Texas Monthly’s Paul Burka explains the historical and cultural significance of the Texas-A&M dichotomy (subscription required):

Why is this rivalry so intense? It is due partly to the circumstances of the institutions’ births. The state constitution of 1876 required the Legislature, “as soon as practicable,” to establish a “university of the first class . . . for the promotion of literature, and the arts and sciences.” That was UT. No such lofty ambitions were prescribed for A&M. The constitution said only, “The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas . . . located in the county of Brazos, is hereby made, and constituted a branch of the University of Texas, for instruction in agriculture, the mechanic arts and the natural sciences connected therewith.” From the very start, A&M was the stepchild, the little brother, a status it has never quite shaken. It wasn’t intended as a “university of the first class.”

Conceived thus, over time the two schools have come to perfectly represent the two facets of Texas identity: rural roots and urban sophistication. For most of its history, A&M has been a school for families who lived far from the bright lights of the cities, whose children rode to school in buses that traveled on dusty roads, families who looked eagerly to the sky when dark clouds closed in over their cotton fields. Until the sixties, students, all male, were required to enroll for military training in the Corps of Cadets, fostering a highly disciplined, ascetic attitude that for decades was synonymous with “Aggie.” UT, by contrast, has always been the school for city folk, located smack in the middle of Austin, with its never-ending enticements of music and food and drink and the aura of power emanating from the Capitol, just a few blocks away. UT was the school for matinee idols like Farrah Fawcett. For the crew-cut young men of A&M it could sometimes represent everything in their lives that seemed unattainable. Conversely, for the many UT students who came from small towns, A&M could seem like everything they had wanted to leave behind. When the schools met on the football field, they were playing for more than just bragging rights. They were playing to vindicate their place in the world.

When rumors first started in 2010 that A&M was looking to bolt for the SEC (at a time when Texas, Tech, OU, and Oklahoma State were rumored to be heading to what was still the Pac-10), I have to admit I was adamantly against splitting the two schools apart. Forget money for a second. This is history we’re talking about. The Texas-A&M rivalry is programmed into the very DNA of the Lone Star State. To break them up, I argued, would be a sacrilege.

But I’m over it now.

I understand why A&M made the decision it did although I don’t agree with it for a minute. They hated UT’s $300 million deal with ESPN for the Longhorn Network and continued unequal sharing of TV money in the Big 12. They looked across the Sabine and saw the green grass of the SEC, with its abundance of national championships and equal TV profits, and probably for a moment even deluded themselves into thinking they could possibly be SEC champions one day. And as soon as the SEC would have them — for reasons I’m still unclear on — they were gone, taking Missouri with them shortly thereafter. For all the talk about “tradition” at College Station, when it came down to it, money and childish pride proved to be far more important.

So the Longhorns will head to Kyle Field on Thanksgiving for a final showdown with their arch-enemies in maroon. The emotion will be high on both sides for sure. For A&M, beating Texas one last time will ensure bragging rights for years. For Texas, it’s their last opportunity to humiliate the Aggies on their home turf and add one more victory to an already-lopsided 75-37-5 record.

And then a new reality will begin in the state of Texas, a reality without Texas-A&M, a reality that no Texan alive has ever known. Will each school remove the other from its fight song? Will they stop seeing each other as evil incarnate, the personification of everything that’s wrong in the world? Will the bitterness between the two schools fade with each passing generation until at some point it’s completely forgotten that they were once such hated rivals? It’s doubtful but still possible. But if it does happen, it’ll be no one’s fault but A&M’s.

