Started By
Message
re: Oklahoma is not coming to the SEC
Posted on 1/7/17 at 6:26 pm to Masterag
Posted on 1/7/17 at 6:26 pm to Masterag
quote:
It's funny/sad that you Sooners are even getting your hopes up. But what's even funnier/sadder is that you think this is a real possibility. It isn't. It never will be. The only thing you're better at historically or otherwise than A&M is football. Which ironically, is a good reason why you won't ever be invited. Nobody wants to play a top 15 team in every conference game. Furthermore, comparing yourselves to A&M is plain silly. We are your betters in every way; No non football related metric qualifies you to shine our boots. You would hypothetically have the 3rd largest endowment in the SEC; impressive, until you consider the fact that ours is more than 10 times larger. In no scenario would we ever be substitutes for one another. But by all means, keep dreaming!
Who in the hell are you talking to?? Do you realize that everyone wishes you had not been added to the conference? Hey how many games has ur precious endowment won? Why does that always get brought up? Your fan base is so insecure. Tell me how much larger your endowment is than LSU's and how that relates to us beating that arse every damn year.
This post was edited on 1/7/17 at 6:38 pm
1
Posted on 1/7/17 at 6:28 pm to Dude man 25
quote:
I'd be mad too if my team was 0-3 vs Bob Stoops
Mad? My school is going for a 5 national championship in 8 years, and yours got blown out in the one playoff game that they made.Now you want to brag to us about beating Auburn and Bama in down years? I think you should take that enthusiasm you save for the sec runner up and focus on getting through the regular season with more wins. Then you might get a shot a sec champion. You do understand the reason OU hasn't played an SEC champion is that they haven't been good enough?
This post was edited on 1/7/17 at 6:30 pm
Posted on 1/7/17 at 6:31 pm to viceman
Happy with any win. We're in the championship discussion every year, kudos to BAMA for what y'all have done, but we dominate the Tide.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 6:34 pm to Dude man 25
quote:
We're in the championship discussion every year
Nobody discussed OU in the playoffs this year. Nobody bro.
This post was edited on 1/7/17 at 6:35 pm
Posted on 1/7/17 at 6:39 pm to viceman
If there's one team OU isnt worried about its Alabama. Y'all skated around us last year, the committee saved your arse from playing us in Dallas
Posted on 1/7/17 at 6:40 pm to viceman
quote:
Nobody discussed OU in the playoffs this year. Nobody bro.
Yeah they did and we had 2 losses. Not a great season by OU standards.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 6:57 pm to Dude man 25
quote:
Posted by Message
Dude man 25
Oklahoma is not coming to the SEC
quote:
Nobody discussed OU in the playoffs this year. Nobody bro.
Look man, I like OU. They are one of my favorite teams. I consider them among the best programs, and I thought the SEC chant was hilarious and I felt like we deserved it. I also think the fans of the blue blood programs should be better than to come to another conference's board and brag about beating conference runner ups. After OU got blown out by a mediocre Houston, nobody seriously considered them being in the playoffs. The only 2 loss team that was seriously considered was PSU because they won what appeared to best conference.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 7:17 pm to Masterag
quote:
It's funny/sad that you Sooners are even getting your hopes up. But what's even funnier/sadder is that you think this is a real possibility.
It isn't. It never will be.
The only thing you're better at historically or otherwise than A&M is football.
Epitome of being Aggy.
-Speak on behalf of a conference whom has no respect for you
-OU has more NC's in baseball than Aggy has won CWS games
-OU has won more NC's in hoops than A&M has Elite Eight appearances.
Meat judging.. A&M owns OU in meat judging.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 7:23 pm to viceman
Oh I'm not bragging. Beating Auburn isn't anything to brag about, they were terrible. This was a down year for OU, certainly didn't live up to expectations. I understand Auburn finished 2nd in SEC and that doesn't take away from BAMAs SEC resume.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 7:39 pm to Dude man 25
I guess every year since 2000 must be a down year for OU huh
Posted on 1/7/17 at 9:04 pm to Bubbles Up
quote:
quote:
and the only reason aggies have an endowment is that aggies agreed in court in the 1920's that they are a branch of UT
Just curious, what was that case? Thanks in advance for a legitimate citation.
More accurately Texas AMC, as it was known at the time, leveraged the state to recognize their attachment to The University as stated in the Texas Constitution.
The state of Texas hadn't planned for TAMC, TAMC was established from the Morrill Land-Grant Act in 1871. UTexas was established in 1858 by the state, but wouldn't open doors til '83.
The land grant college was considered a "Yankee creation" & got off to a rocky start due to poor financing & lack of planning in general. Association with the UTexas was critical & often debated as the UTexas wanted nothing to do with it & it's struggles.
Efforts to separate the two by constitution failed twice in the 1910's. In 1930's TAMC secured it's 1/3 portion of the PUF (Permanent University Fund) that is essentially the lifeline for excellence for each University & more importantly secured TAMC's future.
The UTexas Regents never made administrative decisions on behalf of the college... only financial support. TAMC's Board of Directors made the administrative decisions from it's beginnings.
Through the early 1900's there were several legislative discussions on shutting down TAMC and they continued until the decision in the 30's to include them in the PUF.
