Bill Byrne Will Be Rooting For Oklahoma To Beat Texas Tech
by Beergut
on Nov 19, 2008 2:16 PM CST
I'm sure Bill Byrne will be watching the Texas Tech-OU game on Saturday, but there is no doubt in my mind who Byrne will be rooting for. Byrne will be hoping/praying/begging for a Sooner win on Saturday. Why? The game doesn't effect Texas A&M. With a 7-loss season already, we're not going to a bowl game, so it doesn't effect our post-season status. Regardless of which team wins, the winner is almost assured of winning the Big 12 South, because the media attention paid to this game will help the BCS ranking of the winner. If OU wins and wins out, they will win the tie-breaker based on BCS standings, and take the South. If Tech wins, they automaticaly win the Big 12 South. Either way, assuming whichever team wins the game wins out, they will be going to a BCS bowl. The amount of money A&M receives from the bowl distribution won't change regardless of who wins. So why will Byrne be rooting for the Sooners? Because it reflects a belief in his business model.
If Tech wins on Saturday, it means a team with a smaller budget and fewer resources can win division, conference, and even national titles. It means that Byrne's claim that "to be a champion, you have to spend like a champion" is wrong. It means that the underlying premise of Byrne's "Building Champions" campaign is wrong. It means that efficiency, not reckless spending, is the key to athletic success. If Tech wins on Saturday, it will mean that making the right hires as coaches and letting them hire the right people is the way to win championships, not hiring your cronies from former jobs, and treating the athletic department as a political machine to offer patronage to your buddies. If Tech wins on Saturday, it means Bill Byrne is WRONG, and everyone will know it. He can't have that happen, so he'll be rooting like crazy for OU.
0 recs |
46
comments
|
Read Related
Email
PrintComments
It could mean that having no entrance requirements and letting in every athlete regardless of character questions, pays off.
38-30
by miketag on Nov 19, 2008 3:02 PM CST 0 recs
How do you figure?
Athletes at all major schools have different admission standards than us regular folk. Read up on the struggles SMUs athletic department has had with the administration on the Hilltop for more on this. I know you aggies are quite proud of your academics (as you should be), but that’s not at all what is holding back your football program by any stretch of the imagination.
As for character, I’m not sure what data you’re using. I don’t recall the last time we had a kid in trouble with the law. It sure hasn’t been recently and there sure isn’t a problem with it at all.
by Tech92 on
Nov 19, 2008 4:44 PM CST
up
0 recs
texas tech has spent like a champ
they just haven’t earned like a champ… there is a big difference
see this article on si yesterday
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/andy_staples/11/18/spending/index.html
by johnlaf13 on Nov 19, 2008 3:52 PM CST 0 recs
true
but they’re plowing back through their football revenue (thanks for the link, btw, made for interesting reading).
Since Tech is spending 90% of their football revenue on football, it means they only have 10% left to help fund the rest of their athletic department. It would help explain why Tech was the only school in the Big 12 to fail to win a conference title in any sport last year. It seems it is football-or-bust for them, and lately it has been mostly bust.
by Beergut on
Nov 19, 2008 6:34 PM CST
up
0 recs
not hiring your cronies frm former jobs, and treating the athletic department as a political machine to offer patronage to your buddies. If Tech wins on Saturday, it means Bill Byrne is WRONG, and everyone will know it. He can’t have that happen, so he’ll be rooting like crazy for OU.
How do you really feel about Bill Byrne.
Yes, if tech wins on Saturday they will win the Big XII. That does not mean Bill Byrne is wrong. Look at the teams that are going to win each major conference this year. Without research I can pretty much guarntee you that the winner will be one of the top 3-4 highest spending teams in their conference. I would say the percentages are in his favor.
SEC – UF or Alabama
Big 10 – Penn State or OSU
Pac-10 – USC or Oregon State
Big XII – Texas, OU, Tech
ACC – FSU or someone else
Man, look at all those low budget school raking in titles.
Obivously, having great coaches is the key, and everyone would love to spend less and get more, but that isnt realistic. If it happens, great! but dont expect it.
not hiring your cronies frm former jobs
which of his cronies have you been disappointed with?
I think the only real disappointing thing in Byrne’s tenure is football and Sherman is not from one of his previous stops.
by jarrett.adams on Nov 19, 2008 4:29 PM CST 0 recs
your inclusion of Oregon State in the Pac-10
contradicts your own argument. They are one of the lower budget athletic departments in the Pac-10.
As for the ACC, when was the last time FSU won a conference title? Wake Forest has won it recently, which also contradicts your argument.
