College Football 2008-09

[RedScare]

Not much of a surprise. They were only .0084 ahead of OU. OU scores 61pts against a BCS ranked team on the road. I think no one should be surprised about this. What would really make things bad for the big 12 is if Mizzou beats OU in the big 12 title game.

Which would likely put UT in the championship without even winning their own conference. In the spirit of making the BCS a joke at every opportunity, I think I'll now root for Mizzou in the Big 12 Champ game.

[20thStDad]

I had to laugh at Coach Brown's solution on tonight's OU vs. OSU broadcast. I am surprised the announcers didn't laugh.

Basically Brown said they should use the BCS formula to rank the 3 tied teams and eliminate the lowest rated. That would eliminate Tech. Then he said they should look at the two remaining teams and base the decision on the head-to-head matchup. That would eliminate OU. How convenient.

It's not like he pulled that out of his arse, that's the current tiebreaker rule in the SEC. I think our rule is that if the top two of the 3 tied are both in the top 12 in the BCS, the head to head winner gets the nod. I think it's a much better method, it adds some objectivity to it by considering what happened on the field.

Not that I think UT should get to go, I think OU is better. They weren't better back in October, but they are now I think.

I don't think Missouri will win, but I'll be rooting for them just to shake up this mess. Poor Tech will miss out on a BCS game the one year they are good enough to make it.

Edited December 1, 2008 by 20thStDad

[sifuwong]

Which would likely put UT in the championship without even winning their own conference. In the spirit of making the BCS a joke at every opportunity, I think I'll now root for Mizzou in the Big 12 Champ game.

yes,all the more for a playoff system. if mizzou wins, people are gonna go that UT should've been ahead of OU anyway.

[lockmat]

OU edges UT for Big 12 South Title.

Let the Longhorn homer bellyaching begin!

I think it's kinda funny that the BCS ranking was the fifth tie-breaker. To think that head-to-head was not one of the first four. Genius

[RedScare]

I think it's kinda funny that the BCS ranking was the fifth tie-breaker. To think that head-to-head was not one of the first four. Genius

Head to head is actually the first tie-breaker. But, like the UT homers, you have apparently ignored the fact that it was a 3 way tie, and no one beat both of the other 2.

Big 12 Tiebreakers

Edited December 1, 2008 by RedScare

[cnote]

I had to laugh at Coach Brown's solution on tonight's OU vs. OSU broadcast. I am surprised the announcers didn't laugh.

Basically Brown said they should use the BCS formula to rank the 3 tied teams and eliminate the lowest rated. That would eliminate Tech. Then he said they should look at the two remaining teams and base the decision on the head-to-head matchup. That would eliminate OU. How convenient.

Instead, how about we use the entire season's results to pick the winner?

OU has 9 wins against BCS teams, UT has 8.

OU has 5 road wins, UT has 4.

OU has 3 wins over teams that finished the year with 10 or more wins, UT has 1.

OU has more wins against BCS top 25 teams.

OU has a win over the Big East champ, UT has a win over Rice.

OU has a win over 10-2 TCU, UT has a win over Arkansas (tied for last in the SEC).

OU's loss came in early October to a top 5 team, UT's loss came late in the year to a team that barely beat Baylor today.

UT's only saving grace is the win over OU. That's a big factor, but the evidence SHOULD put OU in the game. We'll see what happens. UT is powerful...

Why do you want to use a whole season to pick the winner of a conference??? Lets decide it in the conference, in the UT-Okla-Tech matchups...Tech blown out on the road, Oklahoma beaten soundly by two scores on a neutral field, and UT beaten on a last second play on the road...

You know what we don't do? We don't get cheap touchdowns running the ball with 1st and 10 with 30 seconds left up by two scores...I thought the BCS was supposed to eliminate the so called "style" points....it has made it worse...OU has something coming to them from the football gods...

You can get a good laugh when that is the rule next year, just like it is in the ACC and SEC...I bet the commissioners of those leagues think it is a silly tie-breaker.

We have the best football team in the conference, the only one that has a real defense...we hold teams to thier lowest point totals on the season. Can you imagine what florida's special teams is gonna do againt OU's kick coverage? Oklahoma better pray for Florida to come out flat against Bama...Even then, Bama's lackluster offense should be good for at least 45 against Venables...

