Texas Longhorns Football

Originally posted by TX9R:

Here's a question. Since all you Pac guys always root for whoever the Pac team is and cheer for your conference, are you going to root for Texas now too, even though it seems most of you hate Texas? Quite the conundrum.

Nope. I can't speak for other fans, but the reason I rooted for PAC teams was due to how little respect the conference was given. That's out the window now, and the thought of a Texas or Oklahoma school representing the PAC in the Rose Bowl makes me sick.

Originally posted by TX9R:
Here's a question. Since all you Pac guys always root for whoever the Pac team is and cheer for your conference, are you going to root for Texas now too, even though it seems most of you hate Texas? Quite the conundrum.

f**k Texas and their crying ass coach Mack Brown. We dont want you in the Pac anyways.

I guess we know how much weight OU carries now. Denied. This is best for everyone. But I really wish this would just get wrapped up. I'm tired of hearing about it. The Big12 is now and has been for a while, a far better conference in all sports than the Pac12 anyway. If they could just stabilize it can be one of the top 2 conferences for years. Texas needs to make some concessions and we need to add some more schools. Get back to 12 and go back to business as usual.

Originally posted by TX9R:
I guess we know how much weight OU carries now. Denied. This is best for everyone. But I really wish this would just get wrapped up. I'm tired of hearing about it. The Big12 is now and has been for a while, a far better conference in all sports than the Pac12 anyway. If they could just stabilize it can be one of the top 2 conferences for years. Texas needs to make some concessions and we need to add some more schools. Get back to 12 and go back to business as usual.

In all sports? I don't know about that, PAC is pretty dominant with its placing in the Director's Cup.

For the 2 main sports:
Football? I'd give the edge to the Big 12.
Basketball? How do you measure it? I'd probably do it by Final 4 appearances. In which case the PAC-12 is at 40 and Big 12 is at 33. So I'd say PAC-12 has the edge.

Edit: I'd like to see TCU in the Big 12

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:
In all sports? I don't know about that, PAC is pretty dominant with its placing in the Director's Cup.

For the 2 main sports:
Football? I'd give the edge to the Big 12.
Basketball? How do you measure it? I'd probably do it by Final 4 appearances. In which case the PAC-12 is at 40 and Big 12 is at 33. So I'd say PAC-12 has the edge.

Edit: I'd like to see TCU in the Big 12

I should have said revenue generating sports. Over the last decade the Pac's BBall has really gone down hill. How many of the those Final 4s were 40 years ago with UCLA?
I would also like TCU.

Originally posted by TX9R:

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:
In all sports? I don't know about that, PAC is pretty dominant with its placing in the Director's Cup.

For the 2 main sports:
Football? I'd give the edge to the Big 12.
Basketball? How do you measure it? I'd probably do it by Final 4 appearances. In which case the PAC-12 is at 40 and Big 12 is at 33. So I'd say PAC-12 has the edge.

Edit: I'd like to see TCU in the Big 12

I should have said revenue generating sports. Over the last decade the Pac's BBall has really gone down hill. How many of the those Final 4s were 40 years ago with UCLA?
I would also like TCU.

http://www.fanbay.net/ncaa/final4.htm

Go by last 15 years?

PAC 12 - 7 appearences: Arizona 2 appearances, Utah, Stanford, UCLA 3 appearances
Big 12 - 5 appearances: Kansas 3, Oklahoma 1, Texas 1

Go by last 5 years?
PAC -12 - 3 UCLA appearances
Big 12 - 1 Kansas appearance

The PAC 12 was terrible the last 2 seasons, but I don't think 2 seasons makes a major trend

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:
http://www.fanbay.net/ncaa/final4.htm

Go by last 15 years?

PAC 12 - 7 appearences: Arizona 2 appearances, Utah, Stanford, UCLA 3 appearances
Big 12 - 5 appearances: Kansas 3, Oklahoma 1, Texas 1

Go by last 5 years?
PAC -12 - 3 UCLA appearances
Big 12 - 1 Kansas appearance

The PAC 12 was terrible the last 2 seasons, but I don't think 2 seasons makes a major trend

Utah was in the PAC then. Either way final 4s isn't the best barometer for an entire conference. Be curious to see how many teams simply made the tourney and advanced a round a or two. Take UCLA out of the mix and it's not much. I lived in Tucson for a few years so I was forced to follow, top to bottom it just never seemed that good to me. That's when I learned what huge homers you Pac guys are. We'd do brackets at the office and I swear they'd pick all PAC final 4s every year.

gee thanks Texas, your greed got the PAC invite revoked

Scott had the votes until you reiterated your committment to the LHN

Originally posted by cestmoi:
gee thanks Texas, your greed got the PAC invite revoked

Scott had the votes until you reiterated your committment to the LHN

Dude, w/o Texas toting you guys around you'd end up like UH and SMU and everyone knows it. I'm tired of hearing about greed. They are doing what's best for them in regards to LHN and any other school that had the clout to do it would do the same. I'm glad things went this way, I never wanted to be involved with the PAC, it never made any sense.

