2010 Texas v. Tech Game Moved To Sept. 18? [Double-T Nation]

According to Texas Tech, the game has been bumped to September 18th, once again to accommodate ESPN television interests. If this is right, when does Texas play UCLA?

10 days ago Peter Bean 67 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

maybe a clean switch?

TTU now finishes their schedule with Weber State & Houston.

by Infield Elephant on Nov 11, 2009 5:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

sorry just saw the same link

by Infield Elephant on Nov 11, 2009 5:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This is weird on many levels

(1) Moving games around to accommodate anticipated nationally televised games usually doesn’t happen until the summer before the games.

(2) As Peter points out, this now conflicts with the UCLA game. UCLA’s bye week is the next week. Are we moving the UCLA game to the following week and then bumping FAU to November.

(3) It’s one thing to move a game against Tech to September for TV exposure when there are no marquee OOC foes. But one would have to assume that the UCLA game (never mind their current record) would get us an ABC/ESPN game that weekend anyway. We don’t need to play Tech that weekend for the exposure.

(4) Tech will now close conference play the second weekend in November. That’s even earlier than Big 10 schools end their conference schedules.

Something doesn’t pass the smell test.

by Hopkins Horn on Nov 11, 2009 5:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

And PS . . .

. . . this better not mean that we’re outright canceling the UCLA game. That would really suck.

by Hopkins Horn on Nov 11, 2009 5:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know what to make of it either, but Tech’s game with TCU got bumped out of 2010 to accomodate this and will be played in 2011 or beyond. And to trade TCU for Weber St. is ridiculous.

by pcrawttu on Nov 11, 2009 10:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, i would imagine this means UCLA bumped a week and FAU rescheduled a la UCF this year.

I also agree on there being no “exposure” advantage for Texas, but it’s possible that Mack just likes this set up. Maybe he prefers playing Tech early in the season before they get their offense rolling. Maybe he likes to break up November with a cupcake.

Of course this would also mean that our schedule next year would be Tech, UCLA, OU, bye, Nebraska. That’s pretty rough.

by billyzane on Nov 11, 2009 5:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Or . . .

. . . so that we’re not playing OU at the end of a tough three-week run, maybe UCLA is bumped up a week and the Wyoming game is moved to November instead. I think I’d prefer that approach, leaving FAU the week before OU.

by Hopkins Horn on Nov 11, 2009 5:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course, that scenario doesn't take UCLA's bye week into consideration

by Hopkins Horn on Nov 11, 2009 5:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

UCLA's bye weeks

are Sept. 25 and Nov. 27. In between, they have eight straight Pac-10 games.

Texas could bump UCLA from Sept. 18 to Sept. 25, but then ‘Horns need to move the Florida Atlantic game (currently Sept. 25). FAU’s sked is loaded with TBA’s at this point.

by edsp on Nov 11, 2009 5:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

tech game

I think Tech had a stipulation that if they move the texas game up this year then we would return the favor next year. With a new QB, I don’t see why mack would move the game to Sept unless he had to; UCLA game will probaly move to the following week

by memphizbell on Nov 11, 2009 5:54 PM CST via mobile reply actions 0 recs

doubtful

Sounds like Tech picked up an old memo about this year. Does anyone honestly think that Texas-UCLA would draw less viewers than Texas-Texas Tech (which will still eventually happen).

ESPN/ ABC has the rights to both games under the Big 12 contract so I’m calling Lubbock’s bluff.

by the other Andrew on Nov 11, 2009 6:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Something ain’t right. Not sure Mack would agree to go Tech-UCLA back-to-back for no apparent advantageous reason

You ain't hurt.

by Peter Bean on Nov 11, 2009 7:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting aside on the TT board -- our 2010 preseason ranking

Here.

This raises a good question — does anyone have a feel yet for what our preseason ranking will be next year? I know that, this time last year, we already had figured out that we’d be preseason top 2 or 3. And is there a consensus preseason #1 emerging for next season?

by Hopkins Horn on Nov 11, 2009 6:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Preseason favorites include Texas again, Bama, Iowa, Cincinatti, LSU, GA tech. Thats what i think at least. If LSU wins their bowl game they are prob SEC favorites next year and top 3 team

by MJY6087 on Nov 11, 2009 8:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn't USC return just about everyone

except for McNight? Seems like all preseason long there was talk of how young of a team they’d be this year.

by Horncasting on Nov 11, 2009 9:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Forgot about the Trojans. They’ll be in the top 5 rankings I think.

