Started By
Message
re: Aggie fans, the difference between Alabama & Texas fans?
Posted on 9/25/13 at 7:29 pm to cardboardboxer
Posted on 9/25/13 at 7:29 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Even Bama couldn't get away with that shite.
But here's the thing...it would never even occur to Bama to try. There's your difference between the two.
This post was edited on 9/25/13 at 7:31 pm
0
Posted on 9/25/13 at 7:59 pm to Beer Bryant
BAMA has the championships to back up their arrogance.
Texas only has one since the end of segregation. Granted, it's one more than A&M, but they don't own the state like they claim they do.
Texas only has one since the end of segregation. Granted, it's one more than A&M, but they don't own the state like they claim they do.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 8:02 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
No other team network in the Big 12 is given any opportunity like that to trade for games.
LOL! You are so full of shite.
quote:
2.4
Adjustment of Revenue Distribution Upon Telecast of More Than One Football Game on Member Institution Branded Outlets.
Members may televise football games
(other than the Member Institution Retained Football Game [as defined in the
Conference’s Telecast Rights Agreement with FOX Sports Net, Inc. dated April 1, 2011
(the “2011 FOX Agreement”]) (a “MIRFG”) on their Member Institution Branded Outlets (as defined in the 2011 FOX Agreement) (a “MIBO”) only when two
institutions agree and the requisite consent or sublicense from FOX Sports Net is obtained.
Members may agree to purchase one or more football games beyond the MIRFG from Conference
media partners to air on a MIBO, provided that both Members involved in such game and the media partner agree to such purchase (an “Additional Game”). If such purchase occurs, then the pro rata share of the Conference distribution due to the institution or institutions on whose MIBO such Additional Game is telecast shall be reduced by $200,000 per Additional Game for each such institution on whose MIBO the Additional
Game is telecast (or $400,000 if both institutions telecast the Additional Game in addition to their MIRFG on their MIBO) (the “Reduction Amount”), and the Reduction Amount
shall be reallocated to the other Members who do not participate in such game in equal
proportions. The Reduction Amount shall be reduced if the normal rights fee from the
television platform on which the Additional Game is telecast is less than $200,000, in
which event the Reduction Amount shall be the amount of the actual rights fee for such
Additional Game
Big 12 Bylaws
Posted on 9/25/13 at 8:02 pm to Beer Bryant
Bama Mentality: Man is it awesome that we get to play and dominate the best teams in the nation.
Texas Mentality: Man isn't the rest of the Big 12 lucky that we stick around, since let's face it, we're awesome.
Texas Mentality: Man isn't the rest of the Big 12 lucky that we stick around, since let's face it, we're awesome.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 8:22 pm to KaiserSoze99
Texas didn't want any part of the SEC because they were skeeert.
As for Colt McCoy/Texas excuse for not beating Bama.... bitch please. Texas was the softest team Bama played that year...and Colt would not have made a difference.....and Colt wanted no more of Alabama after getting his sissy assed self laid the frick out.
As the saying goes..."Texas is all hat, no cattle".
I'm glad TAMU joined the SEC because :
1- they offer better competition than the softies from Austin.
2- I don't like the longhorns...buncha pansy assed, commie pinko, bovine worshipping, wannabes who's football program is shite.
As for Colt McCoy/Texas excuse for not beating Bama.... bitch please. Texas was the softest team Bama played that year...and Colt would not have made a difference.....and Colt wanted no more of Alabama after getting his sissy assed self laid the frick out.
As the saying goes..."Texas is all hat, no cattle".
I'm glad TAMU joined the SEC because :
1- they offer better competition than the softies from Austin.
2- I don't like the longhorns...buncha pansy assed, commie pinko, bovine worshipping, wannabes who's football program is shite.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 8:43 pm to texashorn
quote:
and the requisite consent or sublicense from FOX Sports Net is obtained.
There ya go I highlighted the important part. Now show me the part in the contract where ISU can buy or trade for one of these consents or sublicenses for its network.
Because so far only ESPN has something for Fox that is worth trading. And who wouldn't trade a dime for a quarter?