Previously:
Why I’m a fan
That awkward moment when your daughter says she wants to go to Texas A&M
College football realignment? Done
The future of the Big 12 and how to stop it

I grew up in Lubbock, Texas, home of Buddy Holly, cotton, and endless miles of flat dirt. Which means I also grew up as a Texas Tech fan. Some of my fondest childhood memories are of going to the Tech games with my grandparents. My Papa would always wear his red and black cowboy boots, and I’d cross my fingers and hope the Saddle Tramps would throw a little red football my way. Then when it got cold, we’d huddle under a blanket and drink hot chocolate out of a Thermos and ooh and ahh over the Goin’ Band from Raiderland. On a field trip once, we got to run out onto the field at Jones Stadium, and it was like a dream come true.

But when I was in junior high, we moved to the DFW Metroplex, and I soon discovered that Red Raider fans were practically non-existent outside of West Texas. Most people were either loved Texas or Texas A&M, and over the years, my allegiance to Tech waned in favor of the Longhorns.

It’s important to point out, though, that even then, I wasn’t really a big fan of any sports, college or otherwise. Yeah, I liked sports, but I didn’t pay much attention to them, preferring Star Wars, comic books, or any other nerdy endeavor to football or basketball. (My dad once tried to get me excited about baseball cards. To this day, I still don’t understand the appeal of them.)

It wasn’t until late into high school and into college that I started to get interested in sports, and it wasn’t until after college that my love of college football really took off. (Of course, I don’t think it helped that I went to the University of Texas at Arlington, the only college I know of that has a marching band but no football team.) Late bloomer or not, though, today I’m a college football junkie and a die-hard Longhorns fan.

But it’s not just Texas that I root for now.

In the last couple of years, I’ve gotten hooked on the TCU Horned Frogs, a team I’ve always liked going back to the days of the Southwest Conference but never really paid much attention to. Part of my new-found admiration, of course, is due to their rise as a football powerhouse under Coach Gary Patterson. And part of it is due to my rediscovery of the city of Fort Worth. I worked in Fort Worth a while back but it wasn’t until we moved into the city limits a few years ago that I really began to think of it as my home. And how can you not root for the home team, especially one with such a Cinderella story?

Until Thursday, that dual affection for both Texas and TCU was perfectly acceptable, seeing as how since the breakup of the SWC in 1994, they’ve been in separate conferences and rarely play each other. It was perfectly fine to wear my TCU purple while flashing a spirited “Hook ‘Em Horns” to a fellow Longhorns fan. But all that changed when news broke that the Big 12 had invited the Frogs to join their conference, thus reuniting them with UT and causing a potentially embarrassing conflict of interest. Suddenly, I was faced with a serious dilemma: Do I have to choose one team over the other? And if so, where do my true allegiances lie?

It’s not an easy question. There are those that would say that you can only really be loyal to one team, and if you didn’t go to that school, you aren’t even worthy of wearing its colors. Which again, creates an immediate problem for those of us that didn’t have a team to root for. I guess I could say that since UT Arlington is part of the UT system, I’m sorta justified in bleeding burnt orange. But then I could say that I should stand behind the home team, which is of course outsized by Texas in every possible way except for the cost of tuition. I’ve always been a champion of the underdog, and TCU, despite its recent successes, is the epitome of an athletic underdog.

But the truth of the matter is, I don’t wanna choose. I don’t wanna stop throwing up a “Hook ‘Em Horns” any time I feel like it or tagging half my tweets with “#GoFrogs”. I don’t wanna trade my purple or burnt orange in for a single shade of collegiate attire. Why can’t I love them both equally (albeit for different reasons), even if this time next year they’ll be facing off against each other in a Big 12 conference game? After all, I may not be as enthusiastic about the Red Raiders as I once was, but I’ve never stopped liking them (although I always hated Mike Leach). Heck, I even like Baylor!

Does that make me a sports hypocrite, a fair-weather fan instead of a lifelong devotee? Perhaps, I don’t know. But at the end of the day, I really don’t care.

I say, Go Frogs, Hook ‘Em Horns, and hooray for college rivalries reborn.

