Yeah, a decade plus of 10 win seasons at minimum, with multiple conference championships, and being in the hunt for a national title each and every year while arguably being one of the most dominating forces on the recruiting scene sure is "maintaining an illusion."
I guess even you could be right about something.
It your 255 post but still fair is fair.
Let's see you've said:
"Texas had no gain in playing Minnesota. Not recruiting wise, or by any other aspect. The potential gain was all Minnesota's.
Texas would never put themselves in that kind of a geographical disadvantage for money. The reward would not be worth the risk."[/I]
But you got your little undies in a bind over this:
"You're 'just saying" that when it comes to money a Longhorn's word is worth about as much as sand in the Sahara. Or better yet, when it comes to honoring a commitment the University of Texas is "all hat and no cattle"
Let see, Minnesota had all the advantages, Texas had none. Seems true to me. The Longhorns would have made more money and would have most likely won both games which is why many of us including, despite your silly little outburst, me, didn't think it was such a good idea scheduling them in the first place.
They dumped the Gophers to get the Fighting Irish. That game will be worth a lot more money particularly with the NBC contract or the Longhorns desired TV network. Texas, as you state, understands all to well "risk versus reward". They dumped Rice, TCU and SMU to join up with the Big 8 when scandals and probation wiped-out the old SWC. The negotiated with the Pac 10 and seemingly changed their mind. They finally stayed in the Big 12 after getting their fellow schools to ante-up with a sweetheart deal otherwise they were headed elsewhere. At least that what nearly ever AD in the Big 12 said.
Unless you've been screaming elsewhere about how Texas should have kept all of these deals why in the hell to you come here whining like a little doucebag when it's pointed out?
Brown probably looked at it a a favor to an old friend and colleague but when the nine conference schedule came in, and it looked like they could make a WHOLE lot of money he backed out. Good business sense, but still breaking his word. (prom date
)
You don't seemed bothered by that, quite the contrary, you think its a good idea. Then why do you start acting like such a little "crybaby" when it's pointed out?
I'm guessing that since you've been around here for 7 months or so, and the only apparent connection here is Brewster, that you must spend HOURS on the boards of Big 12 teams. That would mean that after what has gone on the past three months or so, you've spent a lot of time defending Texas. That involved defending the Longhorns against
false accusations and, reading your post here, attacking
motives when Texas was clearly in the wrong.
Take out the last day or so and your posts seemed to add a lot of info to the discussions around here. The posts in this thread haven't.
The poster from the previous months would read this and except for a intentionally slanderous word or two would have thought "yeah, they broke their word but it was the right thing to do".
The little weasel who has posted in this thread will ignore facts he doesn't like and continue to whine on about how Texas has never made a self-serving decision in his lifetime; and even if that lifetime may be only 16 -17 years, and he'd be wrong.
The first guys is always welcome. Todays' guy? Now "that guy" has signed-off at least three times today. I only hope he makes it permanent.
![[censored]](/boards/data/avatars/m/0/949.jpg?1574113822){kind=avatar}