This post was edited on 9/25/13 at 8:49 pm
Posted on 9/25/13 at 9:37 pm to Beer Bryant
quote:
Well, maybe. But we're no different from other SEC fans when their teams are having success. Texas fans think they're "entitled". We Bama fans KNOW that Kentucky, Vanderbilt or Mississippi State can beat us. TAMU fans might not have learned that yet. No, Bama fans have not come CLOSE to the sense of entitlement that Texas fans have. Probably, because we're in the SEC.
Really? How many times have those teams beaten you in the last 20 years? Y'all don't know this. It rarely happens.
quote:
Well, maybe. But we're no different from other SEC fans when their teams are having success. Texas fans think they're "entitled". We Bama fans KNOW that Kentucky, Vanderbilt or Mississippi State can beat us. TAMU fans might not have learned that yet. No, Bama fans have not come CLOSE to the sense of entitlement that Texas fans have. Probably, because we're in the SEC.
I tend to disagree. The Bama grads I've met in the work force and in social situations seem to be fairly similar. Same sense of entitlement. They believe everything Bama/tu offers is the best it could possibly be. They act as if expectations there are higher than they are anywhere else just because of who they are. They believe that they should be in contention because of who they are, not because of anything else.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 9:45 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Alabama is the greatest program in college football history.
Texas acts like they are.
Really can't say it any better than this
Posted on 9/25/13 at 10:02 pm to birddogman
quote:
A fact that is not commonly known to people outside of Texas, and even in the state you have to be somewhat well read on state politics to understand is the fact that UT needed the money from the Longhorn network in order to continue to advance as an elite university. Gov Perry in his last term was very hostile toward higher ed, particularly UT, basically said "all higher ed does is produce a bunch of libs and lib professors who dont actually do any work"
So funding for UT began to be cut, Perry wanted UT to increase funds by having more online classes and expanding the size of UT and by lowering acceptance requirements.
UT Pres Powers fought this for the most part but Perry appointed all the regents, so his hands were somewhat tied.
However they basically realized that they could use the revenue that football generates to continue to advance the university academically, even with the feud going with Perry.
Granted its a lot more complicated that this, but those are some cliff notes that shed some light on the situation.
Longhorn Network money is inconsequential to anything tu needs. You're talking about $2 or $3 million a year in comparison to the third largest endowment in the entire country. These are the three largest endowments in the country.
1. Harvard
2. Yale
3. tu
If you really think the extra LHN money was going to do anything, you're a moron.
quote:
A fact that is not commonly known to people outside of Texas, and even in the state you have to be somewhat well read on state politics to understand is the fact that UT needed the money from the Longhorn network in order to continue to advance as an elite university. Gov Perry in his last term was very hostile toward higher ed, particularly UT, basically said "all higher ed does is produce a bunch of libs and lib professors who dont actually do any work"
So funding for UT began to be cut, Perry wanted UT to increase funds by having more online classes and expanding the size of UT and by lowering acceptance requirements.
UT Pres Powers fought this for the most part but Perry appointed all the regents, so his hands were somewhat tied.
However they basically realized that they could use the revenue that football generates to continue to advance the university academically, even with the feud going with Perry.
Granted its a lot more complicated that this, but those are some cliff notes that shed some light on the situation.
Well Powers and Loftin were both equally defensive and none of it was aimed at liberals or lib professors, it was aimed at research. Specifically consultants in the engineering world getting hired as engineering professors, never doing any teaching, but just using grant money to do personal projects. Research money is a huge driver for talent, and Perry sought to deemphasize this, it had nothing to do with liberalism. Perry was a Democrat for most of his life.
quote:
A fact that is not commonly known to people outside of Texas, and even in the state you have to be somewhat well read on state politics to understand is the fact that UT needed the money from the Longhorn network in order to continue to advance as an elite university. Gov Perry in his last term was very hostile toward higher ed, particularly UT, basically said "all higher ed does is produce a bunch of libs and lib professors who dont actually do any work"
So funding for UT began to be cut, Perry wanted UT to increase funds by having more online classes and expanding the size of UT and by lowering acceptance requirements.
UT Pres Powers fought this for the most part but Perry appointed all the regents, so his hands were somewhat tied.
However they basically realized that they could use the revenue that football generates to continue to advance the university academically, even with the feud going with Perry.
Granted its a lot more complicated that this, but those are some cliff notes that shed some light on the situation.
