(12-30-2013 11:49 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(12-29-2013 10:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2013 10:01 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(12-29-2013 09:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2013 09:07 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  This year's ratings

Quote:
UT-BYU ............. 0.8 ..... 1,290,000
UT-Ole Miss ........ 0.1 ..... 130,000 (LHN)
UT-ISU ............. 1.5 ..... 2,400,000
UT-OU .............. 3.0, .... 4,710,000
UT-TCU ... ……..0.4, .... 676,000
UT-KU .............. 0.1 ..... 130,000 (LHN)
UT-WVU ............. 1.5 ..... 2,650,000
UT-OSU ............. 1.4 ..... 2,190,000
UT-Tech ............ 0.7 ..... 1,050,000

A&M-Rice ........... 2.7 ..... 4,200,000
A&M-'Bama .......... 8.5 ... 13,590,000
A&M-SMU ............ 0.5 ..... 809,000
A&M-Arky ........... 1.7 ..... 2,760,000
A&M-Ole Miss ....... 3.2 ..... 5,110,000
A&M-Auburn ......... 4.2 ..... 6,730,000
A&M-UTEP ........... 0.7 ..... 1,120,000
A&M-MSU ............ 2.9 ..... 4,530,000
A&M-LSU ............ 4.8 ..... 8,140,000
A&M-Mizzou ......... 3.6 ..... 5,730,000

Average share:

A&M ...... 3.28
UT ...... 1.06

Total viewers:

A&M ...... 52,719,000
UT ...... 15,181,000

Excellent post 10th! If nothing else it proves that the Big 12 spin doctors have a long way to go to put a Texas load of kittie litter on the data gathered by the pollsters and by your data listed above. If I could give you any more rep points I would.

1- The Texas data is pretty skewed by 3 things on tv ratings:
a- Texas in a down year vs A&M's most anticipated year in decades
b- LHN dropping numbers down for 3 UT games including the best noncon home game
c- FSN, FS1, FOX vs ESPN. Newer and lesser networks don't do as well as ESPN even when simply comparing the Big 12 and Pac12 against itself on each network.
d- A HUGE matchup before A&M's season slipped off against Bama that was hyped all offseason due to Bama's 3 national titles in 4 years.

A&M had a better year and more eyeballs this year, but the reality of it is much much less than these numbers imply despite how much the aggy and anti-b12 crowd wish it were different.

Let me get this straight S11. We are not to believe the actual raw data, but we are to believe what the Big 12 apologists tell us to believe? "Pay no attention to the man (Bear) behind the curtain." "I am the great and powerful Wizard of Oz (apologist for a failing Texas)! It is what it is, and at the time that is most current. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now you are just trolling. Do you honestly think that the networks played on, differences in early season momentum, and a lame duck coach for UT aren't going to amplify things in A&Ms favor? You must be naive or joking.

Furthermore relying on that data to act like they have pulled even in fanbase strength is laughable.

S11, I'm retired from 40 years of service in corporate and non-profit endeavors. In that 40 years statistics and extraneous factors were used to explain every negative trend or event that the institutions involved experienced. They were used to deflect accountability for the results. During that forty years every time they were utilized in that manner the company, or division of a company, or institution involved failed further, sometimes ultimately. The reason is a simple one. When employees are more concerned with defensive measures than they are with finding solutions to the problems that lead to negative statistical data, the focus of the entity is no longer on its mission.

I'm not trolling. If I were you would know it. I read many of the posts on Shaggy and Land Thieves, some of the posters are focused on finding solutions to their perceived problems, but many simply are interested in making excuses and supplying bogus, randomly selected data, to back those excuses. That strategy is representative of a growing "CYA" mentality that is gridlocking productivity in every facet of our lives. Naturally it makes me bristle. The goal of any company or non profit is to accomplish its mission (whatever that is stated to be). In football that is simply to find the right ingredients to win. Since sports are a results oriented business the outcome of competition speaks for itself. 8-4 is 8-4 and no amount of graphics, rationalizations about extraneous issues, or spin will add another win to the total. In the case of Mack Brown and Texas it simply is what it is.

