jezzus, jorts.

one of the finest and most epic beatdowns in the distinguished history of this board.

That video reminds me of what we have been doing to the ags the last 53 years. Kicking a&m in the junk 29-23-1.

Wow a losing record to Tech since we have been conference mates.

^

quote:

---

quote:

From: Myers, Gerald
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:4B AM
To: Hance, Kent
Cc: Bailey, Guy
Subject: RE: Realignment in Football

The following are some key thoughts concerning conference expansion.


•Academic status is important to the expansion ofthe Big 10 and the PAC 10. All of the Big 10 and most of the
PAC 10 schools are members of the AAU(American Assoc. of Universities) Seven Big 12 schools are Tier 1 and
members of the AAU.

•Academic profile of the University is important.

•Competitive programs in all sports.

•Texas Tech needs to continue to be good partners with UT and A&M.

---

quote:

---

Please spare me the crap about overall athletic program. This is about football

---

[This message has been edited by CenTxAg99 (edited 8/13/2010 12:42a).]

quote:

---

That video reminds me of what we have been doing to the ags the last 53 years. Kicking a&m in the junk 29-23-1.

Wow a losing record to Tech since we have been conference mates.

---

What is this "since we have been conference mates" BS? The overall football record between the schools is 35-32-1. Period.

Sure a lot of your victories have come in the last few years, but lets not pretend we are mates. The record is close but we are still winning overall and we added one win to the column last year.

Let's cut to the chase though. What you and the rest of the Tards are really offended about is that we had the worst football decade in our history and you had the best football decade in your history and when the sh*t hit the fan that meant jack squat.

Our potential is worth more than your execution. Why is that so hard to accept? We know we are no t.u., but we played our cards and got a good deal to stick around. Deal with it, and be happy our $20 mil in blood money won't come from your coffers.

Jeez, just give up the fuzzy math and go waste your life in some place where you get owned less!

More pages! More pages!

anyone else want to see what happens next on some of these .gifs?

quote:

---

What is this "since we have been conference mates" BS? The overall football record between the schools is 35-32-1. Period.

---

Actually - Tech was forced to forfeit 2 more games to us because of the massive institution-wide rampant cheating which occurred there during the 90s in almost every sport. The largest single bust in NCAA history!

The record is 37-30-1.

Allow me to refresh memories:


August 4, 1998
Texas Tech Athletics Responds to NCAA Action

OVERLAND PARK, Kan. - Texas Tech University will be on probation for four years and may have to repay up to 90 percent of the revenues generated from the school's appearance in the 1996 Division I Men's Basketball Championship as part of penalties levied by the Division I Committee on Infractions for a significant number of major violations.

Violations were found involving nine different sports dating back to 1990 and included infractions of NCAA bylaws governing eligibility, extra benefits, recruiting, unethical conduct, failure to monitor and lack of institutional control.

In addition, there were a number of secondary violations.

Not only did the Committee on Infractions recommend that the school repay revenues already distributed from the team's 1996 basketball tournament appearance, but because the distribution of revenue formula for conference teams is based on a rolling six-year appearance factor, the committee has recommended that future distributions to the school that continue as a result of its 1996 appearance should be reduced by 90 percent.

The recommendation will be forwarded to the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet. If approved, the total financial impact on the school would be at least $380,000 plus future distribution through the year 2002.

Other penalties, including reduction of total grants in a number of sports and initial grants in football, are also part of the committee's action. An assistant football coach who was involved in a number of violations is subject to NCAA "show-cause" requirements. If he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletics position at an NCAA member institution during a three-year period ending April 24, 2001, he and the involved school must appear before the committee to determine if the coach's athletically related duties should be limited for a designated period.

Among the violations found by the committee was a lack of institutional control and procedures for monitoring the athletics program that permitted at least 76 individuals to compete while ineligible from 1990 to 1997. A number of student-athletes competed in NCAA championships competition while ineligible.

Of the 76 student-athletes who competed for Texas Tech while ineligible, 21 competed for two years, six competed for three years and two competed for four years.

The nine sports involved in the violations include football, baseball, men's golf, men's and women's basketball, men's track, women's soccer, women's volleyball and men's tennis.