Here are my top 12 teams for next year in no order
1.Texas
2. iowa
3. Bama
4.Cincinatti
5.LSU
6.GA Tech
7. USC
8.Boise St.
9. Florida
10. Ohio State
11. Oregon
12. Notre Dame (assuming J Clausen comes back)

by MJY6087 on Nov 11, 2009 11:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ND is only that high

if Golden Tate also comes back and either Weis is replaced with someone like Brian Kelly or the defensive coordinator is replaced with someone competent. If ND either had a competent defense or Weis didn’t make rookie coaching mistakes (clock management, not making adjustments, for example), they’re undefeated right now – tons of close games and offensive shootouts.

by LonghornEm on Nov 12, 2009 8:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Florida

UF loses their entire defense plus Tebow. Big question mark as to whether Brantley is really suited for that system. Lots of talent based on recent recruiting classes, but they could drop off for a year with all of the experience they are losing.

I’ll bet OU starts out in the top 10. All of their problems this year are being attributed to injuries (excuses or not, I think they don’t have more than 1 loss right now without most of the injuries they’ve had this year), and some of the media (Tim Griffin in particular) have already started talking about how they should be the favorite next year in the Big 12.

by Horncasting on Nov 12, 2009 8:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If Alex Smith was suited to the system, Brantley probably is too

by burntorangehorn on Nov 12, 2009 9:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Alex Smith was very athletic and mobile

I could be wrong, but I certainly don’t remember that being a trait of Brantley. In fact when he was being recruited and committed to UT, one of the big questions was whether or not he was going to be athletic enough to run UT’s system.

by Horncasting on Nov 12, 2009 9:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Smith was pretty mobile

But still not exactly Pat White. I think the difference in mobility between Brantley and Smith isn’t all that significant. But then, I didn’t watch Smith until he was a junior at Utah, and I haven’t seen a whole lot of Brantley other than his HS highlights.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 12, 2009 10:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Also . . .

. . . I think Boise returns all but two starters. If they have an impressive bowl appearance, they will likely be Top 5 preseason.

by Hopkins Horn on Nov 11, 2009 10:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You do realize....

…. that UCLA is 4-5 with a 1-5 record in the Pac-10, don’t you? Only Washington State is more pathetic in the Pac-10! Who would be afraid of playing Texas Tech followed by UCLA? We’re not talking USC here folks.

--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---

by HornChamps on Nov 11, 2009 8:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

They’re not actually THAT bad. They did beat tennesse (on the road i think). Give Prince or Craft or whichever kevin time to develop and they might actually be ok. Also, dont forget the last time they came to Austin what happened….

by MJY6087 on Nov 11, 2009 9:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Did they travel via I-10?

Or was it Route 66? I’ll text John Mackovic; he’ll probably remember

by edsp on Nov 11, 2009 10:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I guess I was .....

….. fooled by those 5 consecutive losses and that 1-point victory over 3-6 Washington. They really are bad and they have few hopes of improvement next season.

--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---

by HornChamps on Nov 11, 2009 11:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

USC would kill

for a 1 point win over Washington this year. Just saying.

by Horncasting on Nov 12, 2009 8:50 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Not an "afraid of" issue

So much as a “what’s in it for us” issue.

You ain't hurt.

by Peter Bean on Nov 11, 2009 11:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Let me remind you of....

…..Prior to UT going to Columbus in 2005 Mack Brown said, “We (current Texas administration) didn’t schedule this game and we don’t want this game. This was done 10 years ago and if we could get out of it, we would.”

Going all the way back to his second year at N.Carolina, his record is quite clear.

--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---

by HornChamps on Nov 11, 2009 11:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We agree

On the scheduling issue, insofar as it’s not been a trait of Mack’s we admire. That said, I don’t think he’s afraid of anything right now. Give our boy his due — he’s talking a different game this year, and it shows during his pressers and on the field. I’d love for it to show up in our scheduling, too, and like that we have better opponents coming up.