You ,as a Baylor fan, have some wiggle room. Your team has but 1 loss. You may argue and speculate about how your 1 loss team might be deserving of more respect, or a better bowl, or a shot at the BCS title and that is not excuse making. That is opinion. Offering reasons as to why a team loses has an element of opinion to it, but how it is presented in defense of a team's record crosses that speculative line and becomes excuse making.

I get that the Big 12 has been under speculative assault since realignment started. But arguing the strength of that conference while ignoring actual on field results like A&M's massacre of Oklahoma in the bowl last year, or Ole Miss's drubbing of the Horns on their own home field, or Kansas State's loss to N.Dakota State, or Oklahoma State's loss to West Virginia and your subsequent loss to the Cowboys approaches the absurd at times.

In this thread both the original poll cited by the OP and the Map demographic you gave from Facebook are suspect if not specious. Nobody can deny that Texas A&M's popularity is on the rise in the Lone Star State. Whether they've caught or passed Texas is simply a matter of conjecture. But to say "ignore the obvious because I found some data on Facebook" fulfills what you accused me of...namely being naive at the simplest or trolling at the worst.

Good post JRSec.

When A&M has 6 games that draw as many viewers as UT-OU, you can't spin that.

A&M saw UT's Longhorn Network bluff, and raised them SEC football. Winner winner chicken dinner.

(12-30-2013 10:31 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My recollection is that the SEC asked Baylor to sign a waiver of claims against the SEC and Baylor declined. Baylor had no obligation to waive its claims. I'm sure some folks characterized this as "threatening to sue," but that would be a gross exageration because Baylor had absolutely no reason to waive its claims if it did not want to.

Your recollection is wrong. Baylor originally agreed to the waiver of claims. The Big 12 gave the SEC a letter authorizing the transfer of A&M to the SEC.

Then Baylor reneged, and the Big 12 pulled the authorization. Baylor and Ken Starr absolutely threatened to sue the SEC, A&M and Mike Slive personally for tortious interference.

(12-30-2013 01:15 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 10:31 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My recollection is that the SEC asked Baylor to sign a waiver of claims against the SEC and Baylor declined. Baylor had no obligation to waive its claims. I'm sure some folks characterized this as "threatening to sue," but that would be a gross exageration because Baylor had absolutely no reason to waive its claims if it did not want to.

Your recollection is wrong. Baylor originally agreed to the waiver of claims. The Big 12 gave the SEC a letter authorizing the transfer of A&M to the SEC.

Then Baylor reneged, and the Big 12 pulled the authorization. Baylor and Ken Starr absolutely threatened to sue the SEC, A&M and Mike Slive personally for tortious interference.

What is so hard to remember about this? It wasn't just Baylor. Kansas, KState, ISU, Mizzou and Tech were all apart of it at one point. Mizzou and Tech eventually consented when they got word they would be moving on to better options, but it wasn't just Baylor. A&M has tried to put the blame squarely on Baylor from the start because we were the most outspoken, and as much as they refuse to admit it a rival of theirs, but we were not the only school that didn't sign off.

Baylor isnt anybody's rival

(12-30-2013 01:15 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 10:31 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My recollection is that the SEC asked Baylor to sign a waiver of claims against the SEC and Baylor declined. Baylor had no obligation to waive its claims. I'm sure some folks characterized this as "threatening to sue," but that would be a gross exageration because Baylor had absolutely no reason to waive its claims if it did not want to.

Your recollection is wrong. Baylor originally agreed to the waiver of claims. The Big 12 gave the SEC a letter authorizing the transfer of A&M to the SEC.

Then Baylor reneged, and the Big 12 pulled the authorization. Baylor and Ken Starr absolutely threatened to sue the SEC, A&M and Mike Slive personally for tortious interference.