In other findings, the committee discovered that:

* Student-athletes were improperly enrolled for correspondence courses.
* An assistant coach committed academic fraud by completing course work for a student-athlete.
* Student-athletes received inflated grades for course work not completed.
* Student-athletes received extra benefits in the form of money, enrollment fees in junior colleges, and free long-distance telephone access.
* Free bail bonding and legal services were provided to student-athletes.
* Over the course of four years, the school exceeded NCAA grant limitations in four sports.
* Three student-athletes received financial aid that exceeded a full grant-in-aid.

The committee also found that the university did not respond adequately to information it received that violations might have occurred and minimized or failed to follow up on conflicting information in the initial phases of the investigation. The committee noted that after March 1996 under new leadership, the university cooperated fully.

The committee noted its penalties were severe and numerous because of the lack of institutional control, the significant recruiting and competitive advantages gained, the length of time over which the violations occurred, and the fact that the violations were systemic and involved multiple sports. The competitive advantage gained by the institution was particularly significant, according to the committee.

Representatives of the NCAA enforcement staff, Texas Tech and the Big 12 Conference appeared at a hearing before the committee April 24-25, 1998. Also present were the former assistant men's basketball coach and the former assistant football coach involved in this case.

The violations found by the committee were:

* Between 1990 and 1997, at least 76 student-athletes competed while ineligible.
* During the 1993-94 through 1996-97 academic years, the institution exceeded team and individual grant-in-aid limitations in four sports.
* During the summer of 1993, an assistant football coach provided a student-athlete with tuition assistance and other extra benefits and committed academic fraud by completing significant portions of the student-athlete's course work.
* In August 1993, an assistant men's basketball coach arranged for a prospective student-athlete to receive impermissible proctoring services.
* During the summer of 1991, a junior college basketball coach and representative of the institution's athletics interests provided tuition and enrollment assistance to a student-athlete and a prospective student-athlete.
* During the 1995 football season, the institution failed to adhere to sound academic standards in regard to a student-athlete and allowed the student-athlete to compete while ineligible.
* Beginning with the spring 1992 term, a member or members of the football coaching staff provided a student-athlete with money on several occasions before and after the student-athlete's enrollment at the institution.
* Between 1991 and 1996, representatives of the institution's athletics interests provided free bail bonding and legal services to student-athletes.
* An assistant football coach violated the principles of ethical conduct by knowingly violating extra-benefit legislation and by providing false and misleading information to the institution.
* From the summer of 1994 through the spring of 1997, the institution allowed student-athletes to place free long-distance telephone calls and failed to monitor the student-athletes' use of athletics department telephones.
* There was a lack of institutional control and monitoring of the institution's athletics programs.
* There were several secondary violations involving the provision of impermissible services, transportation and meals to student-athletes and prospective student-athletes.
* In imposing penalties, the Committee on Infractions considered the following corrective actions taken by the university:
* Reassigned the assistant director of athletics for compliance in March 1997 and terminated the assistant director's further employment in August 1997.
* Reassigned the assistant director of student services in March 1997 and terminated the assistant director's further employment in August 1997.
* Accepted the resignation of the assistant director of athletics for academic services in May 1997.
* Accepted the resignation of the associate director of athletics for academic services in July 1997.
* Accepted the resignation of an assistant football coach in July 1997.
* Hired a certification officer in the registrar's office, an associate director of financial aid responsible for student-athlete financial aid, an associate athletics director for compliance, an associate athletics director for student services, an assistant director for compliance and a counselor specialist to serve as athletics department liaison to the certification officer.
* Increased the academic services staff.
* Improved the system for certifying student-athlete eligibility by transferring certification responsibilities to the Office of the Registrar, training academic officials in the use of new satisfactory progress forms, implementing a "hold" system to prevent student-athletes from dropping below full-time enrollment, implementing a computerized system for certifying eligibility and implementing internal audits of the certification process.
* Improved the monitoring of financial aid by creating shared responsibility between the Office of Student
* Financial Aid and the athletics department compliance office, revising the institution's method of calculating the value of a full grant-in-aid, implementing a system to "hold" the disbursement of outside and nonathletics institutional aid until such aid can be evaluated for compliance with NCAA legislation, implementing worksheets to evaluate outside financial aid, and implementing internal audits of financial aid.
* Enhanced its rules education programs for student-athletes, coaches and representatives of the institution's athletics interests.
* Installed a new telephone system in the athletics department that requires the entry of a personal identification number for long distance calls.

The committee accepted and adopted as its own the following penalties proposed by Texas Tech:

* Withdrawal from eligibility to compete in the 1997 Big 12 championship football game.
* Withdrawal from eligibility to compete in a postseason bowl game following the 1997 regular season.
* Reduction by 22 (from 62 to 40) in the number of official visits in football for the 1997-98 academic year.
* Reduction by two (from seven to five) in the number of football coaches permitted to recruit off-campus during the December 1997-January 1998 evaluation period.
* Reduction by eight (from 25 to 17) in the number of initial financial aid awards in football for the 1998-99 academic year, and reduction by six (from 25 to 19) in the number of initial financial aid awards for the 1999-2000 academic year.
* Reduction by five (from 20 to 15) in the number of evaluation days in football for May 1998.
* Withdrawal from eligibility to compete in the 1997 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship.
* Forfeiture of all 11 men's basketball conference victories from the 1996-97 season.
* Reduction by one (from 15 to 14) in the number of financial aid awards in women's basketball for the 1998-99 academic year.
* Reduction by three (from 11.7 to 8.7) in the number of financial aid awards in baseball for the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 academic years.
* Reduction by .4 (from 4.5 to 4.1) in the number of financial aid awards in men's golf for the 1998-99 academic year, and reduction by .32 (from 4.5 to 4.18) in the number of financial aid awards for the 1999-2000 academic year.
* Reduction by 2.36 (from 12.6 to 10.24) in the number of financial aid awards in men's track for the 1998-99 academic year.
* Implementation of various compliance reviews, audits and rules education programs.
* Forfeiture of those games in which ineligible student-athletes competed.

The committee found the penalties imposed by the university to be meaningful and significant. However, given the significant violations over a lengthy period of time, the recruiting and competitive advantages gained, the lack of institutional control, and the number of sports involved, the committee imposed the following penalties:

* Public reprimand and censure.
* Four years of probation. (The institution had proposed three years.)
* Requirement that the institution continue to develop a comprehensive athletics compliance education program, with annual reports to the committee during the period of probation.
* Reduction by four (from 25 to 21) in the number of initial financial aid awards in football during the 2000-2001 academic year.
* Reduction by five (from 85 to 80) in the number of total financial aid awards in football during each of the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 academic years.
* Reduction by seven in the number of total financial aid awards in men's basketball during the 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001 academic years, with a reduction of at least two (from 13 to 11) scholarships during each of the three academic years. (Texas Tech proposed a reduction of six scholarships over the three academic years.)
* Reduction by one (from 15 to 14) in the number of total financial aid awards in women's basketball during the 1999-2000 academic year.
* Reduction by three (from 11.7 to 8.7) in the number of equivalency scholarships in baseball during the 2001-2002 academic year. (Texas Tech proposed a reduction of 1.67 scholarships).
* Vacation of the institution's performance in the 1996 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament and recommendation that the institution be required to forfeit 90 percent of its share of revenue distribution for participation in the tournament. In addition, the committee recommends that Texas Tech not be permitted to receive an amount equal to 90 percent of its share of monies yet to be distributed by the Association for participation in the 1996 tournament. (The institution proposed to forfeit those games in which ineligible players competed and to return the monies received from the tournament.)
* Recertification of current athletics policies and practices.
* Show-cause requirement regarding a former assistant football coach for three years.

As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, Texas Tech is subject to the NCAA's repeat-violator provisions for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case, April 24, 1998.

The members of the Division I Committee on Infractions who heard this case are: Richard J. Dunn, professor of English, University of Washington; Jack H. Friedenthal, professor of law, George Washington University; James Park Jr., attorney and retired judge, Brown, Todd & Heyburn, Lexington, Kentucky; Yvonne (Bonnie) L. Slatton, chair, department of physical education and sports studies, University of Iowa and acting chair of the committee; and Thomas E. Yeager, commissioner, Colonial Athletic Association.

1998 National Collegiate Athletic Association

http://www.texastech.com/genrel/080498aaa.html


[This message has been edited by e=mc2 (edited 8/13/2010 2:15a).]

Damn it must suck to be an agg***. No matter how you spin it Tech owns a 29-23-1 advantage over the ags since we became "mates". The Big 12 benefited OU, UT and Tech and aggie was left behind. Sorry those are the facts.

Sorry about our ass raping of Tech last year and winning 5 National Titles in the past 2 years. Also sorry about beating you in every sport this year and finishing higher than any other school in the Big 12 in the Director's Cup.


Mainly, I'm sorry for what used to be your ballsack. It has been beaten unmercifully. But maybe that's a good thing if you don't have children yet. At least it will be for the rest of humanity.

quote:

---

quote:

From: Myers, Gerald
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:4B AM
To: Hance, Kent
Cc: Bailey, Guy
Subject: RE: Realignment in Football

The following are some key thoughts concerning conference expansion.


•Academic status is important to the expansion ofthe Big 10 and the PAC 10. All of the Big 10 and most of the
PAC 10 schools are members of the AAU(American Assoc. of Universities) Seven Big 12 schools are Tier 1 and
members of the AAU.

---

LOL that Gerald Meyers felt it was necessary to explain to Kent Hance what the AAU even was.

Poor pathetic arse raped tards...

NRHButthurtTard to the rescue!

Tard to Tard

quote:

---

Damn it must suck to be an agg***.

---

there are certainly times i wish we had big 10 officials referring to an "a&m problem." i know it would have been pretty cool to hear to mizzou's president cite a&m directly in referencing the conference's academic lightweights.

didn't you ****ers learn anything through this whole process?

Gosh, there are so many people to thank...

I want to thank SpreadsheetAg for putting all of this together, I want to thank my fellow posters for their tireless effort in posting hilarious gifs, I want to thank the tards on here for letting us all laugh at you, but most of all, I want to thank Kent Hance for not deleting all those emails. Oh yeah, and I want to thank God.

Goodnight everybody!

NorthRichlandHillsRaider up all night posting his "since we became mates" BS. Must have had a hard time sleeping through the butthurt...

NRHR = JeffRaider2000 on RaiderPower

This is the same guy that tried to use the same arguments all over the internet during realigent talk and got his **** pushed back in every time, most memorably by the Auburn board and a Penn State poster.

Jorts with a couple of haymakers... There's nothing easier or more fun than beating up on the tards.

i don't know how this fits in but i feel it should be posted.

Poor poor Aggies. Keep telling yourselves that you didn't get ****ed over in this whole thing. In the meantime we'll keep closing the gap in overall athletics and tier 1 status. By the time realignment comes up again tech will be more rounded in ALL athletics and will most likely have reached TIER 1 status. So when all of that is equal it will come down to football and we've OWNED you in football during the Big 12! Good luck in whatever conference you're forced to join while the Big 12 members head out west. Utah already took your PAC spot do you better hope you get ANY other offers!

I love when yall try and act happy somehow. Youre fuming and we know it.

Something for the clueless technicals:

Tech is Spidey


[This message has been edited by SpreadsheetAg (edited 8/13/2010 8:29a).]

We're not happy about it but at the same time we made out MUCH better than you! You had the chance to go SEC and leve behing the teams that have been kcking your teeth in for years, but you didn't! You had the chance to go PAC but now Utah took your spot! You've given us the couple of more years we need to completely close the tier 1 gap and round out our athletics. By the time you're scheduled to get 20MM this conference will be gone, Tech, OU and UT will be in the PAC and you'll be PRAYING for a SEC offer but can't get one without OU or UT. Youll be PRAYING for a PAC offer but Utah took your spot! Good luck, you guys are going to need it!

Utah took our spot?

quote:

---

You've given us the couple of more years we need to completely close the tier 1 gap and round out our athletics.

---

Holeeeee ****. CAN NOT ****ING BREATHE.

NRHRaider:


[This message has been edited by SpreadsheetAg (edited 8/13/2010 8:36a).]

Girl = PAC-10 / Tech = Animal

i guess what they say about tards are true . . .

Its fun to do bad things!

quote:

---

We're not happy about it but at the same time we made out MUCH better than you! You had the chance to go SEC and leve behing the teams that have been kcking your teeth in for years, but you didn't! You had the chance to go PAC but now Utah took your spot! You've given us the couple of more years we need to completely close the tier 1 gap and round out our athletics. By the time you're scheduled to get 20MM this conference will be gone, Tech, OU and UT will be in the PAC and you'll be PRAYING for a SEC offer but can't get one without OU or UT. Youll be PRAYING for a PAC offer but Utah took your spot! Good luck, you guys are going to need it!

---

Yes Harry, Utah took your spot. Giving TT the extra couple of years to reach tier 1 status and build our overall athletic profile will put us on equal footing with ag&mech. The difference? We've succeeded at football in this conference and you have not! We'll move into the #3 slot that you held this time behind OU & UT. there just won't be room for younin the PAC and the SEC won't take you without OU or UT.