Previously:
That awkward moment your daughter says she wants to go to Texas A&M
College football realignment? Done
The future of the Big 12 and how to stop it
…And win they did

The Aggies apparently weren’t too keen on their intrastate rival Longhorns getting their own television network, despite the fact that the Longhorn Network will be available to exactly seven households in America, none of which are in Austin. But logic has never been A&M’s strong suit, so they’ve chosen to abandon 100+ years of tradition and possibly as much as $30 million in exit fees in hopes that the SEC will let them in to their exclusive club. Yeah, good luck with that. Let’s see, how many Big 12 football titles has A&M won? How many BCS games have they gone to? How many National Championships have they won since the rise of the BCS? Zero. And yet they really expect to do better against the likes of Auburn, Florida, Alabama, and LSU?

I have a suspicion that winning isn’t really important to the Texas A&M Board of Regents, though. Their decision to leave is strictly fueled by pride, with a healthy dose of TV cash mixed in. Win or lose, A&M stands to make more money in the SEC, where the TV contracts are greater and revenues are shared equally among all its members. The Aggies were never going to make money off the Longhorn Network; Texas was. It’s just that simple.

Was that the right decision to make? I don’t know. And I don’t care, quite frankly. I think it was a tad petty and childish, personally. If the Aggies really wanted respect, all they had to do was go out and win ballgames. No temper tantrums necessary. That’s been the strategy of OU, and it seems to have worked out pretty well for them so far.

But right or wrong, the Aggies have made their decision, and a year after Nebraska and Colorado bolted for the Big Ten and Pac-12, respectively, Dan Beebe’s bunch is left with only nine members. So what now? Does the Big 12 recruit another school to replace A&M, or does this latest departure signal the beginning of the end of the conference? Here’s how I see the different scenarios:

Scenario 1: The Big 12 recruits a new member.

Maybe it’s BYU. Maybe Air Force. Notre Dame has been floated, but I don’t think they’d be interested. The Big 12 is attractive to non-BCS teams such as Air Force due to the conference still being a BCS automatic qualifier. That was what drew TCU to the Big East, after all. But everyone knows that Texas dominates the Big 12 when it comes to money, so any team coming in would have to be willing to do so at a discount. Who would do that? SMU, for one, who’s already publicly begged for the spot. And I’m pretty sure BYU would as well.

Odds of this happening: Very good.

Scenario 2: The Big 12 disbands.

With only nine teams remaining, OU, OSU, and others may decide to get out while they have the chance. OU, OSU, and Tech go to the Pac-12. Missouri goes to the Big Ten. Kansas and K-State go to the Big East. Baylor goes to the Mountain West. And Iowa State goes, um, somewhere. And Texas? They go independent, happy to still be flush with cash on their very own burnt orange island. Would this really happen? Maybe eventually, but I don’t think any time soon. As long as OU keeps winning Big 12 titles, they’ll probably be content to stay, and none of the other conferences have expressed much interest in expanding further. So if the Big 12 eventually breaks up, it probably won’t happen for at least a few more years.

Odds of this happening: Unlikely.

Scenario 3: The Big 12 does nothing.

But what if the Big 12 chooses to stay at nine members? Is that even realistic? Well, the Big East only has eight teams right now, nine if you count TCU, which joins next year. And they’re an AQ conference. And with two of the Big 12 being Texas and OU, I can’t see them losing their AQ status. So in a way, there’s not that much of an incentive to rush to fill the 10th spot. Only when it becomes financially necessary to do so will the Big 12 be forced to expand. Why do you think they chose not to replace Nebraska and Colorado? How sustainable is such a scenario in the long run? Not much. But again, that’s in the long run. In the short run, it’s actually very doable.

Odds of this happening: Possible.

Obviously, nothing in college sports is set in stone. Heck, it’s even possible that A&M could change its mind if the SEC doesn’t give it an invite. All I know is that the college football season kicks off tomorrow with TCU and Baylor. And right now, that’s all that matters.

