(04-24-2012 06:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 06:11 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 05:50 PM)miko33 Wrote:  If the BE loses UL, then I sincerely believe that the BE will walk away from BCS football. If the collection of SMU, UH, UCF, Memphis, USF and UC couldn't garner big paydays for CUSA back in the early 2000s, then why would people expect anything to be different by merely changing the name of the conference? At some point the leadership of the BE would decide that enough is enough. The basketball side of the conference will not be willing to swap out any more old members for new all sports members that will, in likelihood, water down the BE basketball brand.

IMO, the loss of UL or UL and Rutgers would be the death knell of BE football.

You may have missed the news of the Big East picking up Memphis and Temple. In my opinion, based on math, one of the reasons they were brought in was as insurance against Louisville and Rutgers or Cincinatti leaving. The Big East football conference would have Memphis, Temple, Connecticut, Rutgers/Cincinatti, USF, UCF, Houston and SMU, meeting the requirement for 8 all-sports members and probably also Boise State and San Diego State.

My thoughts are not based on the number of schools. I'm more concerned with who the schools are. If I was a president of one of the BE BB blueblood schools, I'd be hitting my limit on the inability of the FB side to maintain members - especially members that contribute to the BB side of the conference. From a BB perspective, not every replacement/addition will have the BB quality of a Memphis.

Add Hawaii, Fresno, Nevada and if they want AFA football only. That gives you 16, more than enough for 2 divisions. You have almost all the top WAC football programs (BSU, Nevada, Hawaii, Fresno) one of the better MWC (SDST) and several of the top former CUSA (UCF, USF, Houston) added to Rutgers, Temple & UConn. That's a solid football conference, no worse than the ACC.

If the collection of SMU, UH, UCF, Memphis, USF and UC couldn't garner big paydays for CUSA back in the early 2000s, then why would people expect anything to be different by merely changing the name of the conference?

Why because NOW they have been sprinkled with magic BE dust that brings markets and football skillz.

(04-24-2012 01:20 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I have three scenarios for debate. In each who does BE football likely take to get back to 12, 14, or 16? Who is fb only and who is all sports?

CASE 1: Louisville leaves for Big 12

Do you stay at 12 or add 2 or 4?

CASE 2: Same but with Rutgers as well.


CASE 3: Big 12 succeeds in the unlikely ACC raid. UL, Rutgers, UConn, and USF are raided away in the resulting dominoes. What do you do?

Curious to see the thoughts of the board. I could see a lot of strategies.

Quite the post from the man whose school threatened lawsuits to block certain moves that would have turned Baylor into a leftover. Now that Baylor's in a much more solid place, you want to throw scenarios out that negatively impact Houston and SMU? That's rich.

(04-25-2012 11:46 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 01:20 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I have three scenarios for debate. In each who does BE football likely take to get back to 12, 14, or 16? Who is fb only and who is all sports?

CASE 1: Louisville leaves for Big 12

Do you stay at 12 or add 2 or 4?

CASE 2: Same but with Rutgers as well.


CASE 3: Big 12 succeeds in the unlikely ACC raid. UL, Rutgers, UConn, and USF are raided away in the resulting dominoes. What do you do?

Curious to see the thoughts of the board. I could see a lot of strategies.

Quite the post from the man whose school threatened lawsuits to block certain moves that would have turned Baylor into a leftover. Now that Baylor's in a much more solid place, you want to throw scenarios out that negatively impact Houston and SMU? That's rich.

Baylor's situation a year ago is irrelevant and you once again try to derail the thread into a troll fest. You really seem to have it out for BU.

Also we never filed suit, we simply retained the right to. It was never going to stop the ags from leaving and we never thought it would. It was about preserving our rights should the worst happen. If the Big 12 fell apart we'd lose over 100million over 10-12 years. Retaining the right to sue in that situation is common sense.

Each scenario I laid out in the OP has been discussed on the web numerous times. None of this is intended to hurt UH and SMU. I was simply asking what actions the BE would take in response to a raid. People discussed the Big 12 actions the last two years in the same way.

