Nebraska graduate that points to the academic success of prop 48 students at Nebraska devalues their own degree. You are saying that someone who couldn't maintain a D average or score at the level of an average 8th grader on the college boards, can graduate from the same school as you and holds the same degree? Doesn't say much for that framed piece of paper on your wall.

As for recruiting questionable athletes, if your school is going after the guy it is because he was misunderstood, overlooked, or a product of the system. Your school will give him all the tools he needs to be successful and a fresh start. If you school isn't recruiting a questionable athlete it is because he is the worst human since Hitler, can't read, write, or think, and helped Mike Vick kill baby puppies.

We came out in the middle of the 12 in the last US News, I believe we were with KU and OU down in the high 30's of public shools. As far as public colleges go we're OK, respectable but not tops. Neb provides more academic support to athletes than about anybody. They make a real effort to send athletes out into the world with more than memories of past glory. Every recruit meets academic counselors and support-staff along with seeing our new academic facility for athletes when he visits. Hell we recently made the chairman of Ameritrade part of our Life Skills Dept in order to try to further prep these guys for life after football. Plus those prop-48 students that graduated usually had C-averages taking Speech Communication, General Studies, etc. We are talking about guys getting considerable tutoring/encouragement and managing to eke by with the easiest coursework the school has to offer. That is hardly an indictment of the whole school. As far as the Academic All-Americans go they weren't sociology, criminal justice, or whatever majors. Most were in engineering, the sciences, or pre-med, generally nothing easier than business admin.

No Nebraska is not a prestigious institution but it's not a diploma-mill either, and Academic All-Americans that went there were smart guys that studied hard.

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2009 1:21 pm**

Believe the Heupel wrote:Amusing that JON and Schmick would attempt to run academic smack.

Especially considering Iowa's acceptance rate is 82.3%. Seeing as how that was the original argument, and not academic prestige, this conversation is very funny. That means you can basically fill out the application upside down and in crayon, and you will be in the top third of those who apply.

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:10 pm**

the undergraduate education/experience at any of the top 150 (US News style) public universities is going to be pretty similar in my view as an "educator". if you are in classes of 100-250 most of your first two years, the structural similarity at Michigan or Iowa State (all chosen arbitrarily)...is going to be the key substantive factor not because of any mitigated ranking factors or that the super-awesome faculty is really the prof who hates teaching those classes (both places) or the over-worked PhD students who teach small classes and TA (both places). very few 250 person classes are going to be balls to the wall learning experiences. but, a 25 person class has a chance. at the big schools, at least a 1/3 to 2/3 of a student's core curriculum are going to be a class they can pass anonymously in a big lecture hall while an inexperienced doc student is thrown way in over his or her head by a research oriented prof.

what they don't tell you about the Carnegie Rankings the US News rankings of National Universities are based on....have more to do with post-doctorate research and graduate programs and all kinds of other "funding" issues (corporate funding for research, Defense Department funding, endowment size, etc.). none of the latter have anything to do with undergraduate coursework or "experience". admission rates are part of it, but highly over-blown. as Killian points out indirectly, a big public uni is going to have much different admission rates than a smallish private or a top quality liberal arts college. many publics have in-state/out of state %'s that drives admission rates to skew.

endowments are function of alumni giving and corporate associations....a school like Ohio State or Texas (or most of the Big 10 schools) are TWICE the size of Colorado, let's say. it stands to reason that the endowment is going to be higher with two times the pool to siphon the moneys. and that goes into the rankings. population density is also a factor with state/public funded schools that draw from a tax base (the Cal schools are a good example and even now their funding structure which has created a standard of quality across the board is being considered a product of "socialist" tendencies back in the day). more money, more ranking.

it's real easy to shoot holes in almost all the US News stuff. like i say, the difference between the #40 school and the #75 school or the #87 is negligible IMO. it's great for consumers since it makes things easy to digest, the complex becomes simple, and great for the PR wonks at your school who have a "brand" to sell. it's about as relevant to life on the ground at campus X as Dave Letterman's top 10 list about baseball is to who wins the WS.

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:06 pm**

Harvdog wrote:This is something else

How can a guy be academically ineligible to play in Virginia, move to Oklahoma to play ball for the state powerhouse, costs them to forfeit 8 wins from the previous year, not eligible to play this year due to grades and is still offered and is accepting a scholarship to OU?

I cannot wait to hear this.....

Yeahhhhhhh... as opposed to what Austin Westlake, South Carrol, SA Marshall, and Lake Travis do...

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:59 am**

Left Seater wrote:As for adding Baylor, everyone was behind that move at the time. TCU was in horrible shape and Baylor was thought to be on the rise. We all know why you want to have a private school in the conference. I would argue that if TCU was taken into the Big XII instead of Baylor, you would see their recent history reversed. Baylor would be a better team for not having to go up against the Big XII and would have success in WAC/Mt West. TCU on the other hand would be getting their head beaten in game in and game out in the Big XII.