Previously:
Wait, that was it?!
Speculating on conference expansion rumors
Longhorns Inc., Part 2
Longhorns Inc.

Anyway, I didn’t really have anything in particular to blog about, so I thought I’d throw a bunch of random things into one big post and let you pick out the stuff you’re mildly interested in.

First off, college football. I normally post a lot of college football stuff every year, but I haven’t written anything all season (which is now almost over). So what did I miss? A horrendous year for the Texas Longhorns but another undefeated season for the TCU Horned Frogs for starters. The Horns will bounce back, but not easily. They’ll (hopefully) fire a few coaches (Greg Davis, please?) and be a lot stronger next year. Of course, so will most of the other Big 12 South schools. Tech will be better, OSU and A&M are getting stronger, and OU is always a threat. The days of Mack Brown just showing up and being handed an automatic victory are over, at least for the foreseeable future. They won’t have another crappy season next year, but they won’t be undefeated either. I would say 9-3 is probably realistic. Not that that will appease the powers that be, but whatever. Parity in college football is long overdue.

As for TCU, the big news as of this morning is that the Frogs are jumping over to the Big East as of 2012. I’m not really fond of their decision. Yes, it puts them in a (weak) BCS AQ conference and gives them more national exposure, but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. It seems like a short-term solution to a long-term problem. A stronger Mountain West conference, bolstered by Boise State, would likely be in contention for an AQ bid within a couple of years, but now TCU will be stuck a conference that sucks in football but dominates in basketball. Of course, the MWC — even with AQ certification — still wouldn’t have the big TV contracts that the Big East does. So perhaps the choice is really between Versus and ESPN. And really, there’s no contest there.

A big plus for TCU bailing on the Mountain West, though: We won’t have to see the Frogs play at Boise State. The Broncos come to Fort Worth in 2011, and then the Frogs will be in the Big East the next year. I’m sorry, but I just can’t watch Boise State games; that horrendous blue turf makes my eyes bleed.

I’m not about to complain if TCU doesn’t make it to the National Championship this year. Playing in the Rose Bowl against a very good Wisconsin team is not a bad consolation prize at all.

This past Sunday was my first week back in the Children’s ministry at church. I had sat out my last six-week rotation due to my leg injury. It was really good to be back. I genuinely love serving there, and I had missed being a part of it. Not sure yet what this rotation will be like. Last year we did a very big and involved Christmas pageant, but thankfully I don’t think we’re doing that again.

Speaking of my leg, it’s doing a lot better. The fracture is healed, and I’m gradually gaining my strength and stability back. Now I just have to pay off the rest of my medical bills.

I mentioned back in August that I had volunteered to coach my daughter’s soccer team. We wrapped up the season at the end of October with a record of 2-5-1. I learned a ton along the way, and I think I’d be much better the next time around. What surprised me most was how emotionally invested I got, and that wasn’t always a good thing. I let my frustration with the players and parents get to me too much, and I had to learn to let it go and just have fun. I think that’s where experience helps.

Also in October, I started a year-long commitment with the rest of my church to read through the Bible in a year. I’m happy to report that I’ve kept up. So far, I’ve read Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers in the Old Testament and John, Romans, Hebrews, and Acts in the New Testament. It’s been very interesting. One of the cool things is how the Old and New Testaments parallel each other. You have the story of Creation in Genesis and then another “In the beginning” in John. The introduction of the Mosaic Law in Exodus and then a contrast between the Law and grace in Romans. A detailed list of sacrifices in Leviticus, and Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice in Hebrews. The beginning of Israel’s disobedience in Numbers, and the beginning of the apostles’ obedience in Acts.

As interesting as it is, though, my faith has definitely been challenged. The more I read, the more questions I have. And the more questions I ask, the more questions that branch off from there. I can definitely understand why someone would read the Bible and walk away an atheist; much of it makes no sense whatsoever by modern standards. I guess that’s where faith comes in. I don’t have to understand everything or have all the answers in order to accept it. And that’s actually a pretty liberating realization.

My wife has asked several times what I want for Christmas. I can think of a lot of stuff that we can’t afford but not a lot of things that we can. When I was growing up, I always had a Christmas list that was ten pages long; nowadays I have a hard time coming up with ten things total. I guess that means I’m getting old.

By the way, get off my lawn!

While I’m on the subject of Christmas, can someone please explain why we as Christians put more emphasis on Christmas than on Easter? We have this huge month-long celebration for the birth of Christ, but His death and resurrection are a much bigger deal if you ask me. So I vote for moving all the pomp and circumstance of Christmas to Easter. Who’s with me?

Previously:
Thoughts on Genesis
I signed up for WHAT?!
August, you suck too
Wait, that was it?!

According to figures from the U.S. Department of Education’s Equity in Athletics, UT’s football program isn’t just the largest grossing team in the country (at $87.5 million), it’s also the most profitable (at $65 million). To put that in perspective, that’s $20 million more in gross earnings than the No. 2 entry on the list, Ohio State ($68.19 million gross), and the No. 2 most profitable school, the University of Georgia ($45.38 million net).

The next most profitable Big 12 school was Nebraska at No. 8 ($37.29 million), which of course won’t be a Big 12 school much longer. Texas A&M comes in at No. 14 netting only a third of what their intrastate rival does ($22.29 million), OU at No. 15 ($21.84 million), and Texas Tech at a wimpy No. 33 ($9.62 million).

Just something to keep in mind the next time the UT Board of Regents wants to raise tuition.

Previously:
Longhorns Inc.

Is this college sports or As The World Turns?

The latest rumors have the Pac-10 asking Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, OU, Oklahoma State, and Colorado to be their new BFFs, thus elevating the Pac-10 to a 16-team superconference and completely decimating the Big 12. That would leave Baylor out in the cold, a result that doesn’t sit well with Waco’s state senator, David Sibley, who is apparently now fighting to have the Bears superglued to the other Texas teams. Meanwhile, the Big Ten, which has been rumored to be courting everyone from Texas to Nebraska to the North Dakota School for the Deaf, is supposedly focusing its efforts on Notre Dame. And Boise State, which was a lock for the Mountain West, is putting its plans on hold to see how everything else shakes out.

And of course, everything in the previous paragraph will be null and void by the time you finish reading this post.

Personally, I’m fine with the UT et. al heading to the Pac-10. I would prefer that to them going to the Big Ten or SEC; I just think it’s a better fit. What I would hate to see is Texas and A&M separated from Tech and OU. Those rivalries are just too good to relegate to non-conference status.

If the Pac-10 does expand to 16 (plus-or-minus Baylor or Colorado), the Big Ten and SEC would almost certainly follow suit, probably gobbling up Nebraska and/or Missouri or other Big East or ACC teams. The result would be three superconferences plus a handful of wannabes. Can you imagine how much griping about the BCS there’d be at that point? Yikes!

As far as Baylor is concerned, though, as I tweeted yesterday, I think they’d be better off in the Mountain West, where they’d face their old Southwest Conference rival TCU every year in addition to Utah and Air Force. Strictly looking at football (which is where all the money is, and let’s face it, that’s what’s driving all of this), the Bears have a much better chance at success in the Mountain West than they do anywhere else. They’ll never win a Big 12 championship, and they would certainly never have a chance in the Pac-16. Which is why I wish Sibley and his buddies in Austin would stay out of it. It was Austin politics that got Baylor into the Big 12 instead of TCU 16 years ago; we don’t need to repeat that same mistake this time around. (And understand, I’m not bashing Baylor. I like Baylor a lot, which is why I want to see them be successful.)

One thing’s for certain, though. Change is coming in college sports. With so much money at stake, it’s undeniable. It may be a complete shake-up, or it could just affect a handful of teams, but something is eventually gonna give. I just hope fans don’t get lost in the process.

Update, June 9:
Orangebloods.com is now reporting that Nebraska has unofficially accepted the invitation to the Big Ten, which pretty much guarantees the Big 12 South teams will bolt to the Pac-10. And yes, that will include Baylor and not Colorado. If UT has any say over the matter — and they absolutely do — there’s no way they would choose the Buffaloes over the Bears. First, Waco is just up the road from Austin (and conveniently directly between Austin and the Red River Rivalry game in Dallas). Second, there is a huge amount of history and tradition between the two SWC schools, something both Mack Brown and Darrell Royal highly value. And third, there’s always the political factor, which shouldn’t be ignored.

Of course, there’s always a chance UT could decide to keep the Big 12 intact, gambling on its attempt to form its own TV network. But I don’t think that’s gonna happen. There’s no loyalty in Texas (both the school and the state) to the Big 12 North, so there’s little incentive in Austin to keep this sinking ship afloat.

So where does that leave the other five Big 12 North teams? The most logical choice for Colorado would be the Mountain West, and probably for Kansas and K-State as well. If the MWC goes through with their plans to add Boise State, that would go a long way toward acceptance as an automatic qualifier for the BCS. Plus, Kansas and K-State both bring a lot to the table in basketball, so that would be a huge win for the MWC.

As for Missouri and Iowa State, they’re probably out of luck, at least in the short run. The Big Ten doesn’t seem interested in Mizzou any more, instead focusing on Notre Dame and then probably looking east to Rutgers and maybe Pitt. I suppose one or both teams could go to the Mountain West or Big East, but that’s probably the best case scenario.

Then that leaves the SEC. So far, they haven’t shown much interest in expanding, and really, they have no reason to from a financial standpoint. But with a 16-team Pac-10 and an expanding Big Ten, I think they’re gonna be forced to keep up whether they want to or not, at which point they’ll probably target teams such as Miami and Virginia Tech in the ACC.

It’ll most likely take a few years for all the dominoes to fall, but the momentum is definitely picking up!

Previously:
More March Madness is, well, madness
Legislating a playoff system isn’t the answer
The BCS: ‘Communistic’ or not?

Forget the National Championship. If the Horns want to win the Big 12 South, they have to win all three of those games [Tech, OU, and OSU]. Any misstep there, and the Big 12 tie-breaker rule that bit ‘em in the butt last year could do the same again.

Also, the schedule allows no room for error since the last four games will essentially be givens against weaker non-ranked (or lower-ranked) teams. In other words, if they fall early to OU or get tripped up in Stillwater, a blowout victory against Central Florida isn’t going to help them; there’s nowhere to go but down. …

The only way Texas can ensure they will end the regular season with a higher BCS ranking than OU is to go undefeated. And even if they do win the Big 12 with one loss, that single loss will probably be enough to keep them out of the National Championship. So it really comes down to winning every game, not just the biggest three. As Yoda says, “Do or do not… there is no try.”

Well, thanks to the Brigham Young defense, which took Sam Bradford out of commission in Game 1, OU was never a huge threat to overtake the Horns in the polls. And who would’ve guessed the most difficult regular season game would come against the Aggies, a team which barely squeaked into bowl eligibility with a whopping six wins all year? Unbelievable.

But Texas did win. Against OU, against A&M, and miraculously against Nebraska to claim the Big 12 Championship. Now we’ll see if they can win a National Championship against Alabama, a team which is certainly as dangerous as the Horns and at least as inconsistent.

Of course, Colt McCoy and the Longhorns weren’t the only success story this year. The TCU Horned Frogs also ended the season undefeated and will be facing off against Boise State in their very first BCS bowl.

As a fan of both Texas and TCU, this has been the most exciting college football season I can remember. In fact, I think for most of the season I was more excited for the Frogs than I was for the Horns.

I know a lot of TCU fans aren’t happy with the outcome, though. They’ve hoped for a shot at the National Championship all season, and thanks to Nebraska’s Ndamukong Suh and Texas’ poor clock management in the final minute of the Big 12 game, they almost got their wish. Nevertheless, many have said TCU should face off against Florida, Cincinnati, or another BCS team instead of Boise State in order to prove they can run with the big dogs. I don’t think they have anything to prove.

TCU is a 12-0 team who beat a lot of really good opponents (many on the road) and finished the season ranked 3rd in the polls and 4th in the BCS. And they’re one of only eight teams playing in a BCS bowl game. They’ve proved themselves enough as far as I’m concerned.

Besides, Boise State (who is also undefeated) isn’t an easy team to beat. Just ask OU, who lost to them in the Fiesta Bowl two years ago. The Broncos will also be looking for payback since losing to the Frogs last year in the Poinsettia Bowl (and seriously, when was the last time the Poinsettia Bowl came up during a discussion of the BCS?).

The regular season is over, and the good guys won. Now, bring on the bowl games!

Hook ‘Em Horns and Go Frogs!

Previously:
For Longhorns, 2009 is all or nothing

Naturally, the story generated a lot of interest in the media and around the Internet at a time when the Red Raiders are still dealing with the aftermath of losing their second game of the season. But was it the right move?

James Hodgins, social media director for the Price Group advertising agency in Lubbock, Texas, says no:

What right does Leach have to ban his players from Twitter just because they posted negative views? Can a company ban its employees from social media if they post negative comments? Or staying at the university, can a professor ban her students for the same thing?

Of course, for the team and a business, there needs to be a policy in place that outlines what can and cannot be said. But how can you claim transparency (the whole point of social media) if you ban all negative points?

In my view, Leach should have suspended players temporarily from Twitter until the time the athletic department could create a solid set of standards. This, people would have understood, and there would have been less controversy surrounding the program.

As it stands now, Leach either has to stand by his guns and be the bad guy, or backtrack and admit he overreacted. Neither are good options.

Of course the athletic department should’ve had a policy in place before this happened, but obviously it didn’t. As a result, Leach had no choice but to implement a ban, at least until some kind of guidelines can be put into place. Yes, that makes him the bad guy. But sometimes that goes with the job.

That said, I disagree with Mr. Hodgins’ claim that the whole point of social media is transparency. Transparency implies that everything about an organization is out in the open, available to be posted freely on the Internet without reservation, and quite frankly, that’s pretty irresponsible. Some kind of reasonable limits need to be in place.

Does that mean that players aren’t free to express their frustrations online? Yes and no. The distinction is this: When you identify yourself as part of a particular organization, be it a football team or a company, you represent that organization, whether you’re on the clock or not. And that means that any public behavior is a direct reflection on that organization. As such, organizations have a responsibility to place restrictions on what their members say and do publicly in order to protect their image. And that is in no way infringing on our rights to free speech.

Further, even though they didn’t violate any written rules since none existed, by venting their frustrations with the team publicly on Twitter, the Tech players displayed questionable judgment and a lack of maturity. If they had a problem with Leach, they should’ve taken it up with him in private, not simply posted their opinions online. And if players can’t be trusted to use proper discretion, then an outright ban is the only option.

Previously:
Sorry, Leach is not ‘the best college football coach in the country’

Granted, he’s very good at what he does, and he deserves a certain amount of recognition for that. If nothing else, his ability to recruit virtually unknown players and turn them into one of the most dominant passing offenses in the nation is worthy of admiration.

But NCAA records are one thing; results are quite another. At some point, those billions of passing yards have to translate to meaningful wins, and that’s where Leach has so far come up short. Sure, they beat Texas last year in what was arguably one of the biggest games in the country, but at the end of the season, all they had to show for it was a shared Big 12 South title and a loss to Ole Miss in the Cotton Bowl. In fact, in the nine seasons Leach has coached at Tech, they’ve never outright won the Big 12 South division or played in a BCS bowl game.

