(02-13-2017 01:14 PM)green Wrote:  



you never mention the ACC ...
even though former texas athletic director deloss dodds is on record ...
"re expansion if we ever do anything go east because it's better for kids"

CONSPICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE

You so miss the point. At the time Dodds was working on a move by 3 Big 12 schools to the ACC. Yes, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas were supposedly headed as full members to your conference along with Notre Dame. The deal was nixed at the last moment by allegedly your own core, the former nicotine pushing schools. That was a catalyst for Maryland bolting. Revenue that could have been earned from such a move was hosed. Hello Big 10! Hello Big 10 bucks! It's also why Delany knew the Maryland exit fee case would never see the courtroom. Too much good stuff might come out.

As for the hipsters in Austin they've been in serious discussions with the SEC on three occasions since '91. But then they do have a history of talking one way and acting another. Other than the academicians they talk blue, vote red, and love green. I think they prefer the PAC but? And since Dodds made this luncheon talk UT has pretty much nixed the idea of going it alone to the ACC as an independent. So?

(02-13-2017 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  love green.

And since Dodds made this luncheon talk UT has pretty much nixed the idea of going it alone to the ACC as an independent.

document ...
or it didn't happen ...

IXNAY (PIG LATIN)

If a sorcerer appeared before the UT Austin president and Univ of Texas board of directors, proclaiming "UT Austin must join the PAC, ACC, or SEC as full, football playing members before the next full moon, or I will make the campus vanish into thin air!"

... I would put my money on them joining the PAC, with rights being given to show some home contents in all sports on LHN and keeping that revenue stream to themselves.

(02-13-2017 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As for the hipsters in Austin they've been in serious discussions with the SEC on three occasions since '91.

http://www.espn.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/8...sion-teams

I'm thinking bigger. I'm thinking the program that invented swagger, the program that has won five national championships in the last 30 years, the program that nearly joined the SEC in 1990 when the league first expanded.

I'm thinking Miami.
-- espn.com

TALKING POINTS MEMO

(02-13-2017 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 01:14 PM)green Wrote:  



you never mention the ACC ...
even though former texas athletic director deloss dodds is on record ...
"re expansion if we ever do anything go east because it's better for kids"

CONSPICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE

You so miss the point. At the time Dodds was working on a move by 3 Big 12 schools to the ACC. Yes, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas were supposedly headed as full members to your conference along with Notre Dame.

view the accompanying video ...
deloss boss hoss dodds recounts ...
"ou was talking with us about going to the pac12 ...
we told them we're not going to the pac12 ...
we're staying in the big12 ...
if ou goes we knew we're in deep trouble ...
we took a trip to the ACC ...
we talked with the ACC ...
we could have gone to the ACC ...
when larry scott found out ...
he dropped ou which allowed us to keep the big12 together ..."

BELABOR THE POINT

Why would Florida let Miami into the SEC?

(02-13-2017 02:43 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why would Florida let Miami into the SEC?

why would uf object ...

OLD WIVES' TALE

Miami in the SEC would be fun but I think it would be a mistake for both sides. The SEC has all the big programs it can sustain. Miami is struggling in a weak division in a weak league right now and has been for a while. I believe Richt will get it going but I think the ACC is the best setup for them with the best opportunity for a playoff spot.

The SEC needs to add more Missouri's and aTm's as opposed to legit programs who win CC's on a regular basis. Schools like Missouri have not won a CC in 50 years and the fans are OK with that. Arkansas is the same way. aTm is the same way. Gotta have those schools willing to take one for the conference. I really think West Virginia and OkSU would be the best for the SEC.

The conference that really needs brands is the PAC. They really have nothing at this point aside from hoping Chip or Carroll will come back. I think Stanford is the dominant FB program and they have never even been in a NC game. Basketball is another weakness. Will Lute Olson come back to make someone relevant in the PAC.

Doesn't want another SEC team in Florida.

(02-13-2017 03:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Doesn't want another SEC team in Florida.

Florida is a big state.

(02-13-2017 05:33 PM)chess Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 03:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Doesn't want another SEC team in Florida.

Florida is a big state.

Yeah, but so is Michigan, and I don't see the University of Michigan being open to letting WMU (Western Michigan)into to the Big Ten anytime soon, regardless of what WMU's credentials might be; the same goes for Iowa and Iowa State. The reason why UF doesn't want another team in Florida is the same reason why TAMU moved to the SEC: they don't want to have share the spotlight with another in-state team, period.

(02-13-2017 02:19 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  love green.

And since Dodds made this luncheon talk UT has pretty much nixed the idea of going it alone to the ACC as an independent.

document ...
or it didn't happen ...

IXNAY (PIG LATIN)

Don't have a document, but read their new AD saying they had to keep their minor sports in mind, and that having to fly them to a new conference home didn't make much sense. So loose translation is Dodds old plans are just that.