Two different issues, and completely wrong. Funding for all education, at all levels was slashed. Perry didn't want to increase the cost of tuition for funding the Governor has no say in how much tu charges for tuition, Powers did, but the raise in tuition was rejected. There have been various fights from this point from both Loftin and Powers to get money now that this clear line has been drawn about if it for "research or teaching", and things like the Texas Research Incentive Program have sprung up. Now essentially we have this fight classifying how dollars are spent. But it is in no way specific to tu, it has very much the same implications and backlash from the administration at Texas A&M. There is currently backlash from how to allocate the rainy day fund, and education is low down on the totem pole for this. Water being the primary issue of importance.
quote:
A fact that is not commonly known to people outside of Texas, and even in the state you have to be somewhat well read on state politics to understand is the fact that UT needed the money from the Longhorn network in order to continue to advance as an elite university. Gov Perry in his last term was very hostile toward higher ed, particularly UT, basically said "all higher ed does is produce a bunch of libs and lib professors who dont actually do any work"
So funding for UT began to be cut, Perry wanted UT to increase funds by having more online classes and expanding the size of UT and by lowering acceptance requirements.
UT Pres Powers fought this for the most part but Perry appointed all the regents, so his hands were somewhat tied.
However they basically realized that they could use the revenue that football generates to continue to advance the university academically, even with the feud going with Perry.
Granted its a lot more complicated that this, but those are some cliff notes that shed some light on the situation.
Wrong on so many levels. The LHN was brainstormed far before any of this bullshite. The LHN has absolutely NOTHING to do with academics. It was 100% DeLoss Dodds and ESPN blocking out the Pac-16 and Fox from Austin. Again. Fractions of pennies compared to what we are talking about for education and research dollars. The ESPN contract was $300 over 20 years. That's $15 million a year, $4 million a year of which goes directly to IMG. Even assuming low operating costs, which ESPN must recoup before profits are spit out, you're looking at what? $3 maybe $4 million a year? Of which the Athletic department pledges like 8% to academics? So you think a quarter a million dollars a year is going to help tu "advance as an elite university"? That's ridiculous.
quote:
A fact that is not commonly known to people outside of Texas, and even in the state you have to be somewhat well read on state politics to understand is the fact that UT needed the money from the Longhorn network in order to continue to advance as an elite university. Gov Perry in his last term was very hostile toward higher ed, particularly UT, basically said "all higher ed does is produce a bunch of libs and lib professors who dont actually do any work"
So funding for UT began to be cut, Perry wanted UT to increase funds by having more online classes and expanding the size of UT and by lowering acceptance requirements.
UT Pres Powers fought this for the most part but Perry appointed all the regents, so his hands were somewhat tied.
However they basically realized that they could use the revenue that football generates to continue to advance the university academically, even with the feud going with Perry.
Granted its a lot more complicated that this, but those are some cliff notes that shed some light on the situation.
Yes. Yes it is.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 10:09 pm to texashorn
And to add before your response:
Without that waiver any game is useless for promotional purposes and negotiation purposes. Without a guarantee that Fox will pass on the game you want and let it drop to Tier 3 you can't advertise the game nor can you use it in negotiations for distribution. Maybe at best you can schedule someone really crappy and hope for the best.
Meanwhile Texas can get the Ole Miss game on the LHN, a game Fox SURELY would have picked up for Tier 2 if ESPN passed on it. But ESPN was willing to trade the T-Day game to give the LHN that extra push, and it kinda worked as TWC picked up the channel in Texas soon after that announcement.
Where can Iowa St. buy some of that ESPN bargaining power for their network? I mean, ESPN is trading Tier 1 games and Tier 1 games are covered by the Big 12 contract, not the LHN contract. So since its the whole conference deal can ISU get a little love to help pick up some streaming providers? A single bone from ESPN?
Hell no, because the whole system is rigged to support and subsidize the LHN.
What I love the most about all this is it was not only Texas that got burned (when two more teams left the Big 12 when all this hit). By trading Tier 1 games with Fox, ESPN gave Fox a taste of high-end college football. Fox has never had a Tier 1 contract with a major conference so those games sure left an impression. They got a taste of the top shelf and not they thirst for more, so they created Fox Sports One to one day compete for those Tier 1 rights.
Bama just wants to play good football against historical opponents. They want to share earnings evenly so that the competition around them is good. They know it takes two teams to play football.
Meanwhile Texas wants to stack the deck and then pretend like its victory when they win. Like the Harlem Globetrotters the opponents are meaningless, Texas is all that matters. Well that and making more money than everyone else.
Without that waiver any game is useless for promotional purposes and negotiation purposes. Without a guarantee that Fox will pass on the game you want and let it drop to Tier 3 you can't advertise the game nor can you use it in negotiations for distribution. Maybe at best you can schedule someone really crappy and hope for the best.
Meanwhile Texas can get the Ole Miss game on the LHN, a game Fox SURELY would have picked up for Tier 2 if ESPN passed on it. But ESPN was willing to trade the T-Day game to give the LHN that extra push, and it kinda worked as TWC picked up the channel in Texas soon after that announcement.
Where can Iowa St. buy some of that ESPN bargaining power for their network? I mean, ESPN is trading Tier 1 games and Tier 1 games are covered by the Big 12 contract, not the LHN contract. So since its the whole conference deal can ISU get a little love to help pick up some streaming providers? A single bone from ESPN?
Hell no, because the whole system is rigged to support and subsidize the LHN.
What I love the most about all this is it was not only Texas that got burned (when two more teams left the Big 12 when all this hit). By trading Tier 1 games with Fox, ESPN gave Fox a taste of high-end college football. Fox has never had a Tier 1 contract with a major conference so those games sure left an impression. They got a taste of the top shelf and not they thirst for more, so they created Fox Sports One to one day compete for those Tier 1 rights.
Bama just wants to play good football against historical opponents. They want to share earnings evenly so that the competition around them is good. They know it takes two teams to play football.
Meanwhile Texas wants to stack the deck and then pretend like its victory when they win. Like the Harlem Globetrotters the opponents are meaningless, Texas is all that matters. Well that and making more money than everyone else.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 10:09 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Posted on 9/25/13 at 11:12 pm to TeLeFaWx
cardboardboxer,
I stand by my statement, and the rule speaks for itself. If Iowa St. or any other team felt they were getting screwed, then that same rule allows the conference team whose game is sought for broadcast on the Longhorn Network (or any member-affiliated network) to nix the deal.
The fact of the matter is, the Fox sublicensing agreement predated Nebraska and Texas A&M leaving the Big 12, therefore, both of those schools could have conceivably used that agreement to have a second or conference game on its own network.
When Texas and the Longhorn Network originally tried to take advantage of this clause, Big 12 athletics directors (including Texas A&M’s) put in the qualifier that such game had to be agreed on by both teams, and receive approval from the Big 12 conference office.
No one was getting screwed. A&M could have taken the same route as Texas, formed its own network, and under the conference bylaws, put more than one game (including conference) on its own network. A&M chose not to do so. Fine. Bye.
I am unaware of a contract clause of ESPN paying out less than the guaranteed yearly sum depending on profits. Do you have a link?
LINK
Don’t be so obtuse. Perry appointed the regents who denied the tuition increase.
Loftin also originally sought a tuition increase, but was pulled aside and told he’d get run off if he asked for a tuition increase.
LINK
Powers likely was told the same thing, but he defied Perry, and then the fight went public.
You Aggies thought it was hilarious that Perry was going to fire The University of Texas president at the time, but now you deny that scenario ever occurred.
In addition, your reference to The University of Texas endowment should note the fact that those billions in the PUF are shared between most (but not all) system schools. Same for A&M.
I stand by my statement, and the rule speaks for itself. If Iowa St. or any other team felt they were getting screwed, then that same rule allows the conference team whose game is sought for broadcast on the Longhorn Network (or any member-affiliated network) to nix the deal.
The fact of the matter is, the Fox sublicensing agreement predated Nebraska and Texas A&M leaving the Big 12, therefore, both of those schools could have conceivably used that agreement to have a second or conference game on its own network.
When Texas and the Longhorn Network originally tried to take advantage of this clause, Big 12 athletics directors (including Texas A&M’s) put in the qualifier that such game had to be agreed on by both teams, and receive approval from the Big 12 conference office.
No one was getting screwed. A&M could have taken the same route as Texas, formed its own network, and under the conference bylaws, put more than one game (including conference) on its own network. A&M chose not to do so. Fine. Bye.
quote:
The ESPN contract was $300 over 20 years. That's $15 million a year, $4 million a year of which goes directly to IMG. Even assuming low operating costs, which ESPN must recoup before profits are spit out, you're looking at what? $3 maybe $4 million a year? Of which the Athletic department pledges like 8% to academics?
I am unaware of a contract clause of ESPN paying out less than the guaranteed yearly sum depending on profits. Do you have a link?
quote:
Although UT’s share works out to $12.4 million a year on average, payments will fluctuate somewhat. Powers said UT is assured about $10 million a year for the first five years or so. Depending on the network’s profits, UT and IMG could realize additional income.
-----------
If the new network, which is scheduled to begin rolling in the fall, brings in just the guaranteed $10 million or so in the first year or so of the contract, the university’s total annual broadcast revenue would rise into the $30 million range.
Powers said half, or about $5 million a year, of the first five years’ guaranteed income from the new deal is earmarked for academic initiatives. The other half will go to athletics.
After five years, academics could receive a larger or smaller share, depending on the revenues, the economic climate and the judgments of the university leaders in place at that time, he said.
In the near term, academic uses of the revenue will include creation of two faculty chairs, each with a $1 million endowment - one in physics and one in philosophy. The UT president said he would work with faculty members and deans on other uses for faculty support, “and not just have it pay the light bills.”
LINK
quote:
Two different issues, and completely wrong. Funding for all education, at all levels was slashed. Perry didn't want to increase the cost of tuition for funding the Governor has no say in how much tu charges for tuition, Powers did, but the raise in tuition was rejected.
Don’t be so obtuse. Perry appointed the regents who denied the tuition increase.
Loftin also originally sought a tuition increase, but was pulled aside and told he’d get run off if he asked for a tuition increase.
quote:
Despite Texas A&M President R. Bowen Loftin's articulation in the last few months of a university in need of additional revenue, he did not put forward a recommendation for a designated tuition increase to the A&M System Board of Regents' finance committee during a meeting Friday.
LINK
Powers likely was told the same thing, but he defied Perry, and then the fight went public.
You Aggies thought it was hilarious that Perry was going to fire The University of Texas president at the time, but now you deny that scenario ever occurred.
In addition, your reference to The University of Texas endowment should note the fact that those billions in the PUF are shared between most (but not all) system schools. Same for A&M.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 11:30 pm to TeLeFaWx
Great summary TeLeFaWx.
One thing to add, Powers has done an amazing job of snowing Texas folks by making Perry into the bogeyman. Every problem he has is the evil Aggie's fault, not his. Don't look at the complete lack of progress he has had toward any of his goals. Don't look at the numerous scandals that have run rampant at the school. No, it's all Perry's fault.
One thing to add, Powers has done an amazing job of snowing Texas folks by making Perry into the bogeyman. Every problem he has is the evil Aggie's fault, not his. Don't look at the complete lack of progress he has had toward any of his goals. Don't look at the numerous scandals that have run rampant at the school. No, it's all Perry's fault.
Posted on 9/25/13 at 11:53 pm to texashorn
quote:
I am unaware of a contract clause of ESPN paying out less than the guaranteed yearly sum depending on profits. Do you have a link?
No, FOIA request it if you want. Or maybe google it. I'm sure it is out there somewhere.
quote:
No one was getting screwed. A&M could have taken the same route as Texas, formed its own network, and under the conference bylaws, put more than one game (including conference) on its own network. A&M chose not to do so. Fine. Bye.
You assume that taking that route is in our best interest. You basically black balled every other University in to taking a path that you yourselves only felt you were capable of handling and implementing, and assume it is fair to force people to leave the bonds that solidarity provides and bitch about it if they choose to join something that wouldn't do that.
It's like Judas bitching at Peter, "Hey don't be mad at me. You could have taken the 30 pieces of silver from the romans too".
quote:
Don’t be so obtuse. Perry appointed the regents who denied the tuition increase.
True. He appointed them.
quote:
Loftin also originally sought a tuition increase, but was pulled aside and told he’d get run off if he asked for a tuition increase.
I doubt this is the case, as Sharp currently wields more power. I for one don't like Perry's meddling in this issue, and hope he loses, but like all politicking there is negotiation. But link me to a story or discussion about this, I'm not saying you're definitely wrong or off base.
quote:
In addition, your reference to The University of Texas endowment should note the fact that those billions in the PUF are shared between most (but not all) system schools. Same for A&M.