That is wrong. The Big 12 inc waived its rights as its own corporate entity but that does not apply to the schools. Baylor NEVER waived its right.

(12-30-2013 03:53 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 01:15 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 10:31 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My recollection is that the SEC asked Baylor to sign a waiver of claims against the SEC and Baylor declined. Baylor had no obligation to waive its claims. I'm sure some folks characterized this as "threatening to sue," but that would be a gross exageration because Baylor had absolutely no reason to waive its claims if it did not want to.

Your recollection is wrong. Baylor originally agreed to the waiver of claims. The Big 12 gave the SEC a letter authorizing the transfer of A&M to the SEC.

Then Baylor reneged, and the Big 12 pulled the authorization. Baylor and Ken Starr absolutely threatened to sue the SEC, A&M and Mike Slive personally for tortious interference.

That is wrong. The Big 12 inc waived its rights as its own corporate entity but that does not apply to the schools. Baylor NEVER waived its right.

Beebe originally sent a letter that said, "The Big 12 and its members will not take any legal action for any possible claims against the SEC or its members relating to the departure of Texas A&M University from the Big 12."

After the Big 12 reneged, the SEC released a statement "We were notified yesterday afternoon that at least one Big 12 institution had withdrawn its previous consent and was considering legal action."

I don't think they were lying. I think you're memory is hazy when viewed through green and gold glasses.

Honestly, who cares at this point.

We are in the SEC and that's all that matters.

(12-30-2013 05:22 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Honestly, who cares at this point.

We are in the SEC and that's all that matters.

It matters very much to Baylor people. They don't like to be viewed for what they actually are.

(12-30-2013 05:17 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:53 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 01:15 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 10:31 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My recollection is that the SEC asked Baylor to sign a waiver of claims against the SEC and Baylor declined. Baylor had no obligation to waive its claims. I'm sure some folks characterized this as "threatening to sue," but that would be a gross exageration because Baylor had absolutely no reason to waive its claims if it did not want to.

Your recollection is wrong. Baylor originally agreed to the waiver of claims. The Big 12 gave the SEC a letter authorizing the transfer of A&M to the SEC.

Then Baylor reneged, and the Big 12 pulled the authorization. Baylor and Ken Starr absolutely threatened to sue the SEC, A&M and Mike Slive personally for tortious interference.

That is wrong. The Big 12 inc waived its rights as its own corporate entity but that does not apply to the schools. Baylor NEVER waived its right.

Beebe originally sent a letter that said, "The Big 12 and its members will not take any legal action for any possible claims against the SEC or its members relating to the departure of Texas A&M University from the Big 12."

After the Big 12 reneged, the SEC released a statement "We were notified yesterday afternoon that at least one Big 12 institution had withdrawn its previous consent and was considering legal action."

I don't think they were lying. I think you're memory is hazy when viewed through green and gold glasses.

The Big 12 never had the authority to make that agreement on our behalf and our BOR/President never authorized waiving our right. SEC can say what they want but it doesn't mean anything more than semantics.

BU never waived it's right and a loose interpretation of "and it's members" doesn't impact that one bit. The members as beebe referred to only applies to their influence on the Big 12 inc's decisions.

(12-30-2013 05:22 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Honestly, who cares at this point.

As long as my school isn't being smeared I agree

(12-30-2013 05:24 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 05:22 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Honestly, who cares at this point.

We are in the SEC and that's all that matters.

It matters very much to Baylor people. They don't like to be viewed for what they actually are.

Quit trying to smear BU in this. We didn't waive our right to sue and just because Beebe spoke for the B12 inc doesn't have authority on BU's rights.

Hey, we agree on that point about Bebe

Still have the 2nd half to go but I'm proud of our effort and crowd.

Go Kliff and Go Texas Tech.

Hello Win Column

(12-31-2013 02:10 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  Go Kliff and Go Texas Tech.

Hello Win Column

Congratulations JML your Red Raiders played an inspired ball game and evened the score for the Big 12 in a really big game!