(02-13-2017 02:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If a sorcerer appeared before the UT Austin president and Univ of Texas board of directors, proclaiming "UT Austin must join the PAC, ACC, or SEC as full, football playing members before the next full moon, or I will make the campus vanish into thin air!"

... I would put my money on them joining the PAC, with rights being given to show some home contents in all sports on LHN and keeping that revenue stream to themselves.

They already offered this. There were two rounds when they tried this. The first was the original deal, when they decided that they were going to stay put. The deal was almost exactly what you proposed: that Texas gets to keep all revenue from the Longhorn Network. The Longhorn Network becomes a PAC-12 Network. If the overall revenues from the PAC-12 becomes more than 15 times the Longhorn Network revenues, then Texas gets 1/16th of the share above those networks.

The PAC-12 said "No." If the PAC-12 was willing to accept this, then Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State would already be in the PAC-16. Texas only decided to stay put because the PAC-12 wouldn't accept their Longhorn Network proposal. The only reason that the Longhorns were looking at the ACC was that they figured that the ACC would be desperate enough to actually allow them to keep their Longhorn Network, especially since they didn't have their own conference network. The reality is that none of the Power-4 conferences would allow Texas to keep the deal they're getting in the Big-12. They'd want Texas to be an equal partner, not dominate it.

(02-13-2017 02:25 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As for the hipsters in Austin they've been in serious discussions with the SEC on three occasions since '91.

http://www.espn.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/8...sion-teams

I'm thinking bigger. I'm thinking the program that invented swagger, the program that has won five national championships in the last 30 years, the program that nearly joined the SEC in 1990 when the league first expanded.

I'm thinking Miami.
-- espn.com

TALKING POINTS MEMO

Miami was kicked around in '90 when the SEC was evaluating how to move going forward. You were in the battleground contingency that Jackie Sherrill has mentioned several times. It was a 20 team scenario in case once we moved the Big 10 tried a massive drive East and then down the coast.

What we finally decided to shoot for in '91 was Texas, A&M, Florida State, Arkansas, Clemson, and a distant interest from Oklahoma if Texas made the move.

We got 1 of 6. Texas wanted to check out the PAC for the first time. A&M got bogged down in politics (but the dialogue continued off and on until they joined). OU pulled out when Texas failed to commit. Bowden took FSU to ESPN and the ACC. The thing is ESPN was likely behind that and knew the details of the SEC offer because we naively went to them for valuations. The Mouse was just beginning to build the ACC. Clemson was always tepid, and probably interested only to spy, but when one of their boosters recounted the details to a buddy of his who was a S. Carolina guy the word spread and the Gamecocks applied.

So the whole thing was touted as a whopping success because we expanded into two bridge states to future targets, got our 12 schools and two divisions that led to the CCG, and looked to the public like world beaters. And we were. But lost in the shuffle was the fact that ESPN may have been an undermining factor, and the two big fish and their buddy got away.

Well here we are today and we are in South Carolina so not having Clemson is okay. We have Texas A&M and that completes another goal. Missouri was sort of an ESPN suggestion worked through A&M and Florida as I hear it. But that's a nice new market for the SEC. Where we lost out was in failing to acquire a second Florida school. I don't think we will make that mistake in Texas. But at least there we don't have to take a second Texas school to accomplish a victory. Oklahoma gives us all we need in DFW.

The only knock on the Canes was distance. We were still in a driving mentality in '91. We had a shot at Virginia Tech in '91 as well but passed due to distance. Now with ESPN backing both the ACC & SEC largely any movement between the two of us is anathema to them. So we look West.

(02-13-2017 02:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If a sorcerer appeared before the UT Austin president and Univ of Texas board of directors, proclaiming "UT Austin must join the PAC, ACC, or SEC as full, football playing members before the next full moon, or I will make the campus vanish into thin air!"

... I would put my money on them joining the PAC, with rights being given to show some home contents in all sports on LHN and keeping that revenue stream to themselves.

They would choose the Pac-12 if given an ultimatum. They won't follow their little brother A&M to the SEC and they see the ACC as inferior. For some odd reason, UT has a thing for Pac-12 schools, specially the ones in California. Notice how they go out of their way to schedule them in OOC (same with Oklahoma) and unlike OU, they don't really schedule many SEC, ACC and B1G schools. The Pac-12 can accommodate Texas by not playing late night West Coast games (TCU got a similar deal with the MWC) but it's a moot point since Texas has everything it wants in the Big XII: its own network, lots of money, its biggest rival Oklahoma, a Central Time zone league with good exposure, football first schools, a strong basketball conference, being able to dictate terms and conditions to the other schools not named Oklahoma and preferential treatment from the conference offices in Irving. Why give up all that just be a team player and treat other schools as equals in another conference?

(02-13-2017 11:27 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 05:33 PM)chess Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 03:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Doesn't want another SEC team in Florida.

Florida is a big state.