This is also shaping up so that it could be possible to have a split MNC if the AP poll decides UT looks better than Florida after the bowls...

They should rename the conference title game to the "We lost to UT by double digits Showcase!"

[lockmat]

Head to head is actually the first tie-breaker. But, like the UT homers, you have apparently ignored the fact that it was a 3 way tie, and no one beat both of the other 2.

Big 12 Tiebreakers

The SEC has something in place for a three way tie that includes head to head.

The Big 12 tiebreaker states that in the event of a three-way tie in which all other tiebreakers have been exhausted, the team rated highest in the BCS will be the division champion. The Southeastern Conference tiebreaker says that in the event of a three-way tie, the team that is rated the highest will be the division champion unless the second-highest team is within five places in the BCS standings. Then it reverts to head-to-head competition. You can bet emphasis is added. And you can bet that the Big 12 will revisit this rule after the season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/stor...&id=3735638

Edited December 1, 2008 by lockmat

[swtsig]

to think that Texas ALREADY BEAT both teams playing in the Big XII title game is absurd. you can throw out all sorts of hypotheticals for ou being there, but Texas - ON THE FIELD - proved that they were better than ou.

why bother playing the RRS if it doesn't make a lick in difference in the end?

[KinkaidAlum]

Cnote-

Sorry, but OU ran the ball right up the middle. OSU had unfortunately quit. It's not like the Sooners were throwing a 30 yard fade with under a minute left. Additionally, I seem to recall the Texas D blitzing the Aggie QB very late in the game. I am pretty sure the Horns were going for defensive style points.

swtsig-

Texas isn't the only team to beat both teams playing in a conference championship game either. In our own city, the University of Houston demolished both Tulsa and East Carolina by a combined score of 111 to 54.

In the end, it is hard to feel sorry for ANY member of a BCS Conference. Texas will make a $17 million bowl game. The Big 12 will bring in around $50 million in bowl revenue. They created the crappy system so they should have to live by the stupid rules. The real victims here are the teams that aren't in BCS Conferences. Can you tell me why only 1 of 3 unbeaten teams (Utah, Boise State, and Ball State) has a guaranteed shot to play in a BCS Bowl game? Can you tell me why teams like Cincinnati (Big East) or Boston College/Virginia Tech (ACC) are guaranteed a BCS bowl game when none of them are rated as highly as Boise, Ball, or Utah? Texas isn't a victim in this situation and Brown should be advocating for a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYOFF not for tweaking a flawed system of inequailty.

Why can all other college sports have a playoff but not major college football? Why can DII and DIII schools have a football playoff? Do you really mean to tell me that "academics" at UT (with a 50% football grad rate) and OU (with a 46% grad rate) are the reason when schools like Case Western Reserve, Occidental, Hobart, Millsaps, Trinity of Texas, and Wabash kids are all capable of handling a football playoff season?

The BCS is a joke. I love seeing it implode. It's especially gratifying when it implodes on the most powerful and rich programs. This year, it appears to be Texas that has egg on its face. But in years past it's been USC and an undefeated Auburn team. I'll I can do is laugh when they try and act like a victim. If there is any wound, it's self-inflicted.

[RedScare]

THIS is what I wanted to see! UT fans crying that "it isn't fair". UT has gotten all the breaks historically, from bad calls mysteriously going in their direction, to their powerful AD making the rules, yet when they lose by the rules THEY created, they cry like infants. The best part is that probably none of the complainers even WENT to UT! One poster appears to have SWT in his name.

I agree that UT didn't add cheap style points at the end of their games. They were getting stomped by Texas Tech (remember them?) until Tech's premature celebration allowed UT back in the game. They needed luck to keep from losing to OSU at home. In fact, their attempt at "style points" against OSU got stuffed on a busted play, proving UT's inability to even score style points.

If you look at the voting in the human polls, the coaches and sportswriters even tried to give it to UT anyway. OU and Florida lost points in the latest poll, while UT gained points. Only the computers were not listening to Mack Brown's whining on national TV. That is where UT lost. And, why do you guys keep leaving Tech out of your discussion? Tech beat UT, remember? You keep calling it a head to head issue, but the Raiders made it a 3 way tie. As long as you keep ignoring the team that beat you, your arguments lack substance.