Which of Byrne’s cronies have I had an issue with?
Childress – 3 years, 3 seasons, 0 trips to Omaha
Turgeon – still not sold on him
Mike McKenzie – he was a Fran guy, but Byrne paid the sleazebag
My other issues are with extension he gave out to undeserving people, or him waiting too long to fire people who needed to go.
Regardless, Byrne seems to think that the more you spend, the better, and that a “national” coaching search only needs to go as far as his personal list of people he has worked with before.
by Beergut on
Nov 19, 2008 6:42 PM CST
up
0 recs
What about
all the other sports? You listed 3 people, one of which you said yourself shouldn’t be on your list. He may not have hired the coaches in the other sports, but he has kept them on (which has been a good thing in most of them).
by the12thman11 on
Nov 19, 2008 7:01 PM CST
up
0 recs
the inclusion of OSU does not contradict my arguement
I said percentages…there will always be programs that spring up from year to year. the ones who sustain the elite status are the ones with the biggest budgets.
When was the last time you heard Tech or Oregon State being included as the top teams in their conferences? Thats great for each of those programs that they are this year, but look outside of your narrow window of one year.
Name one other school on that list, that year in and year out is NOT considered one of the top teams in their conference (ATTN: Tech fans- I mean no disrespect with that comment, this is not a slight…im not saying you dont deserve to be or that A&M is better or anything, just a fact).
Childress – 3 years, 3 seasons, 0 trips to Omaha
Your point?
Mark Johnson was here 20 years and we only went to 2 and please dont tell me you think the Mark Johnson era was a failure.
How about you dont let your bias conflict the truth.
300ish teams compete in D-1 baseball every year and 8, make it to Omaha.
How about 3 years, 3 seasons (repeating yourself), 2 Super Regionals (the Sweet 16 of College Baseball), 0 trips to Omaha.
Turgeon – still not sold on him
That’s fine that you arent sold on him, but c’mon. You have to expect some transition time. We were on the brink of the Sweet 16 in his first year. We lost to a Final Four team, in a year where a team from our conference won the Nat’l Championship. Did they struggle? Yes. But they were adjusting to a new coach, a new system and all without the greatest player in school history.
Mike McKenzie
You have got to be kidding me.
Lets scrutinize our athletic director for hiring a guy to write for our coaches website. That is an absolute joke and the fact that this is one of the people you would bring up. Wake up.
that a "national" coaching search only needs to go as far as his personal list of people he has worked with before.
Name a president, university president, an AD or CEO who doesnt surround themselves with people they trust. Sherman and Byrne were not ever together at a previous stop…please stop eluding that they were.
Stop letting the fact that you dont like someone cloud your judgment on the facts.
by jarrett.adams on
Nov 20, 2008 8:31 AM CST
up
0 recs
Mike McKenzie
Also wrote Bill Byrne’s Wednesday Weekly and answered all of his e-mails. McKenzie’s role was far beyond what you believe.
by FuturePants on
Nov 20, 2008 12:08 PM CST
up
0 recs
ok, ill give you that.
let’s say he was a sleeze, and you know him better than I do. that’s fine.
However, if he is one of the 3 reasons people see for getting rid of Bill Byrne, then i find that case very, very weak.
How could you ever justify getting rid of a guy, because of who wrote his weekly column?
by jarrett.adams on
Nov 20, 2008 1:40 PM CST
up
0 recs
I want Byrne Fired
Because #1, IF Franchione was forced on Byrne, as the apologists say, Byrne still gave Fran a ridiculous extension based on the rumor that Notre Dame may want him. That is pure stupidity. #2, after firing Franchione, Byrne’s “nationwide search” was a joke, we all know that.
Let’s say that for a second time, as the apologists claim, that Sherman was forced on Byrne, he clearly has no ability to run an athletic department and needs to go anyways.
#3, Bill Byrne is an asshole, on a regular basis, in his weekly column. If he’s not writing the text, he definitely needs to take a look at it and moderate it a little bit. He has directly insulted the student body and the alumni on multiple occasions in there and, for the sixth season in a row, chides us for not having enough patience. How many seasons of Bill Byrne’s brand of terrible does this fanbase have to have patience through before someone gets held responsible for the utter collapse of this football program?
by FuturePants on
Nov 20, 2008 2:48 PM CST
up
0 recs
when you have a chance to hire
George Horton, and you settle for your buddy who was an assistant at Nebraska, 0 trips to Omaha in three years is a failure
As for MJ, Byrne waited too long to fire him. 2 trips to Omaha in 20 years is a freaking joke.