I realize this, but however you want to cut it, the LHN money going to academics is a drop in the bucket. It was never created as a tool to make sure tu could keep up with being a good school, or whatever the guy claimed.
Posted on 9/26/13 at 12:25 am to aggressor
quote:
Great summary TeLeFaWx.
One thing to add, Powers has done an amazing job of snowing Texas folks by making Perry into the bogeyman. Every problem he has is the evil Aggie's fault, not his. Don't look at the complete lack of progress he has had toward any of his goals. Don't look at the numerous scandals that have run rampant at the school. No, it's all Perry's fault.
I mean, Rick Perry's plan for a 10k education? It sounds stupid, but in reality, it is a hyperbolic reaction to the problem at hand. They are not controlling costs, they are not graduating kids on time, and not spending enough money teaching, and funneling all their talent and resources to graduate and doctorate level coursework and ignoring undergrads. While this is true at places like Texas A&M and all across the country; what Powers has done to adress this hasn't been working. To address the issue of too much money going to research and too many kids not graduating on time, he's tried to just create a catch all and force freshman in to worthless research projects the the school designed in response to this upcoming dilemma, and even designed classes about how to do research. Might sound good, but what if it isn't? What if the cost is too much and the kids aren't learning what they should?
Look, don't get me wrong, research is great, but it shouldn't subsidize or replace actual education. Powers had a solution. Should he not be accountable to that solution, and its efficacy? In all honesty, his solution sounds better than Perry's idea of just eliminating all that and cutting down core education to essentials, but whatever. I'm removed from college so I don't feel as tied to it as I once do, as my favorite petroleum engineering professor ever was a guy brought in from industry from BP to do research, but had to teach a few classes and was easily the most brilliant and helpful teacher I ever had. Now, our department was smaller than most, and the stuff was so technical he could only pawn of so much of the computer work to lab TAs, but the paradox remains; you need money to teach your students, you need money to attract professors, and the most money comes from research grants, but when the more talent you get the more they are going to do research, and the less they are actually going to teach. Obviously there is a balance there. Powers methodology was to integrate research into the fundamental part of the education, so there was no detriment to the research, keep the money flowing, and modify education to absorb as much as it can from the research going on. Is this a reasonable approach? Where are the limits of this? How can you tell if it is working?
Now I'm going off on some arbitrary macro-level philosophical discussion on the inherent approach to this shite, and in reality, I don't really give a frick. I didn't go to school there, so let those douche bags figure it out.
Posted on 9/26/13 at 12:40 am to TeLeFaWx
Texas Politics 101
Posted on 9/26/13 at 1:10 am to Big12fan
quote:
To the OP: In you quest for the unbiased truth, why not ask Palestinians their opinion of Israelis?
Ironic that you should say that...wasn't one of the keynote speakers for the Texas graduation very recently someone who had ties to the PLO?
Posted on 9/26/13 at 1:10 am to aggressor
quote:
Powers has done an amazing job of snowing Texas folks by making Perry into the bogeyman. Every problem he has is the evil Aggie's fault, not his. Don't look at the complete lack of progress he has had toward any of his goals.
You mean like the improving four-year graduation rate, which at 53 percent is higher than A&M's 50? (The Texas goal is 70 percent, but A&M has no goal.)
And don't give me that crap about Aggie engineering students holding down the rate -- same for Texas. Look under "lowest rates":
How about fundraising?
The University of Texas set a school record for single-year fundraising with $453 million.
But but but A&M raised $740 million in one year!/aggie
Guess what?
More than one-third of that went to the Kyle Field expansion.
quote:
Mr. Davis said that gifts designated for the $450-million redevelopment of Texas A&M’s stadium, Kyle Field, had accounted for more than a third of the $740-million total.
Chronicle of Higher Education
Can you say "skewed"?
The University of Texas raised $453 million in one year for academics, while A&M raised at most $496 million (one-third of $740 million).
Wow, in what was probably the biggest year in your school's football history, and with the Texas football team so-so, you eeked out a win. Congrats?
Posted on 9/26/13 at 1:12 am to texashorn
That looks notoriously like Ray Bowen's epic fail known as "Vision 2020".
Posted on 9/26/13 at 1:12 am to texashorn
quote:
texashorn
If you're not a troll, you are one obsessed dude
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News