Originally posted by TX9R:

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:
http://www.fanbay.net/ncaa/final4.htm

Go by last 15 years?

PAC 12 - 7 appearences: Arizona 2 appearances, Utah, Stanford, UCLA 3 appearances
Big 12 - 5 appearances: Kansas 3, Oklahoma 1, Texas 1

Go by last 5 years?
PAC -12 - 3 UCLA appearances
Big 12 - 1 Kansas appearance

The PAC 12 was terrible the last 2 seasons, but I don't think 2 seasons makes a major trend

Utah was in the PAC then. Either way final 4s isn't the best barometer for an entire conference. Be curious to see how many teams simply made the tourney and advanced a round a or two. Take UCLA out of the mix and it's not much. I lived in Tucson for a few years so I was forced to follow, top to bottom it just never seemed that good to me. That's when I learned what huge homers you Pac guys are. We'd do brackets at the office and I swear they'd pick all PAC final 4s every year.

Well, I'm not going to spend all day looking up every single tourney. Without Kansas, Big 12 basketball isn't much of anything. I keep bringing up facts, you keep running away from them. Take UCLA and Kansas out of the equation, and the PAC still has a better basketball tradition.

And nice way to stereotype based on tourney brackets of co-workers down in Tuscon, LOL! I can't think of a mure stupid way to form an opinion of millions of fans.

Edit: And why can't you admit that UT is being greedy? If you did a poll of the entire nation and their opinion of UT and thier pursuit of their own network, proabbly 90% people would call it greed. No other school in a conference is trying to get their own network. So you should stop being a homer, and just admit it.

Originally posted by TX9R:

Originally posted by cestmoi:
gee thanks Texas, your greed got the PAC invite revoked

Scott had the votes until you reiterated your committment to the LHN

Dude, w/o Texas toting you guys around you'd end up like UH and SMU and everyone knows it. I'm tired of hearing about greed. They are doing what's best for them in regards to LHN and any other school that had the clout to do it would do the same. I'm glad things went this way, I never wanted to be involved with the PAC, it never made any sense.

Like UH? You're comparing a residential research university with a commuter school?
Like SMU? You're comparing a tiny private school to Tech?

Get your facts straight. Yes, we were along for the ride because of Texas, no one denies that. But the deal fell through because UT is greedy -- that was my point and everyone knows that's true. Well except the legions of T-shirt UT fans who didn't even go there (I'm talking about you).

Also, No other school manipulates tier 1 and 2 TV rights so games fall to their network. And Texas isn't the only brand that could create their own network... Florida and Bama could do it in a heartbeat, except their conference is based on equal revenue. Notre Dame does it, but they are independent so they don't screw anyone. Half the big10 schools could do it, except their conference doesn't allow it either.

The "any other school who had the clout would do the same" BS is just that...BS. Texas is the only school who manipulated their conference rules to allow something so greedy...the SEC/Big10/PAC aren't wrapped around a single school's finger - so none could get away with it. Texas wouldn't be able to get away with it in those conferences either. So it's not a matter of clout, it's a matter of manipulation.

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:
Well, I'm not going to spend all day looking up every single tourney. Without Kansas, Big 12 basketball isn't much of anything. I keep bringing up facts, you keep running away from them. Take UCLA and Kansas out of the equation, and the PAC still has a better basketball tradition.

And nice way to stereotype based on tourney brackets of co-workers down in Tuscon, LOL! I can't think of a mure stupid way to form an opinion of millions of fans.

Edit: And why can't you admit that UT is being greedy? If you did a poll of the entire nation and their opinion of UT and thier pursuit of their own network, proabbly 90% people would call it greed. No other school in a conference is trying to get their own network. So you should stop being a homer, and just admit it.

Sure they're being greedy, my point is anyone with the clout would do the same. I'm a fan and personally I wouldn't watch much of the network and don't get why someone gave them 300M, but you can't say with a straight face any other college would say no to that, much less turn around and give it back.
As far as my opinion of the PAC and their fans, use your head, that was one funny example. Point was a lived in the area for years and was around tons of you guys, you overrate your conference due to the inferiority complex of the "east coast bias" to cover up that most of your teams just aren't very good. And I'm not running from anything, you're cherry picking facts, I can do that too. In the last 5 years (really the best way to measure current relevance) in the tourney:
Big12 - 42-24 PAC10 - 23-18
Again the Big 12 is currently, and has been lately, the better conference. Not that I root for conferences because that's asinine, point was they were talking about leaving for an inferior (but much better run) conference from a pure athletics standpoint. And everyone should thank Texas for being so greedy because if they hadn't, they'd have gone to the PAC and ruined 2 conferences: 1 would disband and the other would have much less of a chance to win their own conference.

Originally posted by TX9R:

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:
Well, I'm not going to spend all day looking up every single tourney. Without Kansas, Big 12 basketball isn't much of anything. I keep bringing up facts, you keep running away from them. Take UCLA and Kansas out of the equation, and the PAC still has a better basketball tradition.