So how does that qualify him as “the best college football coach in the country”? The fact is, it doesn’t.

But if Leach isn’t the best, then who is?

Well, of course that’s pretty subjective, but popular choices among the experts include:

• Urban Meyer, Florida
• Nick Saban, Alabama
• Pete Carroll, USC
• Bob Stoops, OU
• Mack Brown, Texas
• Jim Tressel, Ohio State
• Les Miles, LSU

There are others, of course, but you’d be hard-pressed to find Leach’s name anywhere on the list.

I’m sure the Pirate of the Panhandle is just fine with that. He certainly isn’t worried about anyone’s opinion of him, that’s pretty obvious. But to earn the hyperbole bestowed upon him by the Texas Monthly editors, he’ll have to do more than just beat Texas at home; he’ll have to win national championships.

A lot of them.

Previously:
At least he’ll always have his spiffy visor
Longhorns should root for Tech and Bama to win out

A few of the Wii scores were fairly close to the actual ones (Florida Atlantic, Rice, Texas A&M) while others were way off (Arkansas, Missouri, Baylor), margins of error probably not too different than what you’d get from ESPN and other “expert” prognosticators.

Which brings us to the final Texas game of the season, the Fiesta Bowl. It’s been yet another wacky season thanks to the BCS computers, biased voters, and controversial Big 12 tie-breaking rules. Heck, it even involved competing fleets of airplanes over Austin and Norman as the Red River rivals taunted each other by air.

But while Florida and OU are busy trying to justify why each of their 1-loss teams are more deserving of the National Championship than undefeated Utah, the Longhorns are happy to settle the score with the Ohio State Buckeyes. UT and OSU have met twice before, in 2005 and 2006. The Horns won the first with Vince Young on their way to a National Championship, then lost the second with Colt McCoy — that game only being Colt’s second game of his college career.

A lot has changed since 2006, however. Colt is now a Heisman runner-up, and the Horns are a dropped pass and missed tackle away from a perfect season. Ohio State, meanwhile, has two losses for the season, both to teams who squared off against each other in the Rose Bowl. Texas had one of the toughest schedules in the nation, while the highest ranked opponent beaten by Ohio State was No. 18 Wisconsin, and even that was only a 3-point victory. (It should also be noted that Wisconsin went on to get thumped by Florida State in the Champs Sports Bowl.)

Now some might argue that a team’s regular season schedule isn’t always an indicator of how well they’ll do in the bowl game, and that’s true (just ask Alabama). So how well have Texas and Ohio State fared in recent bowls? Well, the Buckeyes have been to the National Championship game the last two years, but they lost both times. Texas, on the other hand, has won its last four consecutive bowl games, two of which have been against Big 10 teams.

And this year should make it number five, with Texas beating the Buckeyes 20 to 7, according to the Wii.

As always, I’ll update the blog after the game with the real score.

And as always, Hook ‘Em, Horns!

Real Score: 24-21.

Wow, what an incredible game! Frustrating, of course, for most of the game, but the final two minutes made up for it. It was very fitting that the final touchdown was made by Quan Cosby, who, like Vince Young, can say the final play of his college football career was a game-winning touchdown made in the final moments of a BCS game. Coupled with Brian Orakpo’s sack seconds later, you couldn’t have asked for a more fitting ending to the season.

The Longhorns finish the season 12-1, and while they likely won’t end up as national champions, they have nothing to feel bad about. Keep in mind that most people looked at their schedule this year and expected them to finish the regular season 9-3 or 8-4, maybe 10-2 if they were lucky. Yet, they were nearly flawless.

I just want to say I’ve had a lot of fun this season doing these prediction posts. If anything, it’s given me an excuse to play video games once a week. Maybe, I’ll do it again next season just for grins.

Of course, right now that seems like an eternity away.