Keep whining, it is great entertainment!

to think that Texas ALREADY BEAT both teams playing in the Big XII title game is absurd. you can throw out all sorts of hypotheticals for ou being there, but Texas - ON THE FIELD - proved that they were better than ou.

why bother playing the RRS if it doesn't make a lick in difference in the end?

UT is not even the best team in Texas. They have no clain to being in any championship when they are in 2nd place in their own state.

[cnote]

Cnote-

Sorry, but OU ran the ball right up the middle. OSU had unfortunately quit. It's not like the Sooners were throwing a 30 yard fade with under a minute left. Additionally, I seem to recall the Texas D blitzing the Aggie QB very late in the game. I am pretty sure the Horns were going for defensive style points.

Defensive style points for blitzing??? Are you freaking kidding me??? Running any play on 1st and ten with 30 seconds to go when the other team holds no, or even one, timeout is just flat out classless.

Agree with your points about the non BCS schools and the fact that all the controversy helps to destabalize the system, but it is gonna take a whole lot of money and a shift in the balance of power to create a playoff system, and won't happen for some time...

[RedScare]

Agree with your points about the non BCS schools and the fact that all the controversy helps to destabalize the system, but it is gonna take a whole lot of money and a shift in the balance of power to create a playoff system, and won't happen for some time...

True, but change does not occur until the power elites are hurt by the monster they created. OU has been burned by the BCS in the past. Now, UT is getting their taste. When a few more bigshots get squeezed, only then will they think about changing it. However, as long as the weak Pac 10 and Big 10 continue to split the biggest bowl payout, the Rose Bowl, they will have no interest in a playoff, as a playoff means sharing the money with lessers.

[cnote]

THIS is what I wanted to see! UT fans crying that "it isn't fair". UT has gotten all the breaks historically, from bad calls mysteriously going in their direction, to their powerful AD making the rules, yet when they lose by the rules THEY created, they cry like infants. The best part is that probably none of the complainers even WENT to UT! One poster appears to have SWT in his name.

I agree that UT didn't add cheap style points at the end of their games. They were getting stomped by Texas Tech (remember them?) until Tech's premature celebration allowed UT back in the game. They needed luck to keep from losing to OSU at home. In fact, their attempt at "style points" against OSU got stuffed on a busted play, proving UT's inability to even score style points.

If you look at the voting in the human polls, the coaches and sportswriters even tried to give it to UT anyway. OU and Florida lost points in the latest poll, while UT gained points. Only the computers were not listening to Mack Brown's whining on national TV. That is where UT lost. And, why do you guys keep leaving Tech out of your discussion? Tech beat UT, remember? You keep calling it a head to head issue, but the Raiders made it a 3 way tie. As long as you keep ignoring the team that beat you, your arguments lack substance.

Keep whining, it is great entertainment!

UT is not even the best team in Texas. They have no clain to being in any championship when they are in 2nd place in their own state.

I love how you like to hate on a school for having fans that did not necessarily attend the University. That is because we have something called tradition at the program, where people grow up rooting for us, and continue to do so despite not attending the school for whatever reason. You come across as jealous and petty. You are again presuming to know things about people over the interwebs, as you have done in this forum since I joined...

I will say that we needed no luck to win against OSU at home, we actually had bad luck to let OSU back in the game we dominated in every category in the first three quarters...We all remember that Tech beat Texas at night in Lubbock in the biggest game in Tech history on the play of the year in college football by the best receiver in college football at the last second, this doesn't really help your argument. None of the teams are undefeated and we had the best loss with no home game in the round robin.

The coaches and humans tried to give it to UT becuase they actually watch the games and use logic to determine that UT is the best team in the conference. Football is about more than statistics when you watch a game. But this is not something I would expect someone who thinks Texas isn't even the best team in the state to understand...

True, but change does not occur until the power elites are hurt by the monster they created. OU has been burned by the BCS in the past. Now, UT is getting their taste. When a few more bigshots get squeezed, only then will they think about changing it. However, as long as the weak Pac 10 and Big 10 continue to split the biggest bowl payout, the Rose Bowl, they will have no interest in a playoff, as a playoff means sharing the money with lessers.