And nice way to stereotype based on tourney brackets of co-workers down in Tuscon, LOL! I can't think of a mure stupid way to form an opinion of millions of fans.

Edit: And why can't you admit that UT is being greedy? If you did a poll of the entire nation and their opinion of UT and thier pursuit of their own network, proabbly 90% people would call it greed. No other school in a conference is trying to get their own network. So you should stop being a homer, and just admit it.

Sure they're being greedy, my point is anyone with the clout would do the same. I'm a fan and personally I wouldn't watch much of the network and don't get why someone gave them 300M, but you can't say with a straight face any other college would say no to that, much less turn around and give it back.
As far as my opinion of the PAC and their fans, use your head, that was one funny example. Point was a lived in the area for years and was around tons of you guys, you overrate your conference due to the inferiority complex of the "east coast bias" to cover up that most of your teams just aren't very good. And I'm not running from anything, you're cherry picking facts, I can do that too. In the last 5 years (really the best way to measure current relevance) in the tourney:
Big12 - 42-24 PAC10 - 23-18
Again the Big 12 is currently, and has been lately, the better conference. Not that I root for conferences because that's asinine, point was they were talking about leaving for an inferior (but much better run) conference from a pure athletics standpoint. And everyone should thank Texas for being so greedy because if they hadn't, they'd have gone to the PAC and ruined 2 conferences: 1 would disband and the other would have much less of a chance to win their own conference.

So you lived in Tuscon? Big deal. I lived in Texas for several years. Texas fans are homers also, all college fans are. And this idea that only PAC fans root for their conference is such a myth. I know plenty of UT fans who want non-rivals in their conference to win OOC play. You want every Big 12 team to lose OOC play? Thats just plain irrational. Unless a team is your rival, if you play them you want them to have as good of a showing as possible in the season, so when you beat them your team moves up rankings more.

And I wasn't cherry picking, you see in one of my first posts about basketball I stated that I guessed final 4 finishes were the best measure. I don't think advancing once or twice, or win/loss in tourney is the best measure because a lot of it is heavily match up dependent. And the Final Four finishe are clear. And you brought up the PAC isn't good at basketball without UCLA, but you can clearly say the same thing about the BIg 12 with Kansas. You are just being a homer about it.

And I don't think the last 5 years is the best measure of relevance, IMO the shortest term you can look at is a decade. I think 5 years is too brief period, where if one team in the conference has a great season it can totally skew the stats. Or conversely, one powerhouse is down it skews stats.

Yes. I root against every conference rival in every game they play in or out of conference because I don't like those teams. If A&M was playing USC, I'd root for USC and I don't like them either. Any team that matters that year is a rival and I want to see them get beat, if they suck I don't care if they win or lose. I'm not cheering for Iowa St regardless of the opponent, I wouldn't even check the box score.
Everyone else I know feels the same way, it's only the PAC and SEC guys that seem to do this. I don't care about about rankings. If Texas wins they'll be ranked appropriately. USC had no problem with rankings for a decade in a s**tty conference.
And look at recent history as far as BB: Texas, A&M, OU, Baylor, and Mizzou have all been good teams, it's far more than just Kansas that's half the conference with good teams. In fact we just shipped the 2 crappiest teams out, it's a very good BB conference. You don't seem to know much about the Big12 if you think Kansas is all it has. You "guessed" final 4s was a good gauge, doesn't mean it is. It measures 1 good team, not a conference. Memphis made a bunch of good runs, how good was their conference?

Originally posted by TX9R:
Yes. I root against every conference rival in every game they play in or out of conference because I don't like those teams. If A&M was playing USC, I'd root for USC and I don't like them either. Any team that matters that year is a rival and I want to see them get beat, if they suck I don't care if they win or lose. I'm not cheering for Iowa St regardless of the opponent, I wouldn't even check the box score.
Everyone else I know feels the same way, it's only the PAC and SEC guys that seem to do this. I don't care about about rankings. If Texas wins they'll be ranked appropriately. USC had no problem with rankings for a decade in a s**tty conference.
And look at recent history as far as BB: Texas, A&M, OU, Baylor, and Mizzou have all been good teams, it's far more than just Kansas that's half the conference with good teams. In fact we just shipped the 2 crappiest teams out, it's a very good BB conference. You don't seem to know much about the Big12 if you think Kansas is all it has. You "guessed" final 4s was a good gauge, doesn't mean it is. It measures 1 good team, not a conference. Memphis made a bunch of good runs, how good was their conference?

I can't help it if you don't understand that OOC wins for a Conference reflect on the Conference's pretige

So based on your reasoning, you want to be in the s**ttiest conference possible? lol

And you don't care about rankings? So you have NEVER thought Texas should be ranked higher ever in the history fo college football? And I'm sure you're going to tell me, everyone you know thinks like this too.

The vast majority of fans want their Conference to have prestige, which means their team win their OOC games. The vast majority of fans care about rankings. The vast majority of fans understand rankings matter as far as BCS bowl invites go.