If all we wanted to do was make the Super Regionals, we could have kept MJ. He was fine at doing that, just couldn’t get us any further.
by Beergut on
Nov 20, 2008 4:48 PM CST
up
0 recs
childress
year 1 – transition year (following a team finished one game out of last in the big XII)
year 2- super regional
year 3- super regional (including longest winning streak in the history of the BIG XII and 2 of his 3 weekend starters were freshman)
what a complete failure. We should just stop playing baseball all together. We clearly are not on par with any other program in the country. (sarcasm)
GEORGE HORTON WOULD NOT HAVE COME HERE, just because someone is rumored as a replacement, doesnt mean they were willing to take the job.
He has never played or coached off the west coast. he was simply a pipedream.
ALSO, Chidress just signed one of the top recruiting classes in the school history and in the country.
Byrne waited too long to fire him. 2 trips to Omaha in 20 years is a freaking joke
Yeah, what a joke. Who would want to give the winningest coach in school history a chance to turn it around (sarcasm).
mark johnson’s record under Bill Byrne
2003- 45-19 (NCAAs)
2004- 42-22 (Super Regionals)
2005- 30-25-1 (2nd to last in the Big XII)
Would you have preferred that he fired him after year 1 or 2? Cuz he fired him after year 3.
by jarrett.adams on
Nov 21, 2008 10:16 AM CST
up
0 recs
and mike mckenzie was not a sleezebag.
Did do something he probably shouldnt have? Yes.
A mistake? Yes.
Im not sayin you cant ever criticize anyone, but dont put people that you dont know anything about in a box. that makes you look unintelligent.
by jarrett.adams on
Nov 20, 2008 8:34 AM CST
up
0 recs
I spoke with Mike a couple of times on the phone...
…and a few more times over e-mail with regard to the Wednesday Weekly column he used to write for Byrne. Trust me on this, he is pure sleaze. He had a prediliction for arguing semantics rather than addressing real issues.
by FuturePants on
Nov 20, 2008 12:10 PM CST
up
0 recs
Did do something he probably shouldnt have?
Are you kidding me?
“Probably shouldn’t”? He broke NCAA rules!!!!!
There is not “probably” about it.
by Beergut on
Nov 20, 2008 4:49 PM CST
up
0 recs
sherman
i would not consider sherman a mistake at this time. if you remeber sherman and fran have 2 differnt styles and he is using frans players that were recruited for frans type of play. this offense has shown flashes at time but still a ways to go.
i think a&m should have hired a defensive minded coach (man only if fran was around one more year then after the year Auburn has had maybe we could have pried away tubberville) but hey you cant go back in the past so i think after this off season and next year we should get a good feel for what sherman is going to do here.
and lastly the big XII is the best conference in the nation especially the south divison. i am not sure its a&m has gotten worse i think the teams they play have all gotten better while a&m has stayed the same.
"Hey, I think it's easy for guys to hit .300 and stay in the big leagues. Hit .200 and try to stick around as long as I did; I think it's a much greater accomplishment. That's hard."-- Bob Uecker
by dmurphnextrusygreer on Nov 19, 2008 4:56 PM CST 0 recs
A&M has gotten worse.
A lot worse over the last 6-8 years.
by FuturePants on
Nov 20, 2008 12:11 PM CST
up
0 recs
I want OU to win too
Tech in the Big 12 has had a better program than us and the only edge that we is we have one more Big 12 South title than them and one more Big 12 Championship then them. If they win that game they in all likely hood will be going to the national championship. We can’t let that be happening.
by PrimeTime2012 on Nov 19, 2008 6:20 PM CST 0 recs
I also want OU to win
not because it will prove Bill Byrne right, but because I would love the BCS to be in a CLUSTER F.
by jarrett.adams on
Nov 20, 2008 8:35 AM CST
up
0 recs
Tech has had a better team than us, I will agree
They still have a long way to go to surpass us as a program, though.
by Beergut on Nov 19, 2008 6:36 PM CST 0 recs
Tech surpassed
A&M in football years ago. I said football, not any other athletics, I made no regard to academics, nor anything else. But in football A&M is an afterthought now.
by Boarder on
Nov 19, 2008 7:10 PM CST
up
0 recs
not exactly
of course they are right now. But so is Michigan. That doesn’t mean Michigan won’t bounce back and it doesn’t mean they haven’t succeded lately. Now, I’m not trying to compare us to them by any means. My point is, sports is too concentrated on the last week. If you slow down and look at it all, A&M has a new coach and is in a slump. They are not an afterthought.
