NCAAF  > Texas Longhorns  > Fair playing feild
July 18, 2010, 04:19 AM
Well it seems Tx has once again blown apart another confference and they should be quite happy with themselves. At the forming of the Big 12 it was Tx who insisted that the Ne OU game go a 2 yr rotaion. I saw the writing on the wall when the conference was formed. Who can forget the SWC a conference made up of all Texas teams and many of those teams put on probation year after year cause they tried to stay competative with Texas Longhorns. There is no dought in my mind that the Longhorns have no concern over tradition they only care about money and are headed down a path that sucks the life out of te NCAAF. So to all the teams that insist on hanging on to the Texas money train good luck on always taking the lesser share of money and trying to stay competative. So in closing I can't wait to see the whole thing blow up in there face and they find themselves on the same island that ND is on. Oh and it's awful brave of the rest of those teams to stay on a sinking ship while Tx gets away with the only life boat.
July 18, 2010  11:03 AM ET

"At the forming of the Big 12 it was Tx who insisted that the Ne OU game go a 2 yr rotaion. I saw the writing on the wall when the conference was formed." I too was disappointed that the NE/OU rivalry was changed in the Big 12 agreement. However the most contentious issue when the Big 12 was formed was partial qualifiers - Nebraska wanted them and Texas did not. When Tom Osborne didn't get his way regarding partial qualifiers he turned every other minor detail into a major issue - in the media. He didn't want a championship game, he wanted the league office in Kansas City, he wanted the Big 8 commish to be the Big 12 commish, and so on and so on. He didn't get his way and his public demeanor regarding these issues served to turn some Nebraska fans into bitter spoiled children who would rather play the blame game than take responsibility for their own self-imposed situation.

"Who can forget the SWC a conference made up of all Texas teams and many of those teams put on probation year after year cause they tried to stay competative with Texas Longhorns." There is a long history of cheating in college football and it's not limited to Texas or the old SWC. Switzer's Sooners (Big 8) come to mind and, if it were not for SMU, Auburn would have most likely been the NCAA's sacrifical lamb. The list is too long.

"There is no dought in my mind that the Longhorns have no concern over tradition they only care about money and are headed down a path that sucks the life out of te NCAAF." No, if the teams from the Big 12 would have accepted the Pac 10's offer ... THAT would have shown no concern for tradition and it would have sucked the life out of the NCAAF.

"So to all the teams that insist on hanging on to the Texas money train good luck on always taking the lesser share of money and trying to stay competative. So in closing I can't wait to see the whole thing blow up in there face and they find themselves on the same island that ND is on. Oh and it's awful brave of the rest of those teams to stay on a sinking ship while Tx gets away with the only life boat." You should get over the past and move on, and the Big Ten's money train should help ease your pain. However if you just need someone to blame we'll be here for you.

July 18, 2010  11:22 AM ET
QUOTE(#1):

However if you just need someone to blame we'll be here for you.

Doc, that's a great gesture to help this somewhat misguided Husker.

I am especially intrigued by his statement about how teams trying to compete with TX kept getting put on probation. Is he trying to imply TX was cheating, or was simply too good to compete with unless a team cheated to try and keep up?

Comment #3 has been removed
Comment #4 has been removed
Comment #5 has been removed
July 18, 2010  12:15 PM ET
QUOTE(#2):

Doc, that's a great gesture to help this somewhat misguided Husker. I am especially intrigued by his statement about how teams trying to compete with TX kept getting put on probation. Is he trying to imply TX was cheating, or was simply too good to compete with unless a team cheated to try and keep up?

The history of cheating in college football goes way back. For instance Jim Tatum and Bear Bryant offered scholarship money to G.I.'s returning from WWII in addition to the free education benefits they received from the G.I. bill. Tatum's successor Bud Wilkinson promised oil industry jobs to recruits' families. The list can go on and on and it's an intriguing story.

SMU's cheating was blatant and, when TX Governor Bill Clements was tied to it, it became much more public than any other cheating scandal before or since. And to think all they really wanted to do was to outbid Switzer for the DFW recruiting market!

July 18, 2010  12:32 PM ET
QUOTE(#4):

... But at least little Tommy Osborne will have successfully run away from the first school that stood up and told him "no" on the issue.

This is a great encapsulation. When the Big 12 was formed Nebraska had just won a national championship (with 3 partial qualifiers as starters) and they were coming off one of the most dominant periods in college football. Osborne considered Nebraska to be the big dog and the Big 8 was merely throwing the Texas schools a lifeline. Not everyone saw it this way and when the "little dogs" didn't completely agree with his ideas his displeasure was made evident during interviews.

Comment #8 has been removed
July 18, 2010  12:57 PM ET

NCAA in general is an unfair playing field. From the varying amounts of income per conference, to the distribution of AQ, to the fact that blue chip recruits are never going to sign outside of the elite programs, etc.

You can't just blame a single school. The whole NCAA is uneven.

July 18, 2010  01:17 PM ET
QUOTE(#5):

"competative"?"dought"?"blow up in there face"?Were you gonna be one of Osborne's "partial qualifiers"?

