From: conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt)
Subject: Re: Texas Got Screwed--SWC is a Goner
Organization: Applied Research Laboratories, University of Texas at Austin
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:21:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.151702.454@chpc.utexas.edu> boisseau@chpc.utexas.edu (John R. Boisseau (Jay)) writes:
>
>I believe I am generally unbiased in my post-game assessments, and I will
>admit when calls go the 'Horns way (like a few years ago when we barely
>beat UNT on a TD catch that was not a catch). I also firmly believe that
>the refs _were_ biased in this game. For those of you who don't know ;-)
>Texas is a "good ol' boy" state. Grant Teaff, is a good ol' boy, and the
>refs in the SWC are, too. They have been working games as long as he has been
>the coach, in some cases. Mackovic, however, is not a good ol' boy. (For
>that matter, neither is John Jenkins, and I now know why his teams always
>have calls go against them when playing other "traditional" SWC teams.)
>Everyone I talked to firmly. The refs, no doubt friends and admirers of
>Teaff's aer all of these years, gave him a nice going away present, and
>cost the Texas seniors a chance at the Cotton Bowl, and probably any bowl.

Unfortunately, Jay, I'm afraid you're right in this situation.  I have
a *real* hard time agreeing with a UT fan :), but this time I must.  I
have to admit that I'm glad Teaff went out on a positive note.  There
were some *extremely* questionable calls, if not down-right bad calls.
However, I'm not sure that they had as big an outcome on the game,
except for maybe the one interference call near the goal line.  I could
hear one of the UT defenders say "Why don't you just give him the 
touchdown?" on tv.  I was at the Tech-UT game in Lubbock this year,
(actually for quite a few years, now) and there was one extremely bad
call that could have had a major impact on the outcome of the game.
Tech had just scored to cut UT's lead to 2 or 3 (can't remember exactly)
and kicked off.  The ball bounced about the 25 yard line and no one 
touched it.  A Tech defender caught the ball in the air right on the
sideline, but clearly had a foot in bounds (much more clearly than the
punt where even on the replay, it looked like he was only in by an inch
or 2).  But, Tech turned the ball over 4 times and can't be expected to
beat a good team with 4 turnovers, even if there was a bad call.

In the Baylor-UT game, Gardere looked terrible.  He didn't make good
passes, and when he did, his receivers dropped them.  As you mentioned,
both teams played well enough to win and to lose.  In this game, the
officiating did seem to be biased, which it shouldn't be.  And although
you can understand officials being affected by a legend such as Teaff,
it doesn't make it right.

>
>I now believe even more strongly that this conference is doomed. I have
>seen posts from other (non-SWC) people that recognize how bad SWC officiating
>is (I truly feel sorry for fans of other schools that get SWC crews for
>out-of-division games). Coaches in the SWC have complained about the bad
>officiating, which, like I said above, is generally just bad, but probably
>not too biased. (Teaff himself exploded after the lost to A&M, and even
>sent a film of bad call to the SWC commisioner--I didn't feel that more
>calls went the Aggies way than his, but he did. I wonder if this explosion
>by Teaff a few weeks ago also had an impact on the officiating in this
>game...) I think Mackovic is _definitely_ going to want Texas out of
>the conference now--he has to feel cheated. It's no real secret that
>hoops coach Penders would like to play in a real basketball conference,
>too, and I'm sure Jody Conradt (the new women's AD) would like to see her
>teams play against better competition. Thus, this one game may have a lot
>of impact on the future of the SWC. It has probably cost Texas a bowl
>bid, and therefore Mackovic will want out. That might be all that is need
>to finish it off.

This is what made me decide to post a followup.  As for non-football 
sports, I think you need to be *real* careful when saying things like you
did.  Yes, UT has had a pretty good b-ball team since Penders arrived.
But there are some other up-and-coming teams this year in the conference -
Houston and maybe even my Red Raiders.  As for women's b-ball, well my
Lady Raiders *did* win the conference last year (the first time in
40 gazillion years that Texas didn't win) and were beaten in the sweet
16 by eventual champion Stanford.  This year should provide just as good
of a race.  Women's volleyball has 3 teams in the top 25 - UT at #11,
Tech at #18, and UH at #23, all of whom should go to the NCAA tourney.
In baseball, UT has tended to dominate under Gustafson, but A&M has 
produced very strong challengers recently as has Houston (and Tech will
this year, I'm sure :)).  I think the SWC is providing pretty good 
competition.

All this talk about jumping conferences just doesn't seem to make much
sense to me.  People talk about better competition, better recruiting,
national championships, etc etc.  Let's realize that the only benefit
to changing conferences is $$$, and that may only be a short-term
benefit.  Everyone seems to think that having better competition automatically
means a better team.  This is not always the case (see Arkansas, and man,
am I glad SMU beat them!).  Arkansas seemed to think that just because
they won a couple of SWC football and basketball titles, they were too
good for the conference and needed to head for greener pastures.

And for the $$$ motivation, I posted a few weeks ago on this.  What happens
if UT goes to the Big 10/11/whatever?  How much do their travel costs
increase?  I seem to recall reading that the only game they don't take a
bus to in conference play is against Tech, which is on the edge of the
civilized world, if it's not actually past it :).  I have no idea how
much it costs to move a football team, but I know that when I was in 
the Goin Band, it cost about $80,000 for a 1-weekend road trip.  Of course,
this was for 400 people and probably a little more equipment than a 
football team, but I have a feeling that the team travels to a little
better accomodations than does the band.  Anyway, let's say that tv
and bowl revenues make up for the extra travel costs.  But what happens if
the Big 10/11/?? is no longer the most desired one by the networds?
Then what happens to the tv revenues?

...Stepping down off my soap box.
 
>
>Let me close by saying that Texas could have won this game despite the
>officiating by not making so many mistakes. Texas has more talent, and
>a more balanced offense. Great teams don't let bad call beat them. Texas
>is NOT a great team. They _are_ a good team, though, and deserve to go
>to a bowl, somethin they will probably not do since it now depends on
>beating the Aggies, who look very good with Pullig at QB.

Unless A&M has a total let-down, it looks like they're hungry enough
for an undefeated season and some respect in the polls to make it
*extremely* difficult for anyone to beat them.

>
>
>Jay (whose is _still_ sore from the his workout immediately following the
>     game to relieve his tension/anger)

Sorry you're sore, but better than killing a zebra.  You can go to jail
for that, especially in Austin!

>
>-- 
>
>*********************************
>  John R. Boisseau ("Jay")       
>  Department of Astronomy        


Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college