I agreed with your entire post except this portion. It's wholly incorrect. Nebraska was very adamant about not wanting Baylor to be brought in to the conference and was even a little opposed to Texas Tech. So were Missouri and Kansas initially until Oklahoma and Oklahoma State strong armed the situation by threatening the Big 8 that if the deal couldn't be pulled out then they would bounce to the SWC. Texas A&M's athletic department was still fuming about being locked out of the SEC because they knew it would never be approved by the State legislature which is dominated by UT and Baylor grads. Missouri and Kansas came around because they didn't want the core of schools of the Big 8 to dissolve. Nebraska was very unhappy about the situation and rightfully so from their perspective. They knew that the influx of texas school which had more culturally and academically in common with the Oklahoma school would create an irreversible power shit (which it did) and nothing to do with the mythical county scholarship texass moron is trying to claim existed at one time (which it did not). In the end Baylor had to be brought in to garner the votes in the Texas Legislature to approve the "big four" from the SWC merging with the Big 8 and forming the Big 12.

I've made a much longer post about this in the past which is much more in detail and precise with process as it occurred in the early 90s in the past but was too lazy this evening to bother trying to hunt it down...

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:06 am**

Fuck that was much easier than I thought...

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29288&p=573837&hili ... re#p573837

SunCoastSooner wrote:
Papa Willie wrote:Funny how nobody really wants to claim Arkansas. I know most SEC folks were kind of like "where the fuck did that come from?".
The SEC got stuck with Arkansas after Texas A&M rebuffed their offers to join the SEC... It wasn't so much that A&M wasn't interested but knew that the state legislature would never sign off on anything that didn't benefit Texas and Baylor whose graduates dominate the state's politics. It created a soap opera behind closed doors that's fall out directly effected the Big 8 schools who started discussions behind closed doors with UT and Texas A&M as soon as 3 months after Arkansas announced its intention to leave for the SEC.

Nebraska was the wise old soothsayer in the situation but got screwed. At first the discussions were just for UT and aTm to come on board and at Nebraska and Kansas' call to go after some two team combination of Colorado State, Air Force, BYU, Tulsa, and Utah.

Texas knew that the SWC conference was a dying but at the same time also knew that they basically controlled its operations with a little input from aTm; they also knew the troubles that would be brewing getting it to go through without Baylor.

The Big 8 schools did want a private school desperately which would take away oversight by the states of the conference's budget. As the talks evolved Most of the Big 8 schools were pushing for TCU to be the private school if it had to come from Texas.

Nebraska sat back shaking it's head and were very unhappy about how things were evolving in the discussions as early late 1992. They didn't want a conference taken over by southern schools since it was their perception (and rightfully so) that OU and OSU had more in common both economically and culturally with Texas and Texas A&M (similar lifestyles, values, athletic & academic concerns, industry, etc.). Nebraska with the help of Missouri and Kansas began to make some noise about souring the deal. The then AD at OU was grasping at straws to create some sort of legacy or at least good grace in his wanning years after he had successfully ran off both Barry Switzer and the most successful HC in OU basketball history since WWII (Billy Tubbs) with the athletic department operating in the red.

Texas pushed Baylor hard; they knew the issues politically they would be facing if Baylor was left out in the cold. Nebraska began to push a deal that left out the Texas schools entirely. Oklahoma State had a shit fit about this because they wanted no part of Tulsa in the same conference to lend credibility towards. They were already making strides in basketball which they considered their God given right to dominate the state in (which hasn't ever really been the case but this isn't the place to cast away those delusions) and had been having enough trouble recruiting against in other sports since the mid 80s.

Oklahoma and OSU began to make veiled threats about just ditching the conference for the SWC and then possibly going after two other schools if they wanted 12 for CCG. You can speculate who those two would be but I've heard everything from KSU, Colorado, Colorado State, New Mexico, Tulane, etc. The threats worried Missouri and Kansas enough that they got back on the wagon but Nebraska was still pushing TCU...

In the end the Big 8 brought in the Texas schools and Nebraska's fear that the conference power gravitate in a more southerly direction came to fruition...

War Wagon wrote:Fuggin' excellent post, SCS.

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:15 am**

phrased that the conference "more southerly" is not automatic BS.

everyone on planet earth knows this was about the OKC/KC/ Dallas/ Houston/Denver asses in the seats.

consolidating media markets. the SWC was a regional conference.

like i've said a million times, there's a reason the Cotton Bowl was on at noon on New Year's Day and not a current BCS game.

the hangover bowl. secondary bowl. the SWC champ.

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:09 am**

SCS version of the formation of the Big XII is pretty close to what i know. i'm also not a Baylor hater. i think BU does bring some things to the conference. right now, today, Colorado is the team that deserves to be pushed out. minimum to be D-1 athletics, last in hoops revenue and standings. sucking air in football with Coach Dan Miracle (never a winning season at CU inheriting a team that won the North 5 of the last 8 years prior to his arrival). my CU to the MWC angle is not well liked on CU boards, but accurate. Donnie Duncan was a moron. i went to elementary school with his daughter Amy. touched her boobs in 7th grade. war me.

just for kicks, i used think this was BS but i was served this link on a CU board not to long ago.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-12-22/ ... _big-boost

T1B

It starts early in Oklahoma

It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma

Re: It starts early in Oklahoma