I don't think Texas is tied to anyone 100%, because they have a zillion dollars from ESPN and I wouldn't be surprised if they just went independent. They let TAMU leave like it was nothing, they don't care about Tech (IMO) when there's money/visibility at stake. UT will piss on anyone's grave for a price.
What were you expecting them to do when A&M announced they were going to leave? Beg them to stay? UT went to A&M 10 years ago about starting a joint TV network. It's not like UT hated the school and didn't want anything to do with it. The idea of independence is nice but it's hard to schedule which is why Army, BYU and Mass are the only real independents left. I see what you mean that a school like Texas will never be %100 with anyone. I do feel they are strongly tied to OU and it would be a large financial risk to subject their partnerships to non-conference scheduling.
I don't know how I missed this gem from last week: “I do not know where the speculation came from, but Oklahoma has not yet taken a position on expansion.” -david boren
I don't think it was. They have found themselves in a good situation so I don't think they would regret it.
i like watching some college football games, some are great. i've been enjoying UH the last couple of years but college football management ncaa, bowls, bcs, power conferences, conferences, rankings, polls, etc... suck so hard. it's like a system that encourages bullying, elitism, segregation, etc...
Losing that extra non-conference game wouldd be an issue but maybe move the game to Jerry World, possibly on Thanksgiving? Could possibly offset or minimize any loss. The traditionalists won't be happy but that could be a nice new tradition.
I said, "almost all" - specifically thinking of the RRR. But, yeah, who even wants tickets to that - Gotham is in Ashes - game anyways at this point.
The state fair is such a unique event. I don't see the benefit to either school aside from more money from Jerryworld. You need to draw the line somewhere with regards to the finances. It would be really weird if you didn't see this shot at the start of every game:
100% agreed. Personally, I don't think the non-conference scheduling would a breaking point, but just an idea if it came down to that.
Chip Brown: tldr: no consensus, no expansion SM: Where do you lean on expansion? Where does Texas stand? Greg Fenves deserves credit for being quiet. He's had some pressure put on him (by the governor & lt. governor). Fenves behind the scenes has told the rest of the Big 12 I won't twist arms here. I'm gonna go with the will of the conference. I do not think there will be expansion. There's no consensus. There was a thought at the beginning that if we start to go down this road, maybe the TV partners will pay us not to expand, without having to go through the act of adding two schools for the quick cash grab. There's no consensus. Houston makes sense and there was some talk to the 8 schools not named Texas/OU, that maybe you guys should vote together, because what if [Texas/OU] leave, wouldn't it be smart to have a Houston in the league so the league could survive? No one is in that mindset right now. There's not consensus. We spent the last 3 months talking about something that won't happen. Bob Bowlsby wants expansion. You never know. October 17th is the date presidents/chancellors will get together. I get the sense it's not gonna happen. Spoiler: Not related Chip on Charlie: Why has the heat cranked up so quickly? A few factors here: First & foremost, not that they lost to Cal but they way they lost in terms of 18 plays of 11 yards or longer given up by a defense that looked like it was in a prevent defense the entire game & a secondary that was lost. Big plays given up, lack of communication & looked poorly coached. That's Charlie's side of the ball. The offense is putting up points. There's the defense falling apart & going backwards. That's the fear. The driving question among the forces of change we'll call them(the big money boosters who tend to get involved), there's progress & then there's a backslide. Beat Oklahoma & Kansas State and then shut out at Iowa State, a team that fired it's coach. This year, beat Notre Dame, look good against UTEP and then backslide. Charlie steps in and says I'm gonna get more involved. The defense gives up 19 plays of 10 yards or longer, including 6 passes of 33 yards or longer in the loss to Oklahoma State. 3 XPs blocked, 4 on the season. These are the concerns from the forces of change at Texas. There's not enough progress or improvement week to week. Having said all that, it's been reported he's close to being fired & this will be it for him. If they beat Oklahoma & Iowa State, is this a back burner issue again or just a forgone conclusion? Let's say he gets to 9 wins, will he keep his job? I do. The president, Greg Fenves, wants to be fair to Charlie & wants him to have the season. I think there's an uneasy truth between the president's office and big money forces of change about what number needs to be hit, in terms of wins, to be a successful season. I think the president wants to give Charlie the season to prove he can get it turned around. The big money guys feel he won't get it turned around because he's not organized, not good enough on game day, the backslide. LSU fired Les at the first opportunity before he could figure it out. I think Texas is going to give Charlie the season to try & get it figured out. Is it my imagination, based on anonymous quotes you see, is it just me or is there a certain contingent of Texas fans or big money boosters that have been rooting against him from day one? There's gonna be that perception because of what Red McCombs said on the record. He was very frustrated with Steve Patterson. Steve took input from the big money guys at the beginning of the search. Then he never talked to them again. It did not matter how many times they called Patterson. A lot of them got mad. When Strong was hired, McCombs said Charlie would make a good position coach, maybe a coordinator. So it was okay "There's the rich white guy who's talking down to Charlie Strong." Some took that there were racial overtones as well. I think there has been support from the president's office. I think there has been excitement over recruiting & that he's a defensive minded coach in an offensive minded conference, that that could be the edge, the advantage. What drives Texas fans & boosters crazy is they can take a loss. They can't take embarrassment. When they go to Cal and looked like they're not coached on defense, the heat intensifies. How different, if at all, would the reaction be if [Strong] said the Monday after "We performed poorly but I got faith in my coaches, we're young & will get it turned around." Would the panic have been less? Yes. When Charlie says I'm gonna get more involved, I'm gonna fix it and then they go out against Oklahoma State...it was too much to fight off in a week. The patience is paper thin. Everyone is asking if they're blown out by OU, will he get fired? I think the president will stand tall on this. Politically, LSU firing Les upped the anxiety among the Strong critics in the big money crowd.
Take it for what its worth. Never heard of this Montemayor guy but interesting that it kinda coincides with what Snyder was saying a few months back.