When was OU hurt by the BCS? I seem to remember them and LSU benefitting the most....not saying it didn't happen, just that I don't remember....

Edited December 1, 2008 by cnote

[RedScare]

...We all remember that Tech beat Texas...

We certainly do!

[cnote]

We certainly do!

No real response, nice...What team do you root for Red? I won't ask you whether you attended or not as that has no real impact to anything we would discuss here....

[RedScare]

No real response, nice...What team do you root for Red? I won't ask you whether you attended or not as that has no real impact to anything we would discuss here....

Currently, no one, as all my teams suck.

A good friend attended both LSU and Florida, so I root for them for lack of anything better to do, but I couldn't care less if they lose. Frankly, the big business aspect of professional, and now college sports has dimmed my enthusiasm for sports in total. I have not watched an NFL game in its entirety all year, and only a few college games. Even the UT/A&M game (I'm an Aggie grad, if it matters) only held my interest for about the 1st quarter, so I didn't even get to see UT run up the score on the Ags, though I am not the least bit surprised by the score.

The number of posts I have made on this subject really does not match the level of indifference I have for this subject. I only posted here to have some fun with other posters, since sports topics are the only topics on HAIF where we can antagonize each other and not get banned. I really do not care that the horns got screwed, and I would not have cared if the Sooners did either. I am more interested in what the recession does to the economics of pro and college sports in an era of club seats and luxury boxes than who wins and loses. Sorry if my taunts distressed you about UT's snub. I was only having fun. Besides, I hear Tempe is nice this time of year.

[sifuwong]

Cnote-

In the end, it is hard to feel sorry for ANY member of a BCS Conference. Texas will make a $17 million bowl game. The Big 12 will bring in around $50 million in bowl revenue. They created the crappy system so they should have to live by the stupid rules. The real victims here are the teams that aren't in BCS Conferences. Can you tell me why only 1 of 3 unbeaten teams (Utah, Boise State, and Ball State) has a guaranteed shot to play in a BCS Bowl game? Can you tell me why teams like Cincinnati (Big East) or Boston College/Virginia Tech (ACC) are guaranteed a BCS bowl game when none of them are rated as highly as Boise, Ball, or Utah? Texas isn't a victim in this situation and Brown should be advocating for a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYOFF not for tweaking a flawed system of inequailty.

Yes, it is about $$. UT fans should gripe to DeLoss Dodds(UT athletic director) and the Big 12 for this. They and many other athletic directors and conferences agreed to the BCS .I want the BCS to implode also. The more controversy, the better...maybe then we will eventually get a playoff going.

Edited December 2, 2008 by sifuwong

[N Judah]

Did anyone else read the Texas Monthly article talking about how much $$ UT spends on what they seem to think is "the most successful college sports program of all time" ? I'd can see how they'd be livid with nothing less than a national championship every year.

[lockmat]

Did anyone else read the Texas Monthly article talking about how much $$ UT spends on what they seem to think is "the most successful college sports program of all time" ? I'd can see how they'd be livid with nothing less than a national championship every year.

Overall, it would not surprise me if they are the most successful or one of the top two or three programs. I know it's recent, but just thinking about all the UT athletes in the olympics shows where they are now.

I'm sure USCal and UCLA are up there as well.

[N Judah]

Well, Sports Illustrated recently ranked UT #2, behind Stanford (which has won the Director's Cup nearly every year since its inception). Anyway the article is worth a read.

[TexasVines]

In the end, it is hard to feel sorry for ANY member of a BCS Conference. Texas will make a $17 million bowl game. The Big 12 will bring in around $50 million in bowl revenue. They created the crappy system so they should have to live by the stupid rules. The real victims here are the teams that aren't in BCS Conferences. Can you tell me why only 1 of 3 unbeaten teams (Utah, Boise State, and Ball State) has a guaranteed shot to play in a BCS Bowl game? Can you tell me why teams like Cincinnati (Big East) or Boston College/Virginia Tech (ACC) are guaranteed a BCS bowl game when none of them are rated as highly as Boise, Ball, or Utah? Texas isn't a victim in this situation and Brown should be advocating for a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYOFF not for tweaking a flawed system of inequailty.