I do not agree that tech surpassed A&M in football years ago. Now, it is depressing that A&M hasn’t won in Lubbock in a long time but that’s how it goes. A&M has finished better in the conference then tech as of late. Obviously, this year tech is doing better, but they are riding on the climax of their coach and program, while A&M is in a transition.
by carsondude on
Nov 19, 2008 7:17 PM CST
up
0 recs
What?
A&M has finished better in the conference then tech as of late.
The last time you finished ahead of Tech in conference was 2006. We were higher in 2007. We are higher this year. We were higher in 2005. We were higher in 2004. We were higher in 2003. We were higher in 2002.
So somehow being higher in conference than Texas Tech once in the past 7 years makes you “better in the conference” “as of late”? How is that?
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 22, 2008 12:24 PM CST
up
0 recs
have to side with boarder on this one
I am not at all saying A&M can not rebound, but the recent successes of each school arent even a comparison.
Historically – A&M
Recent past – Tech (hate to say it, but its true)
by jarrett.adams on
Nov 20, 2008 8:37 AM CST
up
0 recs
learn the difference between a program and a team
then post
by Beergut on
Nov 20, 2008 9:54 AM CST
up
0 recs
History History History
When was the last time A&M won 10 games? This could be a year off, but was it 1998? A decade ago? Tech has won 10 games this year. Out of 10 games so far. ANYBODY outside of aggieland would trade what we have now compared to what you have. No one cares that A&M used to be good. Move to the present.
And for the difference between a “program” and a “team”, have you not heard of a football program? Yes there are athletic programs too. This is a football discussion about football teams. You said “They still have a long way to go to surpass us as a program”. If you’re gonna fire back about about something like that then I’m sorry that’s all you have left to argue with. That goes to show there is nothing left to argue between Tech and A&M.
by Boarder on
Nov 20, 2008 5:54 PM CST
up
0 recs
Tech does not have the resources or tradition or history of A&M
that isn’t going to be changed by this season.
That is why A&M is a better program than Tech. I don’t know why Tech fans always get your panties twisted up about this.
Before this season, when was the last time Tech won 10 games in a year? Yes, the last time A&M won 10 games was 1998 (we were 11-3). They also won 10 games 4 other times in the 1990s. Has Tech even won 10 games in this generation (last 30 years) before this season?
by Beergut on
Nov 20, 2008 10:20 PM CST
up
0 recs
As stated above
no one outside of aggieland cares what A&M did over a decade ago. No one. If it makes you feel better to know A&M used to be good then power to you. Tradition? Everyone outside of aggieland makes fun of your traditions. I wouldn’t brag about that. A&M used to be a better program than Tech, with used to being the key words. You can go on and on about history, it doesn’t prove any point you’re trying to make. Also what’s this about panties getting twisted? You’re the one defending why the A&M program is better than Tech, everyone in the nation knows Tech has a better program. Also your comment below about questioning my intelligence is yet another stupid attempt to make your point. It’s interesting what you’ll stoop to Beergut. It’s obvious you can’t rationally argue football anymore so you’re going to try and attack how “smart” I am. Clever and weak. Props to you.
by Boarder on
Nov 21, 2008 2:44 AM CST
up
0 recs
Everyone outside of aggieland makes fun of your traditions.
I disagree. tech, texas and baylor make fun of our tradtions, and they should… I mean, we make fun of yall, why shouldnt you do the same thing right back? Youre perfectly within your right to do so.
Honestly, my experience with other schools has been the exact opposite (which was surprising to me).
I had fans in Norman, Stillwater, Baton Rouge, Manhattan (KSU), jacksonville (NCAA tournament) and Clemson actually say they loved our traditions and wanted to know all about them. I am not saying that EVERYONE loves our traditions or that they all hate them (that would be ignorant thinking), but I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Some think we are a bunch of field plowing country boys, other think we add a lot of unique traditions to college athletics.
I am not bashing you, just disagreeing
ANYWAYS, go enjoy yourself. Be gald that the team you bleed for is at the height of the programs history. Enjoy this weekend, success CAN be fleeting (as Aggies can atest). You have better things to do than argue with us. Go get ready to bash with the Sooners.
Dont confuse my post, I will not be rooting for yall this weekend, but I wouldnt expect you to root for us if the situation was reveresed. To each, his own.