You ain't hurt.

by Peter Bean on Nov 12, 2009 12:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

we should add boise st to our schedule in 2011

by MJY6087 on Nov 12, 2009 12:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And pay them the $1 million appearance fee they are requesting? No thanks.

by Misterserious7 on Nov 12, 2009 7:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's some serious cash. No wonder they want stock holders too....

" Answers -- Become Resources."
Without Questions; There are limited Resources...

by KWashburn on Nov 12, 2009 7:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What is a normal apperance fee?

What do teams normally get for being the designated whipping boy of the week?

by echeese on Nov 12, 2009 8:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Who cares what normal is.

Boise State is not the normal “whipping boy”. Why the hell would any team from a BCS conference want to pony up $1 million to bring in an opponent they very well may lose to? There is little reward for Texas to schedule Boise State and quite a bit of risk. If a playoff was instituted, sure go ahead and schedule the Smurfs. Until then…no.

by Misterserious7 on Nov 12, 2009 9:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So..... you'd rather Texas give them a H/H??

….. I don’t think so!

--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---

by HornChamps on Nov 13, 2009 2:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

From 2006, one million seems like significantly more than economic escalation, particularly for a team which claims to be a contender.

proud to swim home

by learned hand on Nov 12, 2009 9:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Particularly for a team that claims to be a contender?

Wouldn’t a no-return-visit game from a high-quality opponent cost more, not less?

by burntorangehorn on Nov 12, 2009 9:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My basic thought is on the balance of the interest, they need us more than we need them.

In order to be a contender, Boise needs high profile wins because they are outside of the BCS halo. UT can offer that.

Conversely, a loss to a non-BCS team almost eliminates us from MNC contention. Boise presents a greater likelihood than most non-BCS teams of a loss. They need us to have a prayer of an MNC opportunity, and possibly even for a BCS berth.

They don’t offer us a great deal more than the average non-BCS school, particularly if we beat them and have no chance of a top 10 to boost our SOS.

proud to swim home

by learned hand on Nov 12, 2009 9:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Harm of losing to Boise

a loss to a non-BCS team almost eliminates us from MNC contention

I tend to think that Boise has reached the point at which losing to the Broncos doesn’t harm a team’s MNC chances much more than losing to a mid-tier BSC conference team. This season, I think a loss to BSU would have been about as harmful as a loss to Cal and significantly less harmful than a loss to Minnesota, the two BSC conference teams with whom we scheduled home-and-homes next decade.

Despite losing to BSU, Oregon rose to the top of the one-loss teams before losing again last week, and Oregon would have been in the mix for championship game consideration had all hell broken loose. (This is just a weird season in that the chances of all hell breaking loose at the top seem so much less likely than in any year in recent memory.)

by Hopkins Horn on Nov 12, 2009 10:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I would also suggest . . .

. . . that the tag on BON be switched from “Romancing Each Other Since 2004” to “All Boise State, All The Time”.

by Hopkins Horn on Nov 12, 2009 10:12 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs

+eleventy

proud to swim home

by learned hand on Nov 12, 2009 10:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously . . .

. . . we managed to work in a side conversation about Boise into a thread about the scheduling of a Texas-Texas Tech game. That’s just awesome.

by Hopkins Horn on Nov 12, 2009 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Mayhaps

The prestige of Boise is more predicated on them going (approximately) undefeated than most teams. If they lose to any of their in conference foes, voters will transitive property you into oblivion for a loss.

Yes, Oregon did rise, but not to MNC heights and I really don’t think it’s possible to do so with a loss to a non-BCS team.

proud to swim home

by learned hand on Nov 12, 2009 10:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No gain for Texas

In playing Boise. Join a real conference Boise of you want to play the big boys.

"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell

by Mulliganville on Nov 12, 2009 7:58 AM CST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

Yep, so easily done. I'm sure their Pac 10 application will be approved this week.

by Hopkins Horn on Nov 12, 2009 9:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep. Its hard to make an academic backwater fit into any BCS conference...