Why can all other college sports have a playoff but not major college football? Why can DII and DIII schools have a football playoff? Do you really mean to tell me that "academics" at UT (with a 50% football grad rate) and OU (with a 46% grad rate) are the reason when schools like Case Western Reserve, Occidental, Hobart, Millsaps, Trinity of Texas, and Wabash kids are all capable of handling a football playoff season?

The BCS is a joke. I love seeing it implode. It's especially gratifying when it implodes on the most powerful and rich programs. This year, it appears to be Texas that has egg on its face. But in years past it's been USC and an undefeated Auburn team. I'll I can do is laugh when they try and act like a victim. If there is any wound, it's self-inflicted.

you want to cry for the schools that are "left out" but my question is where were those teams when college football was not near the money maker it is today.....were they investing in playing facilities, building fan bases, trying to play in a tougher conference so that decent games could make it on TV, were they helping their conference be stronger so that they would have a national following and networks like ESPN could afford to show the game, were they investing in coaching or athletic support facilities

no they were not....some of those schools were playing in D1-AA and or underfunding their football program to help all athletics and or just to keep the cost down

now when the big money is out there they suddenly feel they have a right to a part of it......if those teams had and or have a right to anything then they will get it because the demand from the consumer will be such that the networks and the bowls will want them in there and on TV

just showing up with a team is not really always "helping" build something

[Retama]

A good friend attended both LSU and Florida, so I root for them for lack of anything better to do ... I'm an Aggie grad, if it matters ...

You're 0-2.

[TexasVines]

Well, Sports Illustrated recently ranked UT #2, behind Stanford (which has won the Director's Cup nearly every year since its inception). Anyway the article is worth a read.

it will be extremely hard for any school but Stanford to ever win the Directors Cup because so much of the points are based on spare sports that most schools offer very few if any of and even if some school like UT wanted to offer all of those sports it would be very hard because of lack of location to play the sport and a lack of high school participation in those sports that will feed a university even if that university can pull in nation wide

http://gostanford.cstv.com/index-main.html?id=121

just looking at what Stnaford offers most schools could not field a decent sailing or rowing team if they spent all the money in the world because of location....and many of those other sports make little sense to offer in places where few if any kids play them and even fewer fans watch them

what Stanford does is impressive, but the Directors Cup is a bit of a joke and really means nothing to most schools or their AD because it is totally void of the reality of what sports can and should be offered and the cost to offer some of them at many schools

and people often look at the amount UT spends and think only football when nothing is further from the truth....UT has top facilities and coaches in all the sports they offer and they try and provide those athletes with the same types of and quality of facilities and training that the football team gets

[RedScare]

You're 0-2.

I don't know. Considering what the Aggies have done, and considering his two alma maters have 4 championships in the last 3 years (2 footbal, 2 basketball), I'd say I'm more like 2 of 3. And 2 outta 3 ain't bad.

[lockmat]

Well, Sports Illustrated recently ranked UT #2, behind Stanford (which has won the Director's Cup nearly every year since its inception). Anyway the article is worth a read.

I tried finding it online but I think you have to be a subscriber.

And is SI still ranking the best programs? I know they did a little over 5 or 6 years ago (back when TJ Ford and Cat Osterman were on the scene) and I thought UT was number one?

[KinkaidAlum]

it will be extremely hard for any school but Stanford to ever win the Directors Cup because so much of the points are based on spare sports that most schools offer very few if any of and even if some school like UT wanted to offer all of those sports it would be very hard because of lack of location to play the sport and a lack of high school participation in those sports that will feed a university even if that university can pull in nation wide

http://gostanford.cstv.com/index-main.html?id=121

just looking at what Stnaford offers most schools could not field a decent sailing or rowing team if they spent all the money in the world because of location....and many of those other sports make little sense to offer in places where few if any kids play them and even fewer fans watch them

what Stanford does is impressive, but the Directors Cup is a bit of a joke and really means nothing to most schools or their AD because it is totally void of the reality of what sports can and should be offered and the cost to offer some of them at many schools

and people often look at the amount UT spends and think only football when nothing is further from the truth....UT has top facilities and coaches in all the sports they offer and they try and provide those athletes with the same types of and quality of facilities and training that the football team gets

Funny thing is, there are hundreds of schools that offer "spare sports" (huh?) that aparently nobody competes in. The difference being, Stanford doesn't spend hundreds of millions of dollars on luxury suites for football or $900,000 for a defensive coordinator. Instead, they spend that money on offering student athletes multiple options at participation.

In the end, isn't that what college sports are supposed to be about?

It's a joke that Texas offers so few sports when SMALL colleges like Williams, Amherst, Colgate, Brown, Occidental, MIT, and Harvard can offer so many more. Sure, it doesn't make sense to offer skiing or ice hockey at UT but what about men's soccer? What about sailing? What about men's crew? Wrestling? Squash? Lacrosse? Water polo? Gymnastics? Field Hockey? Rodeo? Riflery? Equestrian? Fencing? These are all sports that other colleges offer.

The difference between Texas/Ohio State/Florida/USC/Alabama and Yale/DePauw/Vassar/Grinnell/Emory is that athletics in the first group is about maximizing profit potential and athletics in the second group is about offering students the opportunity to continue to pursue their interests.

[TexasVines]

Funny thing is, there are hundreds of schools that offer "spare sports" (huh?) that aparently nobody competes in. The difference being, Stanford doesn't spend hundreds of millions of dollars on luxury suites for football or $900,000 for a defensive coordinator. Instead, they spend that money on offering student athletes multiple options at participation.

In the end, isn't that what college sports are supposed to be about?

It's a joke that Texas offers so few sports when SMALL colleges like Williams, Amherst, Colgate, Brown, Occidental, MIT, and Harvard can offer so many more. Sure, it doesn't make sense to offer skiing or ice hockey at UT but what about men's soccer? What about sailing? What about men's crew? Wrestling? Squash? Lacrosse? Water polo? Gymnastics? Field Hockey? Rodeo? Riflery? Equestrian? Fencing? These are all sports that other colleges offer.

The difference between Texas/Ohio State/Florida/USC/Alabama and Yale/DePauw/Vassar/Grinnell/Emory is that athletics in the first group is about maximizing profit potential and athletics in the second group is about offering students the opportunity to continue to pursue their interests.

Stanford is a private school.....all the schools you used as an example are private schools.....what they choose to spend their money on is based only on their wishes and their Board of Regents

Texas as a public school does not have the funding or the ability to offer sports especially spare sports with no general student or fan interest solely for the ability to allow people to keep playing water polo ect.

I will assume you understand Texas uses the football team, the private suites, and the high paid head coach to WIN games which attracts fans and sells merchandise that funds all the other teams that lose money.....Texas has wisely chosen to spend money on sports like football, basketball, and baseball that can potentially turn a profit and NOT to spend money on water ballet, water polo, and others that will lose money and have little fan or student interest in participation and will also dilute money that can be spent on sports that have large student and fan interest and possibly at least break even if not profit....as a public school they still need to weight the public interest and as long as the revenue sports are revenue positive and Texas can compete in sports that Texas high school students want to participate in things look good to me and many others

Stanford and all the schools you listed can spent their money and tuition dollars any way they wish....if Texas, TAMU, and TTU were not breaking even on athletics or making a profit in Texas then it would be football (just as you did) that would be attacked first even though it is all the sports that you mentioned and many others that are money losers while it is Football for the most part that funds the others....so Texas, TAMU, and TTU choose to limit the sports they offer and turn a profit on enough of them so that state government idiots can't complain....because they like you would mention football first and then when it was torn up and the athletics departments were losing money across the board all the sports would probably go away eventually

Also at a school like Texas especially that has the 10% rule that limits who they can let in they can use football, basketball, and baseball as a way to increase minority enrollment....most of the spare sports would possibly increase the number of quality students they would attract, but most if not all would be white.....I have no issue with that, but many fools do....usually the same fools that support the 10% rule as well

so there are good reasons why Texas chooses what sports to fund and what sports to fund at the highest levels....even though Texas funds all the sports they offer at a very high level....and there are reasons that Stanford and all the schools you mentioned can not worry about funding all the spare sports they choose and losing money on their athletics

[cnote]

Currently, no one, as all my teams suck.

A good friend attended both LSU and Florida, so I root for them for lack of anything better to do, but I couldn't care less if they lose. Frankly, the big business aspect of professional, and now college sports has dimmed my enthusiasm for sports in total. I have not watched an NFL game in its entirety all year, and only a few college games. Even the UT/A&M game (I'm an Aggie grad, if it matters) only held my interest for about the 1st quarter, so I didn't even get to see UT run up the score on the Ags, though I am not the least bit surprised by the score.

The number of posts I have made on this subject really does not match the level of indifference I have for this subject. I only posted here to have some fun with other posters, since sports topics are the only topics on HAIF where we can antagonize each other and not get banned. I really do not care that the horns got screwed, and I would not have cared if the Sooners did either. I am more interested in what the recession does to the economics of pro and college sports in an era of club seats and luxury boxes than who wins and loses. Sorry if my taunts distressed you about UT's snub. I was only having fun. Besides, I hear Tempe is nice this time of year.

Ah, an aTm grad...that explains so much...j/k

I am one longhorn that doesn't mind the Aggies (perhaps owing to the fact that we were undefeated against aTm in my time on the 40 acres). Do you think Sherman was the right hire? I can't help but think that was a disaster. The guy wants to run a pro style offense that does not succeed in college football any longer. Pete Carroll tries to do the same thing and even the USC system doesn't work well without NFL talent at all 11 positions on offense...

I share your distaste for the pro game...all I really watch it for anymore is to follow the UT grads since the Oilers left town...Just can't get in to the Texans, but maybe that would change if we were winners.

I still cling to the child-like illusion that college football is pure and chaste (except for those cheating Sooners) so that I can get enthused about something in sports. Though I need look no further than my own program to see that it too is all about the money, just not for the players, which should really make it worse, right? I need to stop thinking about this...

[cnote]

Stanford is a private school.....all the schools you used as an example are private schools.....what they choose to spend their money on is based only on their wishes and their Board of Regents

Texas as a public school does not have the funding or the ability to offer sports especially spare sports with no general student or fan interest solely for the ability to allow people to keep playing water polo ect.

I will assume you understand Texas uses the football team, the private suites, and the high paid head coach to WIN games which attracts fans and sells merchandise that funds all the other teams that lose money.....Texas has wisely chosen to spend money on sports like football, basketball, and baseball that can potentially turn a profit and NOT to spend money on water ballet, water polo, and others that will lose money and have little fan or student interest in participation and will also dilute money that can be spent on sports that have large student and fan interest and possibly at least break even if not profit....as a public school they still need to weight the public interest and as long as the revenue sports are revenue positive and Texas can compete in sports that Texas high school students want to participate in things look good to me and many others

Stanford and all the schools you listed can spent their money and tuition dollars any way they wish....if Texas, TAMU, and TTU were not breaking even on athletics or making a profit in Texas then it would be football (just as you did) that would be attacked first even though it is all the sports that you mentioned and many others that are money losers while it is Football for the most part that funds the others....so Texas, TAMU, and TTU choose to limit the sports they offer and turn a profit on enough of them so that state government idiots can't complain....because they like you would mention football first and then when it was torn up and the athletics departments were losing money across the board all the sports would probably go away eventually

Also at a school like Texas especially that has the 10% rule that limits who they can let in they can use football, basketball, and baseball as a way to increase minority enrollment....most of the spare sports would possibly increase the number of quality students they would attract, but most if not all would be white.....I have no issue with that, but many fools do....usually the same fools that support the 10% rule as well

so there are good reasons why Texas chooses what sports to fund and what sports to fund at the highest levels....even though Texas funds all the sports they offer at a very high level....and there are reasons that Stanford and all the schools you mentioned can not worry about funding all the spare sports they choose and losing money on their athletics

Well said, and I would add that I know many students that participated in crew, la crosse, and even ice hockey at UT...they were club teams but were well funded, they would even travel to play teams from SMU, aTm, Baylor, and others.

[ProHouston]

Let's all take a step back. Put yourself in the shoes of a voter in NYC or CA that could care less about a rivalry between UT, Tech, and OU and has no affiliation with Alabama or Florida. How do you think they would rank the remaining teams, here's my guess:

1. Florida

2. Oklahoma

3. Alabama

4. Texas

I'm just saying. Do you honestly believe that UT would beat any of these other 3 teams tomorrow in Miami? I don't.