This is what makes college athletics great…PASSION.
by jarrett.adams on
Nov 21, 2008 10:28 AM CST
up
0 recs
Get Real
Tech is the only school in the Big 12 to go to a bowl game every year since the conference formed. It is 3rd in wins behind UT and OU during that same time span. It’s surge in football spending has only been in the last few years of that period, and it’s built up it’s program without help from the Permanent University Fund you and UT draw millions from each year. Tech is among the nation’s leaders in atletic graduation rates.
You can sit at home this December and January licking your wounds and bragging to each other about your ‘program’. We’ll be adding to our wins.
by TT_ on Nov 19, 2008 10:59 PM CST 0 recs
PUF is a convenient excuse for people who know little about athletic funding
I am so sick of hearing that excuse from Tech fans.
by Beergut on
Nov 20, 2008 9:53 AM CST
up
0 recs
The excuse
that we are able to do more with less money and talent than A&M? I would be tired of hearing that too if I was an aggie. It’s sad.
by Boarder on
Nov 20, 2008 5:56 PM CST
up
0 recs
no PUF money is used for athletics
I’m sick of using this excuse b/c it reflects the ignorance of Tech fans. It is a BS argument, but then, y’all are from Tech; expecting you to be able to argue with facts is overestimating the intelligence level of some of you.
by Beergut on
Nov 20, 2008 10:21 PM CST
up
0 recs
PUF money is used for the University
what is good for the University is good for the Football team. PUF marriage to athletics is overstated but the response shouldn’t be to ignore it. In so far as that money, huge sums, makes the Universities better it negatively affects the instututions, like Tech, who don’t have our hand in the cookie jar.
Fortunately this has not kept us from winning football games.
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 22, 2008 12:38 PM CST
up
0 recs
The PUF does not provide a single penny to athletics. A&M and tu have built their programs without any help from the PUF also. While Tech has won enough games to go to a bowl every year since the Big 12 formed, they were ineligible for bowls in some years because they were placed on probation. Where does Tech rank in conference wins since joining the league? Winning 3 non-conference games then going 4-4 in conference makes you bowl eligible but does not impress anyone (see A&M last year).
If spending was the determining factor that led to success on the field, then Wake Forest would have never won a conference title. A&M has the most expensive season tickets in the country and nothing to show for it.
38-30
by miketag on Nov 20, 2008 12:56 AM CST 0 recs
Re:
Lots of garbage here.
Neither Texas nor A&M has built their program without help from the PUF. The PUF funds predates both athletic programs. It is not enough simply to say “PUF doesn’t fund athletics.”
How old were you the last time Tech was ineligible for a bowl game?
Since 2002 Texas Tech has been 4-4 in conference three times. Meaning: Most of the time, since 2002, we’re better than 4-4 in conference. The key has been building on past success. When you don’t have 2-6 or 3-5 conference records and when you actually go 6-2 or 7-1 (or 8-0?) every once in a while, your program is getting better. Keeping 4-4 in the rear view, establishing that as the absolute worst your football team is going to do, is progress. Everything builds towards this year which is precisely what this thread is about. Beergut pointed out up top that Byrne needs Tech to fail here because all that we’ve been doing under Mike Leach is very nearly about to get validated. You go to bowl games, you never fall below .500 in your conference, you win those bowl games, you upset the big dogs every once and a while, and you put yourself in a good position to have year’s like 2008. A&M has been one step forward, two steps back. Texas Tech has been two steps forward, one step back. Consistently not bad football has kept us relevant, and we’ve used that to get the athletes we want under the coach we want and are now #2 in the country. We’ve now won two high profile night games against top 10 programs. People are talking about us, writing about us, even at A&M websites. This is a great moment for Tech football.
If spending were the determining factor that led to success on the field, A&M wouldn’t be so bad at football.
by Skin Patrol on
Nov 22, 2008 12:48 PM CST
up
0 recs
since it is against the law to use government funds for athletics
please explain how A&M or texas has used the PUF fund to build their athletic programs.
None of the PUF money goes to athletics.
How old were you the last time Tech was ineligible for a bowl game?
I don’t know, which years were you on probation again? 1997-99, something like that?
If spending were the determining factor that led to success on the field, A&M wouldn’t be so bad at football.
It appears you got the point from my story. However, it is amusing that you say this, because while Tech likes to pretend they are the “little engine that could”, the small West Texas school competing with the goliath public universities in the state, y’all are also churning 90% of the revenue you make in football right back into your program. So while y’all like to think you are achieving more with less, financially speaking, that is incorrect.
by Beergut on
Nov 22, 2008 5:39 PM CST
up
0 recs
New FanPost