Even the SEC probably wouldn’t take them on academics!

by Rickyspub on Nov 12, 2009 9:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sad but probably true

The economic conditions of the area are a significant factor, but Boise State’s graduation rates are a serious concern.

proud to swim home

by learned hand on Nov 12, 2009 9:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly. Unreasonable expectation.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 12, 2009 9:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And since they will never face any reasonable level of competition...

I think giving them a spot anywhere near the top of the rankings puts unreasonable expectation of perfection on teams playing substantially more difficult schedules.

by Rickyspub on Nov 12, 2009 10:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Never?

Was Oregon not a reasonable level of competition? How about Washington before their horrible season, Georgia, Oregon State, Fresno State, Hawaii when they were very good, etc.?

by burntorangehorn on Nov 12, 2009 10:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Again with the one game season...

A season isn’t made up of one game. Level of competition is something that can also be meant as the overall collection of competition one faces. Boise State has rarely had more than two games against teams that even compare to middling BCS conference teams much less having two opponents who were actually ranked. They have never faced two ranked BCS-conference opponents in the regular season. They have faced 3 ranked BCS conference teams in the regular season over the past decade. They have faced 4 ranked WAC opponents over the same decade. Three of them coincide with the years they faced a ranked BCS opponent and last year was the only year they swept both games. The have 6 seasons out of 10 where they didn’t face a ranked team in the regular season. (These are teams ranked when BSU faced them. I am not going to try and figure out how many of their opponents ultimately finished ranked.)

So 7 ranked teams over ten years. That LSU team that people claim was undeserving of the championship in ‘07 played 7 ranked teams in that season alone! How unfair is it that LSU gets knocked for ’07 while at the same time people are now clamoring for Boise State to be included in the national title picture. Being undefeated is nice for them, but there are slews of teams behind them that have lost a game or two but have faced a schedule that Boise State can’t even come close to replicating with just their four OOC games (much less BSU actually agreeing to play that sort of schedule).

by Rickyspub on Nov 12, 2009 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And again the goalposts have been moved.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 12, 2009 2:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

The goal posts have always been moving. We’ve gone from BYU getting a split title in the 80’s, to the early BCS where the AP was part of the formula and no non-BCS team was guaranteed anything, to having split AP and BCS champs in 2003. Now we give everybody-deserves-a-trophy BCS bowl auto-bids to ND and non-BCS conference teams for getting close to the top. We have teams that get through a season playing one BCS-conference opponent using PR firms and congressmen to demand a place in the top 2 and a chance for the MNC because they are undefeated (who they defeated is supposed to come down to one team, ignoring the other 11 games).

I am one person making my argument and my argument has been consistent. For the most part the voters and media seem to agree with your take and continue to give BSU a seat at the table for winning one game and not losing 11 others. At least you aren’t on the ‘fire Mack Brown because he doesn’t schedule 4 ranked OOC opponents every year’ bandwagon. The most amazing are the people who criticize our schedule this year but in the same breath talk about how BSU should be considered for the national title.

by Rickyspub on Nov 12, 2009 3:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You said they never play any reasonable competition

When, as I noted with that inexhaustive list, that is not true.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 12, 2009 3:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Putting your thoughts into my words?

‘And since they will never face any reasonable level of competition…’ That was the title of my post. I then say that their weak overall season puts unreasonable expectations on teams playing much more difficult schedules. I wasn’t talking about the one tough game they play a year. I was talking about a reasonable season of competition and you fall back to suggesting that the threshold of winning against their one BCS opponent (ranked or not, it seems) is sufficient for them to be considered for one of the 10 most lucrative spots in the bowl season. I bet there are close to 80 other teams that have beaten one BCS opponent. Now granted most of them play a more difficult schedule and have lost other games, but Boise State isn’t in some rarified air when it comes to the competition they have beaten and that is the only part of their resume that you seem to want to consider.

by Rickyspub on Nov 13, 2009 7:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I also want to consider that they're undefeated

In my opinion, if a team shows that it can win all its games, and any number (even just one or two) is against tough opponents, then that team should not be shut out of a BCS bowl in favor of a two-loss BCS team under almost any circumstances.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 13, 2009 6:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs