That means we can be confident the SEC officially offered two schools last summer, -- A&M and Oklahoma, the two principal rivals of Texas. (The Longhorns may well have had an outstanding offer as well, but Texas was afraid of competing with real football schools and preferred to remain outside the conference so the SEC didn't believe it was interested in joining).
Fanhouse writer Clay Travis
over 1 year ago
TowerPower
41 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Extortion is such an ugly word
But very interesting article. And, I don’t necessarily disagree that A&M is going to feel forced to make a move, unless of course they beat us again this year which is more likely than not.
The Big XII days are numbered and if OU/OSU and A&M were to go to the SEC, then Texas will probably go independent. I don’t think Texas will join the SEC. While that article tries to “bait” Longhorns on being afraid of competing, the author misses the real reason Texas will not join the SEC. The reason is because those schools fail to compete in academics and only Vandy and FU are AAU member institutions. We would not allow are academics to be associated with the SEC.
My advice is always to ignore Clay Travis
His columns are generally absent intelligence, credibility or integrity.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Jan 27, 2011 10:39 AM CST reply actions 3 recs
I knew not to click on the link after I read who wrote it..nt
by vy til i die on Jan 27, 2011 11:03 AM CST up reply actions
I just saw the link without the author's name...
only after I began reading it did I check it…and I was right, just non-sense.
As for as the SEC, I wouldn’t be opposed to playing in a division with UT/TAMU/OU/Okie St/Arky/LSU/Ole Miss/and Miss St think of football and baseball…not so much basketball though. But yeah academically its horrible plus I could never chant S-E-C. However if we did join, could we rename our division the SWC?
I didn't know any better - thanks for the advice
Leave it to me to try to educate folks in the SEC. I love a challenge.
Clay Travis
is to journalism what fast food is to fine dining….they represent to be more than they are but once you try it you become nauseated.
At least fast food usually tastes good.
Clay Travis just leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
"Only angry people win football games." --DKR
That was going to be my advice as well
Please don’t link to that attention-seeking asshat again.
To be filled in later.
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 27, 2011 12:45 PM CST up reply actions
Travis does whatever he can to get readers, even if that means shooting down his own credibility in the process. That stunt asking Tebow if he was a virgin just reinforced every new media stereotype and gave sports blogs a bad name.
What we have here is a failure to execute.
by dimecoverage on Jan 30, 2011 8:52 PM CST up reply actions
Amen.
Follow me on Twitter: @GhostofBigRoy
www.burntorangenation.com
by Wescott Eberts (GoBR) on Jan 27, 2011 12:59 PM CST up reply actions
Offseason is officially here...nt
We have a 12th man and he's Bryan Harsin
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Jan 27, 2011 7:31 PM CST up reply actions
A&M may feel desperate enough to do something
I’m sure they don’t like the 3* recruiting class and the domination by the Sooners and Horns should be getting old by now.
Do you really think the SEC wants A&M out of respect for their program,
of as an entry into the Texas TV and recruiting market? Personally I would be sorry to see A&M leave. (despite the hard times we give each other)
"Only angry people win football games." --DKR
You're right
you definitely need a few more. One 9 win season doesn’t change the perception of Texas A&M
I've never read Clay Travis before
I’m sure he’s a big deal in his home. But probably nowhere else.
Since the announcement of the Longhorn Network there’s been a lot of “That’s the last straw” sabre-rattling from the corners of the interwebs that don’t like Texas (there are many) and who want A&M in the SEC (there are many of those, too).
His assertion that Texas “bullied” the Aggies into staying in the Big 12 is unsupported. Since when does UT have the power to make the Aggies do anything? But the biggest glaring hole that Mr. Travis, and many other opiners on this subject, neglect is any mention of the governor and legislature. If there was any “bullying” that came from Austin to keep the Aggies in the fold, it didn’t come from the UT Tower — it came from that big dome down the block.
Simplicity is always the secret, to a profound truth, to doing things, to writing, to painting. Life is profound in its simplicity. - Charles Bukowski
i can tell you very quickly...
…why Texas didnt go to the SEC.
Even my dog is probably too smart to enroll in an SEC school.
Even with all the idiotic things that might come out of A&M, I think the president of A&M would never go to the SEC since A&M tries to be a good academic institution and they know joining the SEC is a straight way down in academic standards..
by vanterminatorhorn on Jan 27, 2011 3:37 PM CST reply actions
The president of A&M really has no say in what they do. They may give lip service to him, but that’s it. The good ol’ boys- Mike McKinney, Gene Stallings,etc. -will make that decision. And then it has to pass muster with the powers-that-be in Austin.
What we have here is a failure to execute.
by dimecoverage on Jan 30, 2011 8:57 PM CST up reply actions
Socialism
Basically this guy’s argument seems to boil down to the fact that UT is looking out for itself, doing whatever it can to strengthen itself and its program rather than sharing all their “toys” with “lesser” institutions (who, of course would do exactly the same if they could). Apparently the writer would be happier if all schools had exactly the same TV exposure, drew randomly from the same pool of players, have the same facilities,and all made the same income. Game attendance would have to be limited to whatever the worse teams could attract, since more fans would lead to more income and more exposure, leading to an unfair advantage. Businesses would be required to sell as many Sam Houston and Texas A&M Corpus Christi shirts and caps as UT merchandise. Aside from his socialistic philosophical argument, he makes a number of absurd arguments. First no Aggie or anyone else is going to be forced to subscribe to the Longhorn network. Second, he argues that there will be only one football game, 6 basketball games, and then nothing else but assistant coach’s shows. Why would they be paying all this money for a network no one would want to watch? He is forgetting about baseball, softball, volleyball, tennis, golf, classic football games, educational programs, and a host of other potential programming. Finally, the assertion that UT is afraid of the SEC competition doesn’t hold water. In basketball and baseball, the Big 12-2 is probably at least as strong as the SEC. In football, our goal is not to win conference championships. In fact, we haven’t been that successful doing that in the Big 12. Our goal is to win the MNC. To do that we will usually have to beat the best that the SEC has to offer, whether we are in the Big 12 or the SEC.
"Only angry people win football games." --DKR
First no Aggie or anyone else is going to be forced to subscribe to the Longhorn network.
Yes they may, the plan is for ESPN to package this in the basic cable bundle with other ESPN networks in all of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas; no one will see $1.00 for the Texas Network on their bill it will just be added into the price of the basic cable subscription. Right now ESPN is working to get it on every provider possible, and Time Warner just signed on as a 20% owner so you know they’ll carry it, that is why they are getting a little upset. The only way to opt out of the Texas network is to get a provider that doesn’t put it on the basic cable tier most probably the national ones like AT&T, Verizon, Direct TV, and Dish, but even then if you order a higher package than basic it will probably be included especially if you have a sports package. Its not like you can cherry pick channels in the packages, it would be like telling your provider and saying take off HGTV or the FOOD Network and remove $2 a month from my bill…it just doesn’t work that way its a all or nothing system. Now some will allow you to specifically add the channel like Direct TV lets you add the Big Ten for an extra buck a month if you really want it, but that’s not what the Ags are complaining about, and this is why the network is so profitable for the Big Ten and will be for us…
So you are saying this guy has a valid argument? NT
"Only angry people win football games." --DKR
no, regaurdless of what conference they are in they'll be paying for it...
its just them whining but their whining is based off some truth…
I don’t want the Big Ten Network, but I, too, am stuck watching Badger, Nittany Lion, etc. football and basketball. There is no way to opt out unless I want to drop the sports tier.
If this is actually the case, it will be entertaining to think about all those Aggies and Sooners contributing to Texas’ bottom line.
What we have here is a failure to execute.
by dimecoverage on Jan 30, 2011 9:00 PM CST up reply actions
*sigh*
Socialism? Really?
Just Harsin around.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 27, 2011 7:50 PM CST up reply actions
Yes
Isn’t the basis of his argument that no school should have an unfair advantage, be it money or exposure or political power and that revenue should be distributed equally?
"Only angry people win football games." --DKR
I don't feel like opening up a big political discussion
But it sure seems like you’re trying to. Let’s just say that you apparently have the wrong idea about the tenets of socialism if you think they are the no one “should have an unfair advantage, be it money or exposure or political power and that revenue should be distributed equally.” Granted, that’s the “red scare” era’s portrayal of socialism, but it’s not particularly accurate.
Just Harsin around.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 28, 2011 9:23 PM CST up reply actions
Socialism is exactly how I would describe what the inferior parties in conference want
UT on the other hand operates like a true capitalist
by goingforthecorner on Jan 28, 2011 10:30 AM CST up reply actions
Then you also apparently have a skewed idea of socialism.
Just Harsin around.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 28, 2011 9:23 PM CST up reply actions
Please define it then in your own words
Revenue sharing between teams with no parties having an unfair advantage? Sounds a little on the socialist side if you ask me.
by goingforthecorner on Jan 30, 2011 1:51 PM CST up reply actions
There are dictionaries
And none that I’ve seen has said anything paraphrasing that no one "should have an unfair advantage, be it money or exposure or political power and that revenue should be distributed equally."
And at any rate, if you believe that the “inferior parties” want socialism, do you have anything to back up that claim? And even if it were what they wanted, are you convinced that socialism, even in the context of attempting to achieve parity in sports (like the NFL, for example), is always bad? The word has a negative connotation with many, but I seriously doubt many who automatically attribute that connotation to it are capable of having an adult conversation about it.
Just Harsin around.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 31, 2011 8:53 AM CST up reply actions
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels
And what's that have to do with unfair advantages and institutional revenue distribution??
Besides, UT is a public university, which is by definition an example of a socialist policy. Socialism, even if it were the appropriate word, isn’t always a bad thing.
Just Harsin around.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 31, 2011 2:19 PM CST up reply actions
And what’s that have to do with unfair advantages
The absence of competitive economic activity would exclude advantages, whether unfair or fair.
and institutional revenue distribution??
Equality of individual wealth. I’m not sure what you’re grasping at here.
Socialism, even if it were the appropriate word, isn’t always a bad thing.
Please point out anywhere in this thread that someone has said as much.
Did you not read OBdoc's post?
Just Harsin around.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 31, 2011 4:12 PM CST up reply actions
Yes
I see where he’s indicating socialism is a bad thing as it relates to collegiate athletics. Which, by the way, is inherently competitive both on the field and off. I’m still not seeing where OBdoc or anyone else is saying socialism is always a bad thing.
But, yeah, they are saying it is in this case.
You don't think he was using "socialism" in the pejorative sense?
Just Harsin around.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 31, 2011 11:19 PM CST up reply actions
God forbid anyone use "socialism" pejoratively
To be filled in later.
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 1, 2011 12:13 AM CST up reply actions
im sure Texas was afraid of the conference that they have a winning record against
are all Aggies as mad as he is?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanShots on Burnt Orange Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