People talk about what the alliance, sun belt and MAC would do if they lost members. It's part of what this board is for, to talk potential realignment moves.

(04-25-2012 10:04 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 07:26 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 07:24 AM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 02:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 02:10 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  But again.........what about ND?

I'll say it again: If it ever gets to the point where Notre Dame is ready to leave the BE but not ready to give up football independence, the smart deal for both ND and the ACC is a deal that adds ND and Georgetown to the ACC, with the ACC keeping the same 14-team lineup for football.

The only way ND is extended ACC membership is in all sports. The only thing ND has of value is football.

What self-respecting conference would allow a partial member to exist allowing said school to make a considerable amount of money while the rest of the conference suffers with problems of finances, image, stability, and credibility?

Don't know about any self-respecting conferences but......

self-loathing maybe?

(04-25-2012 10:37 AM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 06:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 06:11 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 05:50 PM)miko33 Wrote:  If the BE loses UL, then I sincerely believe that the BE will walk away from BCS football. If the collection of SMU, UH, UCF, Memphis, USF and UC couldn't garner big paydays for CUSA back in the early 2000s, then why would people expect anything to be different by merely changing the name of the conference? At some point the leadership of the BE would decide that enough is enough. The basketball side of the conference will not be willing to swap out any more old members for new all sports members that will, in likelihood, water down the BE basketball brand.

IMO, the loss of UL or UL and Rutgers would be the death knell of BE football.

You may have missed the news of the Big East picking up Memphis and Temple. In my opinion, based on math, one of the reasons they were brought in was as insurance against Louisville and Rutgers or Cincinatti leaving. The Big East football conference would have Memphis, Temple, Connecticut, Rutgers/Cincinatti, USF, UCF, Houston and SMU, meeting the requirement for 8 all-sports members and probably also Boise State and San Diego State.

My thoughts are not based on the number of schools. I'm more concerned with who the schools are. If I was a president of one of the BE BB blueblood schools, I'd be hitting my limit on the inability of the FB side to maintain members - especially members that contribute to the BB side of the conference. From a BB perspective, not every replacement/addition will have the BB quality of a Memphis.

Add Hawaii, Fresno, Nevada and if they want AFA football only. That gives you 16, more than enough for 2 divisions. You have almost all the top WAC football programs (BSU, Nevada, Hawaii, Fresno) one of the better MWC (SDST) and several of the top former CUSA (UCF, USF, Houston) added to Rutgers, Temple & UConn. That's a solid football conference, no worse than the ACC.

Maybe in the eyes of some die-hard fans...but probably not even close in the eyes of the general college football fan. The reality of non-AQs backfilling the BE versus AQs added to the ACC is what fuels perception...however correct or incorrect the perception may be.

(04-25-2012 11:08 AM)ConanX Wrote:  If the collection of SMU, UH, UCF, Memphis, USF and UC couldn't garner big paydays for CUSA back in the early 2000s, then why would people expect anything to be different by merely changing the name of the conference?

Why because NOW they have been sprinkled with magic BE dust that brings markets and football skillz.

Well, they also have Boise State now.

They won't bring much more value but pooling resources with Boise, UConn, Rutgers, Louisville, and Cincy will lead to higher payouts than pooling with Rice, Tulane, Tulsa, Marshall, and UAB.

So where they got 1.5 before, I would expect anywhere from 5-12m now. I would not be shocked with anything in that range depending on number of bidders.

UConn .................... UMass
Rutgers .................. Temple
Army ..................... Navy
Cincinnati ............... Louisville
UCF ....................... USF
ECU ....................... ODU
Georgia St. ............. Memphis
Appalachian St. ....... Liberty

(04-25-2012 12:01 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  You try to derail the thread into a troll fest.

I'm the troll? Look in the mirror, moderator. This whole post, coming from you, is trolling.