In 1963 TAMC became TAMU. Ironically nothing in the Texas Constitution ever officially separated TAMC/TAMU as an agricultural & mechanical branch of The University.
In short TAMU was a land grant college that was not readily accepted by the state due to it's "Yankee origins" and initial lack of agricultural studies while struggling financially until leveraging it's branch ties to The University.
The true ties to the institutions were that of finances & nothing else. To this day they operate independently & the PUF is managed predominantly by those associated with the University of Texas System on behalf of each institution.
The unique association & ties between the institutions plays into the long history of disdain they share for each other.
A&M's decision to to take their athletic associations to the SEC irritated those of the UTexas System whom at this point perceived "virtual ownership" of TAMU's existence, while those @ TAMU saw it as it's freedom.
To this day TAMU attempts to gain a higher percentage of the PUF & as of yet those efforts have been declined. Then & now.. it was always be about the money for all parties. It should be noted that the PUF has no impact on athletics, they are for academic & administrative purposes only.
Jump online & dig into the earliest "minutes" of the TX state legislature. Regardless of ones position or allegiance, it's an interesting relationship that still fuels emotions between the two institutions to this day.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 9:10 pm to OldSchoolHorn
The reason no one touches the distribution of the PUF is that they don't want the other public schools getting their cut.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 9:38 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
The reason no one touches the distribution of the PUF is that they don't want the other public schools getting their cut.
More specifically it goes against the original goal of developing excellence at the flagship public institution(s).
I wouldn't be surprised if eventually a few public schools gets a piece of the action. Not likely in our lifetimes though.
The last attempt by Houston proposed taking half of UT's cut, essentially splitting into thirds. If it does change I'd guess it would be 50% to UT, 25% to TAMU & the other quarter divided among various public state universities.
Too many UT & TAMU supporters control things for that to happen anytime soon.
You ever watch the hearings where everyone lobbies for more funding? Interesting stuff.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 9:50 pm to Dude man 25
Oklahoma isn't getting an invite to the SEC. Sorry.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 9:59 pm to kywildcatfanone
I gotta say, it's much more fun beating the SEC. You guys get so upset
Posted on 1/7/17 at 10:00 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Oklahoma isn't getting an invite to the SEC. Sorry.
They'll get one before UK does.
Oh, forgot y'all were in the SEC already.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 10:10 pm to Dude man 25
quote:
Mizzou is a liberal yankee school
Mizzou is a liberal yankee school, the state as a whole, not so much. Probably 65% bushwhacker and 35% SJW insurgents.
Posted on 1/7/17 at 10:11 pm to Bass Tiger
I WANT TO GET THIS THREAD TO 1000 PAGES!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted on 1/7/17 at 11:35 pm to Dude man 25
OU Endowment < 1 Billion, Texas A&M Endowment > 10 Billion
And you will never get an SEC invite now.
And you will never get an SEC invite now.
Posted on 1/8/17 at 5:01 am to OldSchoolHorn
quote:
More accurately Texas AMC, as it was known at the time, leveraged the state to recognize their attachment to The University as stated in the Texas Constitution.
The state of Texas hadn't planned for TAMC, TAMC was established from the Morrill Land-Grant Act in 1871. UTexas was established in 1858 by the state, but wouldn't open doors til '83.
The land grant college was considered a "Yankee creation" & got off to a rocky start due to poor financing & lack of planning in general. Association with the UTexas was critical & often debated as the UTexas wanted nothing to do with it & it's struggles.
Efforts to separate the two by constitution failed twice in the 1910's. In 1930's TAMC secured it's 1/3 portion of the PUF (Permanent University Fund) that is essentially the lifeline for excellence for each University & more importantly secured TAMC's future.
The UTexas Regents never made administrative decisions on behalf of the college... only financial support. TAMC's Board of Directors made the administrative decisions from it's beginnings.
Through the early 1900's there were several legislative discussions on shutting down TAMC and they continued until the decision in the 30's to include them in the PUF.
In 1963 TAMC became TAMU. Ironically nothing in the Texas Constitution ever officially separated TAMC/TAMU as an agricultural & mechanical branch of The University.
In short TAMU was a land grant college that was not readily accepted by the state due to it's "Yankee origins" and initial lack of agricultural studies while struggling financially until leveraging it's branch ties to The University.
The true ties to the institutions were that of finances & nothing else. To this day they operate independently & the PUF is managed predominantly by those associated with the University of Texas System on behalf of each institution.
The unique association & ties between the institutions plays into the long history of disdain they share for each other.
A&M's decision to to take their athletic associations to the SEC irritated those of the UTexas System whom at this point perceived "virtual ownership" of TAMU's existence, while those @ TAMU saw it as it's freedom.
To this day TAMU attempts to gain a higher percentage of the PUF & as of yet those efforts have been declined. Then & now.. it was always be about the money for all parties. It should be noted that the PUF has no impact on athletics, they are for academic & administrative purposes only.
Jump online & dig into the earliest "minutes" of the TX state legislature. Regardless of ones position or allegiance, it's an interesting relationship that still fuels emotions between the two institutions to this day.
Sounds like Aggie got over on y'all.
Page 9 of 11
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News