Yeah, but so is Michigan, and I don't see the University of Michigan being open to letting WMU (Western Michigan)into to the Big Ten anytime soon, regardless of what WMU's credentials might be; the same goes for Iowa and Iowa State. The reason why UF doesn't want another team in Florida is the same reason why TAMU moved to the SEC: they don't want to have share the spotlight with another in-state team, period.

Vanderbilt
Tennessee

Alabama
Auburn

Mississippi
Mississippi State

PERIOD A WEEK LATE

(02-13-2017 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 01:14 PM)green Wrote:  



you never mention the ACC ...
even though former texas athletic director deloss dodds is on record ...
"re expansion if we ever do anything go east because it's better for kids"

CONSPICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE

You so miss the point. At the time Dodds was working on a move by 3 Big 12 schools to the ACC. Yes, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas were supposedly headed as full members to your conference along with Notre Dame. The deal was nixed at the last moment by allegedly your own core, the former nicotine pushing schools. That was a catalyst for Maryland bolting. Revenue that could have been earned from such a move was hosed. Hello Big 10! Hello Big 10 bucks! It's also why Delany knew the Maryland exit fee case would never see the courtroom. Too much good stuff might come out.

As for the hipsters in Austin they've been in serious discussions with the SEC on three occasions since '91. But then they do have a history of talking one way and acting another. Other than the academicians they talk blue, vote red, and love green. I think they prefer the PAC but? And since Dodds made this luncheon talk UT has pretty much nixed the idea of going it alone to the ACC as an independent. So?

I've never heard of any serious discussions. I think you are getting bad information. There was brief "if you are interested, we'd be willing to talk," but nobody from the UT side has ever said it got beyond "Thank you, we'll think about it." Everybody shares numbers, but that doesn't mean there was ever any serious discussion.

The UT presidents we have had just would not seriously consider it.

(02-13-2017 03:01 PM)p23570 Wrote:  Miami in the SEC would be fun but I think it would be a mistake for both sides. The SEC has all the big programs it can sustain. Miami is struggling in a weak division in a weak league right now and has been for a while. I believe Richt will get it going but I think the ACC is the best setup for them with the best opportunity for a playoff spot.

The SEC needs to add more Missouri's and aTm's as opposed to legit programs who win CC's on a regular basis. Schools like Missouri have not won a CC in 50 years and the fans are OK with that. Arkansas is the same way. aTm is the same way. Gotta have those schools willing to take one for the conference. I really think West Virginia and OkSU would be the best for the SEC.

The conference that really needs brands is the PAC. They really have nothing at this point aside from hoping Chip or Carroll will come back. I think Stanford is the dominant FB program and they have never even been in a NC game. Basketball is another weakness. Will Lute Olson come back to make someone relevant in the PAC.

Arkansas was a serious football program when they joined the SEC. They've gone downhill since.

(02-13-2017 11:45 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 02:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If a sorcerer appeared before the UT Austin president and Univ of Texas board of directors, proclaiming "UT Austin must join the PAC, ACC, or SEC as full, football playing members before the next full moon, or I will make the campus vanish into thin air!"

... I would put my money on them joining the PAC, with rights being given to show some home contents in all sports on LHN and keeping that revenue stream to themselves.

They already offered this. There were two rounds when they tried this. The first was the original deal, when they decided that they were going to stay put. The deal was almost exactly what you proposed: that Texas gets to keep all revenue from the Longhorn Network. The Longhorn Network becomes a PAC-12 Network. If the overall revenues from the PAC-12 becomes more than 15 times the Longhorn Network revenues, then Texas gets 1/16th of the share above those networks.

The PAC-12 said "No." If the PAC-12 was willing to accept this, then Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State would already be in the PAC-16. Texas only decided to stay put because the PAC-12 wouldn't accept their Longhorn Network proposal. The only reason that the Longhorns were looking at the ACC was that they figured that the ACC would be desperate enough to actually allow them to keep their Longhorn Network, especially since they didn't have their own conference network. The reality is that none of the Power-4 conferences would allow Texas to keep the deal they're getting in the Big-12. They'd want Texas to be an equal partner, not dominate it.

Wrong. The Longhorn network didn't even exist when the discussions were serious in 2010.

(02-13-2017 11:27 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 05:33 PM)chess Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 03:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Doesn't want another SEC team in Florida.

Florida is a big state.

Yeah, but so is Michigan, and I don't see the University of Michigan being open to letting WMU (Western Michigan)into to the Big Ten anytime soon, regardless of what WMU's credentials might be; the same goes for Iowa and Iowa State. The reason why UF doesn't want another team in Florida is the same reason why TAMU moved to the SEC: they don't want to have share the spotlight with another in-state team, period.

Florida is huge. By road, Pensacola in the north-west is nearer to Indianapolis on the Great Lakes than to Key West.

But you can make some sense of Florida by dividing it into four regions:

The Panhandle. This is the northern bit of the state, from Gainesville upwards, that looks like a gun barrel. Its cast of mind is southern; its nickname used to be LA (which stood for Lower Alabama).
-- The Economist

YEEHAW JUNCTION