Thank you, best laugh I have had in a while. If you are going to bust on another person/team please use spell check or have an adult proof read your post before clicking on submit.

Comment #11 has been removed
Comment #12 has been removed
July 18, 2010  02:19 PM ET

I am guessing that posts 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12 means he accomplished his mission. Welcome to the world of an tOSU fan.

Comment #14 has been removed
Comment #15 has been removed
August 3, 2010  10:46 PM ET
QUOTE(#4):

In all fairness, if my team mascot was makeshift toilet paper for an outhouse, I might be angry and defensive, too.But I'm still confused as to why student athletes shouldn't have to meet the same eligibility requirements as other students. I cannot believe the Big 10 is gonna allow that. But at least little Tommy Osborne will have successfully run away from the first school that stood up and told him "no" on the issue.

OK we got a lame mascot. What's even lamer I went to high school with a guy that looked just like him. You know we have two, Herbie Husker, or Jamie Mann as I called him cause that's the name of the guy I went to school with. The other one is this like balloon boy they call Little Red. Ok so our mascot sucks but our program doesn't. Still pretty mad about this whole thing. But I'm really bummed more about the great games that we had in the big 12.

August 3, 2010  11:01 PM ET
QUOTE(#11):

CFB is not (nor do I think it should be) an egalitarian playing field. We don't take turns drafting HS players so that the teams have roughly the same talent level. We don't tell the Big 10 that it must throw all of its revenue into a pot to be shared equally with CUSA schools."Fair" (again, in my opinion), means that the rules don't discriminate for or against any particular team or teams, and that all teams are bound by the same rules. On this principle, you might challenge the BCS on its "AQ" designations, but I don't see any "unfair" charges that could be leveled at the NCAA.

See you are right we don't draft HS players. That's why we need to split the money equal, if they had a draft there would be no need for money at all. This is what I'm saying TX, and all the other top programs have the same this includes Neb ( it's a great program and school ). We need to divide that money equal so those schools that don't have the draw can at least try to compete with the schools that already have the HS ath draw. And I do feel that not sharing the money equally will only damage conference i.e. the Big 12 north.

August 3, 2010  11:08 PM ET
QUOTE(#16):

OK we got a lame mascot. What's even lamer I went to high school with a guy that looked just like him. You know we have two, Herbie Husker, or Jamie Mann as I called him cause that's the name of the guy I went to school with. The other one is this like balloon boy they call Little Red. Ok so our mascot sucks but our program doesn't. Still pretty mad about this whole thing. But I'm really bummed more about the great games that we had in the big 12.

The Big 12 won't be the same without Nebraska. They brought a lot of credibility to the conference and I hate to see them go.

August 6, 2010  11:31 PM ET
QUOTE(#18):

The Big 12 won't be the same without Nebraska. They brought a lot of credibility to the conference and I hate to see them go.

I feel not as much as I'm gonna miss the Big 12. But I'm sure down the road we'll see some OOC games. TX and OU we just have to much respect for each program and Mizzou we just have to long of a history with them. It's such a bummer that money has done this, and the scarry thing is it's just getting started. Just hope the Red River never comes to an end like the OU Neb rivalry ended. The Big 12 took away part of my childhood now my own team took away the rest with the jump. Sad thing is we're competative again.

 
August 7, 2010  10:32 AM ET

All this discussion about traditional rivalries getting lost to exoansion, realignment etc. got me thinking again about whteher or not it might be fun to see some structure outline for mandatory OOC scheduling among AQ programs.

We see TX and ND recently inked a four year deal, and most top tier teams make an effort to have one marquee home and home matchup in their "pre-season" slate every year.

Awhile back, I recall we all talked about having early season matchups that put Pac-10 Champ against Big12Ten champ, 2 vs 2, 3 vs 3 and on down the line. The same could happen between any/every major conference. I know the number of teams per conference don't match up perfectly.

But, I think it would be intriguing to have some sort of "soft" mandate with respect to the BigXII, BigTen, Pac-10, SEC, ACC and BigEast requiring a minimum of two games scheduled every season OOC that play someone who finished either as high as you in their conference or higher.

First thing that comes to mind is that smaller in-state schools that get a great benefit in playing their big in-state school would lose out on critical revenue.

I'm sure there are myriad other challebges that would crop up under this concept.

But, I still think the benefits would outweigh the negatives.

The only thing constant is change. So, why not proactively facilitate the changes we think will improve the NCAAF landscape. As Ghandi said, "be the change you want to see in the world."

I was a full qualifier in the BigTen (hockey, does that even count?)...hee hee.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Clippers, Warriors exchange barbs
    Views
    648
    Comments
    364
  2. 2
    Time to penalize NHL's perennial losers?
    Views
    717
    Comments
    267
  3. 3
    Tuukka Rask takes blame for Bruins' Game 1 loss
    Views
    2586
    Comments
    231
  4. 4
    Smush Parker allegedly punches high schooler
    Views
    2250
    Comments
    140
  5. 5
    Quarterback freefalling down draft boards
    Views
    7580
    Comments
    90

SI.com

SI Photos