Thread by @daggaroosta

Why has it become accepted wisdom with national CFB reporters that Texas has a history of hogging revenue and bullying other schools? That's false. Uniquely among CFB programs, Texas has supported a half-dozen smaller schools at all times for D-E-C-A-D-E-S

a thread /1

https://twitter.com/ESPNRittenberg/status/1419665953508503553

Read this: texasmonthly.com/arts-entertain…

It tells the story of the SWC up to the mid-70's. Texas was subsidizing the conference at a 1:4 share even back then. Rice and TCU struggled to get 15K fans for their games but each got paid ~10% of Texas' TV revenue. \2

When Arkansas left the SWC, they weren't leaving Texas - that rivalry is still powerfully maintained by Arky fans to this day - they were leaving annual games against Rice, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Texas Tech, and Houston. Which Texas and Texas A&M then got stuck with. \3

So Texas and A&M broke up the SWC together. The original revenue sharing agreement in the Big XII was 57%. That was approved not only by Texas but also by Nebraska, A&M, and Colorado, all of whom were doing quite well nationally at the time. \4

Texas' objection to partial qualifiers - for academic reasons! - led to Nebraska's fall. When NU duplicitously claimed that Texas hogged revenue, Texas responded by agreeing to split all Tier I and II media revenue equally. \5 big12sports.com/news/2011/6/3/…

Texas still owned its third tier media rights and agreed with ESPN to form the LHN. The fighting over that was overblown, but to the extent it was real, it was about a perceived recruiting edge, not about money - much of which went to academcs. \6 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o…

Then A&M leaves Texas holding the Big XII bag. As we can see *right now*, this was never about Texas being unfair. It was about opportunity to get away from direct competition with Texas so they could establish an independent reputation for themselves. \7

A&M has long had a similar sized fan base, academics, and alumni giving base as Texas, but they didn't have the on-field success. This isn't because Texas bullied them - it's because Texas has long had the more popular brand in-state and that carried over to recruiting. \8

On top of that, A&M's storied traditions are *little brother* traditions, inviting the very comparisons that has rendered them unflattering. They talk shit about Texas in their school song! *That* was what A&M needed to escape. And for a time, they did. \9

But times have changed, college football is changing, and Texas/OU have the opportunity to secure the best future for themselves while giving their new conference the power to singlehandedly shape the future of the sport, which will be needed - the NCAA isn't up to the task. \10

I'm not saying that Texas' handlers are angels. But they're no different than other admins.

They've just had unique burdens to carry since forever and that has led to enormous scapegoating - which nearly all CFB reporters have swallowed whole without much questioning. \x

p.s., forgot to tag the OP, it'd be nice if some national reporter reckoned with this to some small degree: @ESPNRittenberg @espn

#SEC #OU #Texas #conferencerealignment