(04-25-2012 12:01 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Also we never filed suit, we simply retained the right to. It was never going to stop the ags from leaving and we never thought it would. It was about preserving our rights should the worst happen. If the Big 12 fell apart we'd lose over 100million over 10-12 years. Retaining the right to sue in that situation is common sense.

Which is why a lot of people consider Baylor to be a joke. Baylor showed no sympathy towards UH when the SWC broke up and they looked hypocritical when they were moaning about losing their big Texas rivals.

If K* actually believed the crud he was spewing, he would have the Baylor AD schedule UH. He won't and therefore Baylor looks like a bunch of hypocrites talking about how Baylor needs their Texas rivals. I honestly like the addition of West Virginia but I wouldn't have shed a tear if Baylor had been left to fight for their lives in C-USA.

Sorry, JMHO.

(04-25-2012 06:49 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 12:01 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Also we never filed suit, we simply retained the right to. It was never going to stop the ags from leaving and we never thought it would. It was about preserving our rights should the worst happen. If the Big 12 fell apart we'd lose over 100million over 10-12 years. Retaining the right to sue in that situation is common sense.

Which is why a lot of people consider Baylor to be a joke. Baylor showed no sympathy towards UH when the SWC broke up and they looked hypocritical when they were moaning about losing their big Texas rivals.

If K* actually believed the crud he was spewing, he would have the Baylor AD schedule UH. He won't and therefore Baylor looks like a bunch of hypocrites talking about how Baylor needs their Texas rivals. I honestly like the addition of West Virginia but I wouldn't have shed a tear if Baylor had been left to fight for their lives in C-USA.

Sorry, JMHO.

Since McCaw came aboard (2003) we have scheduled TCU, SMU, and Rice plenty. As much or more than any other former SWC team in the Big 12 originally.

We have played TCU four times, Rice four times, and SMU twice so far in his tenure. We also signed SMU and Rice to several games going forward. UH needs to happen but to act like we refuse to play old rivals is not accurate, especially in the last couple of years.

We were strongly in support of the TCU addition as well.

Starr certainly sounded less than consistent but to be fair there are three things you gloss over:

1- Starr wasn't here in the 90s nor was any significant administration official except for maybe a regent who stayed off public record. Calling him a hypocrite while his tenure showed us scheduling plenty of smu and rice games while supporting TCU joining the Big 12 conveniently forgets this.

2- Tech didn't behave any different than BU in 1994 and certainly would have postured like Starr if UT hadn't taken care of you. Tech would have been foolish not to join in the refusal to waive their legal rights just like ISU and KSU. Everyone looks out for their own interests with what means are available.

3- Starr's comments are his own and have nothing to do with the prior comments in this thread. Nice derail just to take an unprovoked shot at BU yet again.

(04-25-2012 07:36 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Since McCaw came aboard (2003) we have scheduled TCU, SMU, and Rice plenty. As much or more than any other former SWC team in the Big 12 originally.So has Tech. Baylor schedules their longtime rival TCU and SMU but forgets UH. Baylor and UH had some epic battles in the 80's

We have played TCU four times, Rice four times, and SMU twice so far in his tenure. We also signed SMU and Rice to several games going forward. UH needs to happen but to act like we refuse to play old rivals is not accurate, especially in the last couple of years.Great, so has Tech, we played TCU twice, Rice a few times as well as SMU. Tech has some of the largest crowds at TCU and SMU in the recent past. UT played TCU as well.

We were strongly in support of the TCU addition as well.With the Aggies leaving, Baylor needs a close rival to help fill up FC Stadium and TCU along with OU and UT will fit that bill. Once our Administration realizes we get nothing by playing a small private school in Arlington, Tech will once again fill up FCS.

Starr certainly sounded less than consistent but to be fair there are three things you gloss over:

1- Starr wasn't here in the 90s nor was any significant administration official except for maybe a regent who stayed off public record. Calling him a hypocrite while his tenure showed us scheduling plenty of smu and rice games while supporting TCU joining the Big 12 conveniently forgets this. He still hasn't scheduled UH? When K* schedules UH, he won't look like a hypocrite.

2- Tech didn't behave any different than BU in 1994 and certainly would have postured like Starr if UT hadn't taken care of you. Tech would have been foolish not to join in the refusal to waive their legal rights just like ISU and KSU. Everyone looks out for their own interests with what means are available.Even though we suck right now, Tech has earned a spot next to UT and we don't have to cry about losing Texas rivalries. Baylor did? That being said, besides A&M, we offer the PAC, SEC etc something no other Texas school can which are fans, facilities and TV viewership.

3- Starr's comments are his own and have nothing to do with the prior comments in this thread. Nice derail just to take an unprovoked shot at BU yet again. Baylor had a once in a lifetime QB that won a Heisman, a MBB program that will be under NCAA investigation for cheating and the famous dude that help Mulkey win her 2nd WBB NCAA Championship. Sammy, it's not just me taking legit shots at Baylor, the rest of the State is laughing as well. Sad thing, I have family who went to Baylor who say Baylor is innocent. I merely LOL especially when I see the dude won't be able to play for Team USA because of summer school and a "family illness".

(04-25-2012 11:15 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 07:36 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Since McCaw came aboard (2003) we have scheduled TCU, SMU, and Rice plenty. As much or more than any other former SWC team in the Big 12 originally.So has Tech. Baylor schedules their longtime rival TCU and SMU but forgets UH. Baylor and UH had some epic battles in the 80's

We have played TCU four times, Rice four times, and SMU twice so far in his tenure. We also signed SMU and Rice to several games going forward. UH needs to happen but to act like we refuse to play old rivals is not accurate, especially in the last couple of years.Great, so has Tech, we played TCU twice, Rice a few times as well as SMU. Tech has some of the largest crowds at TCU and SMU in the recent past. UT played TCU as well.

We were strongly in support of the TCU addition as well.With the Aggies leaving, Baylor needs a close rival to help fill up FC Stadium and TCU along with OU and UT will fit that bill. Once our Administration realizes we get nothing by playing a small private school in Arlington, Tech will once again fill up FCS.

Starr certainly sounded less than consistent but to be fair there are three things you gloss over:

1- Starr wasn't here in the 90s nor was any significant administration official except for maybe a regent who stayed off public record. Calling him a hypocrite while his tenure showed us scheduling plenty of smu and rice games while supporting TCU joining the Big 12 conveniently forgets this. He still hasn't scheduled UH? When K* schedules UH, he won't look like a hypocrite.

2- Tech didn't behave any different than BU in 1994 and certainly would have postured like Starr if UT hadn't taken care of you. Tech would have been foolish not to join in the refusal to waive their legal rights just like ISU and KSU. Everyone looks out for their own interests with what means are available.Even though we suck right now, Tech has earned a spot next to UT and we don't have to cry about losing Texas rivalries. Baylor did? That being said, besides A&M, we offer the PAC, SEC etc something no other Texas school can which are fans, facilities and TV viewership.

3- Starr's comments are his own and have nothing to do with the prior comments in this thread. Nice derail just to take an unprovoked shot at BU yet again. Baylor had a once in a lifetime QB that won a Heisman, a MBB program that will be under NCAA investigation for cheating and the famous dude that help Mulkey win her 2nd WBB NCAA Championship. Sammy, it's not just me taking legit shots at Baylor, the rest of the State is laughing as well. Sad thing, I have family who went to Baylor who say Baylor is innocent. I merely LOL especially when I see the dude won't be able to play for Team USA because of summer school and a "family illness".

1- I agree UH needs to happen. However considering only Tech has played all 4, it's not like BU is any unique case of the original 4.

2- Tech earned its spot with politics. Tech had a strong run in football under Leach but do you really think your run was any better than KSU's 1995-2003 run? Fact is Texas is politically tied to Tech and while you had a good run that run isn't what would punch Tech's ticket elsewhere.

3- BU has improved football wise and could easily surpass Tech this decade if our momentum keeps up. We will see what happens as time will tell.

Hoops just had the NCAA investigate for three years and turn up 1% of text messages and calls as improper and almost entirely related to dumb compliance staffer advice and call logging. To get any closer to our staff they'd have to give them a colonoscopy. To insinuate we are dirty based on that is to apply that to Leach at Tech who got hit for the same kind of thing a year or two back. I can assure you Tubby and Gillespie would be thrilled to come out of an investigation that long with only that uncovered.

Griner's mom is rumored to have cancer FWIW. If true you might want to lay off.

If anyone in the state should be laughing at us, it isn't Tech. We've swept you in pretty much everything except maybe a game or two in volleyball or softball this year.

(04-25-2012 11:27 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Griner's mom is rumored to have cancer FWIW. If true you might want to lay off.

If anyone in the state should be laughing at us, it isn't Tech. We've swept you in pretty much everything except maybe a game or two in volleyball or softball this year.

If the dudes mom has cancer, I apologize. If the dude can't qualify for the Olympics because she is hiding, then screw Baylor.

Congrats on a cheating year Sammy. Baylor is nothing unless they kill someone, cheat or recruit a dude to play on the WBB team.

Baylor is fat & happy for the 1st time in 15/16 years and it shows. Art will leave for greener pastures ( hopefully not Tech/his Alma Mater) Scott will be investigated by the NCAA for infractions and the man woman, wont have her man child any more.

Congrats on finally beating Tech for the 1st time since 1995 in football. I'm sure that victory in Arlington caused you to break the seal for the 1st time.

There must be something that rest of us are missing (or me) with Tech, Baylor and Houston. I have read about how politics got Baylor in the B12 but I assume that is how Tech got in. Texas and A&M were given - the other two were coin toss (or political toss). For the longest time, I assumed that most major conferences have at least 1 private school and that is why Baylor made it till I read the political history - regardless I am curious to know why Baylor or Tech has to play Houston. Team's lose their rivals all the time. Memphis lost Louisville and Cincy - their two biggest rivals when they moved to Big East.

I think Baylor has done quite well in becoming an all around athletics program and in this world of what have you done for me lately, I would say I perceive Baylor ahead of Tech. I did enjoy Tech football during Leach's time but to be honest I did not know much about Texas Tech before that time.

Just curious...

(04-25-2012 11:15 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 07:36 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Since McCaw came aboard (2003) we have scheduled TCU, SMU, and Rice plenty. As much or more than any other former SWC team in the Big 12 originally.So has Tech. Baylor schedules their longtime rival TCU and SMU but forgets UH. Baylor and UH had some epic battles in the 80's

We have played TCU four times, Rice four times, and SMU twice so far in his tenure. We also signed SMU and Rice to several games going forward. UH needs to happen but to act like we refuse to play old rivals is not accurate, especially in the last couple of years.Great, so has Tech, we played TCU twice, Rice a few times as well as SMU. Tech has some of the largest crowds at TCU and SMU in the recent past. UT played TCU as well.

We were strongly in support of the TCU addition as well.With the Aggies leaving, Baylor needs a close rival to help fill up FC Stadium and TCU along with OU and UT will fit that bill. Once our Administration realizes we get nothing by playing a small private school in Arlington, Tech will once again fill up FCS.

Starr certainly sounded less than consistent but to be fair there are three things you gloss over:

1- Starr wasn't here in the 90s nor was any significant administration official except for maybe a regent who stayed off public record. Calling him a hypocrite while his tenure showed us scheduling plenty of smu and rice games while supporting TCU joining the Big 12 conveniently forgets this. He still hasn't scheduled UH? When K* schedules UH, he won't look like a hypocrite.

2- Tech didn't behave any different than BU in 1994 and certainly would have postured like Starr if UT hadn't taken care of you. Tech would have been foolish not to join in the refusal to waive their legal rights just like ISU and KSU. Everyone looks out for their own interests with what means are available.Even though we suck right now, Tech has earned a spot next to UT and we don't have to cry about losing Texas rivalries. Baylor did? That being said, besides A&M, we offer the PAC, SEC etc something no other Texas school can which are fans, facilities and TV viewership.

3- Starr's comments are his own and have nothing to do with the prior comments in this thread. Nice derail just to take an unprovoked shot at BU yet again. Baylor had a once in a lifetime QB that won a Heisman, a MBB program that will be under NCAA investigation for cheating and the famous dude that help Mulkey win her 2nd WBB NCAA Championship. Sammy, it's not just me taking legit shots at Baylor, the rest of the State is laughing as well. Sad thing, I have family who went to Baylor who say Baylor is innocent. I merely LOL especially when I see the dude won't be able to play for Team USA because of summer school and a "family illness".

(04-26-2012 01:56 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 11:27 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Griner's mom is rumored to have cancer FWIW. If true you might want to lay off.

If anyone in the state should be laughing at us, it isn't Tech. We've swept you in pretty much everything except maybe a game or two in volleyball or softball this year.

If the dudes mom has cancer, I apologize. If the dude can't qualify for the Olympics because she is hiding, then screw Baylor.

Congrats on a cheating year Sammy. Baylor is nothing unless they kill someone, cheat or recruit a dude to play on the WBB team.

Baylor is fat & happy for the 1st time in 15/16 years and it shows. Art will leave for greener pastures ( hopefully not Tech/his Alma Mater) Scott will be investigated by the NCAA for infractions and the man woman, wont have her man child any more.

Congrats on finally beating Tech for the 1st time since 1995 in football. I'm sure that victory in Arlington caused you to break the seal for the 1st time.

Wow, you sure are doing your part in throwing off the Tech fan stereotype (sarcasm).

You bring up a tragedy as if it is some sort of joke or thing to be thrown around to make a point. Let me tell, what happened with Denneghy was HORRIBLE, everyone was in SHOCK, and when the campus got wind of what Bliss tried to do we ran Bliss and Stanton out of town.

Calling Griner a dude is horrible. You have no evidence, you just wish it to be true. It is sexist and you should be ashamed. Admitting you have no evidence and still perpetuating your slander as true makes you a first rate ass.

Art is not leaving, he is given everything he wants and needs here.
Scott Drew was just investigated and they turned up pennies. The NCAA themselves said there WAS NOTHING more. You are freaking crazy if you still believe that something more is going on with the MBB program.
Name the last good Baylor coach to leave the school for a "better" program. You can't. The last one that left was our Women's soccer coach to Notre Dame. If USC couldn't grab Grant Teaff from us why the heck do you think anyone is going to grab Briles?

As far as your comments about Tech football: you admit that you had 16 win streak on us right?
Dating back to 1929, the series is 35-32-1 in favor of Texas Tech. Baylor beat Texas Tech at Cowboy stadium in the 2011 matchup. This was Baylor's first victory over Tech since the Big 12 rivalry began in 1995.
Last Meeting: 66-42 Baylor

35 - 16= 19. So disregarding Baylor's wandering in the wilderness, and Tech without Leach. The all-time series preBigXII,Mike Leach, and Baylor's wandering in the desert was actually 31-19 Baylor. Do you get this. It took Tech's BEST YEARS EVER. Literally your GOLDEN ERA OF FOOTBALL with your GREATEST COACH EVER, coupled with Baylor's BIGGEST DOWN ERA to get ahead in the series. Wow, really pat yourself on the back for that. Fact is, Baylor is coming back and on the rise, and Daddy is going to put you back in your place. Enjoy it while it lasted Tech boy you get kudos for the all-time series. But that is a skew on the truth.

And we have enjoyed our winning year. While we were in the Alamo Bowl you got to complain about how lame we are from your couch. While we were busy making the Elite Eight (again) you were busy delivering your pizzas in your Ford Pinto.

Louisville will not be invited to the B12. Doesn't fit the profile.

(04-26-2012 01:32 PM)Baylorbears11 Wrote:  Wow, you sure are doing your part in throwing off the Tech fan stereotype (sarcasm).

You bring up a tragedy as if it is some sort of joke or thing to be thrown around to make a point. Let me tell, what happened with Denneghy was HORRIBLE, everyone was in SHOCK, and when the campus got wind of what Bliss tried to do we ran Bliss and Stanton out of town.

Calling Griner a dude is horrible. You have no evidence, you just wish it to be true. It is sexist and you should be ashamed. Admitting you have no evidence and still perpetuating your slander as true makes you a first rate ass.

Art is not leaving, he is given everything he wants and needs here.
Scott Drew was just investigated and they turned up pennies. The NCAA themselves said there WAS NOTHING more. You are freaking crazy if you still believe that something more is going on with the MBB program.
Name the last good Baylor coach to leave the school for a "better" program. You can't. The last one that left was our Women's soccer coach to Notre Dame. If USC couldn't grab Grant Teaff from us why the heck do you think anyone is going to grab Briles?

As far as your comments about Tech football: you admit that you had 16 win streak on us right?
Dating back to 1929, the series is 35-32-1 in favor of Texas Tech. Baylor beat Texas Tech at Cowboy stadium in the 2011 matchup. This was Baylor's first victory over Tech since the Big 12 rivalry began in 1995.
Last Meeting: 66-42 Baylor

35 - 16= 19. So disregarding Baylor's wandering in the wilderness, and Tech without Leach. The all-time series preBigXII,Mike Leach, and Baylor's wandering in the desert was actually 31-19 Baylor. Do you get this. It took Tech's BEST YEARS EVER. Literally your GOLDEN ERA OF FOOTBALL with your GREATEST COACH EVER, coupled with Baylor's BIGGEST DOWN ERA to get ahead in the series. Wow, really pat yourself on the back for that. Fact is, Baylor is coming back and on the rise, and Daddy is going to put you back in your place. Enjoy it while it lasted Tech boy you get kudos for the all-time series. But that is a skew on the truth.

And we have enjoyed our winning year. While we were in the Alamo Bowl you got to complain about how lame we are from your couch. While we were busy making the Elite Eight (again) you were busy delivering your pizzas in your Ford Pinto.

I have had family and graduate from Baylor. I stood behind Baylor after the Patrick Dennehy murder. I stood behind Baylor after the man-child sucker punched Jordan Barncastle during the 2010 Tech-Baylor game at the United Spirit Arena http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtaPtQnu370
I stood behind Baylor when Art Briles let Josh Gordon play in the 2010 Tech-Baylor game at the Cotton Bowl after he was caught passed out in the Taco Bell drive thru with marijuana. The final straw for me was K* and his ridiculous whining about losing Texas rivalries and the threats of a lawsuit against A&M.

Also, if you are going to provide facts, at least get them right. Tech leads the all time series 36-33-1 and Tech only had a 15 game winning streak from 1996-2010. For the record, Baylor beat up on Tech when Tech was Independent/Border Conference member. From 1929-1959 Tech trailed Baylor 4-13-1. Since then we have gone 32-20.

1960's 4-6
1970's 8-2
1980's 2-8
1990's 7-3
2000's 10-0
2010's 1-1

During the 70's and 90's, we were 15-5 against Baylor, so it's not like the 2000's were a fluke. Now that RG3, Kendall Wright, Ganneway are gone, I suspect Baylor will go back to their rightful spot in the Big 12, last place

In case you forgot Spike had a decent record in the Big 12 as well. He built the foundation for Leach. From 1996-1999 Tech had the 5th best record in the Big 12.
Neb 28-4
K-State 28-4
A&M 22-10
UT 20-12
Tech 19-13
Baylor 3-29 last place.

From 2000-2009, we had the 3rd best record in the Big 12.
UT 68-12
OU 67-13
TT 47-33
Baylor 14-98 last place.

So in Baylor's best year since probably the 80's they failed to make at least make the Cotton Bowl. I don't have a lot of faith in Tuberville but with the talent we have coming back, we should be bowling next season while Baylor sits on the couch for the 15th time in the last 17 years. Congrats on your 1 miracle season.