(08-04-2013 12:49 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 06:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 10:33 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 10:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 09:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Nice overall...still just can't see us taking Okie Lite, there's just nothing about them that screams "worth a priceless SEC expansion slot"

I'd rather we invested in one of the DFW privates like TCU or SMU than the number 2 team in a tiny market

Once again though, the Big 12 won't be picked apart piece by piece. It will be an all or nothing effort. Unfortunately SMU does not help with that. If Texas ends up taking two programs with them to the ACC, they will have to be easily accessible. TCU tops the list in accessibility.

Oklahoma State may be a number 2 team in a tiny market but they are a very strong program for a number 2 team. They are in the top 25 most profitable college football programs. They have a great coach that seems to be there for the long haul. They have great financial backing, in particular Mr Pickens. That means they have outstanding facilities and they will look great on the SECN where as SMU.....not so much. TCU has a nice stadium but it isn't really SEC sized. It is more of an ACC stadium and TCU itself is oh so very tiny. OSU just seems more like an SEC program than either TCU or SMU.

TCU is the superior choice to OSU for one very important reason: Location.
Having A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Alabama and LSU show up for games there every year allows the SEC to firmly plant its flag in the heart of the Big 12.

As for your UT to the ACC...if UT wants to go anywhere, the Texas team they HAVE to bring with them is Tech (and maybe Baylor too). If they dont and those two are not taken care of (and they define taken care of as being in the same league as UT) then thre is no way UT will get past legislature.

We did it because 1) UT was still there to take care of the kids after the divorce and 2) they stated in public that A&M leaving would not hurt the conference (thus absolving us of responsibility for the kids)

Texas Tech could become the Texas A&M of the PAC conference. What Texas would have to do would be to sign a binding agreement with tech that they will have a protected ooc rivalry game. I don't see why Tech would necessarily want to play in the ACC. They have a lot more in common with their Western neighbors. They would be out from the Texas shadow while still having what they would say A&M doesn't have. A rivalry with Texas.

My scenario would absolutely have Baylor going too. TCU and Baylor as the tiny privates that fit in with the ACC much better than OSU does. OSU fits in better with the SEC.

Thanks H. I appreciate the kind words. I think its funny seeing Tech labeled as kid from an aggie fan. The 3rd largest fan supported University in the State of Texas isn't a kid. The 29th largest fan supported University in the country isn't a kid (2012 attendance numbers). A&M and their fans should be pushing for Texas to go elsewhere and then support Tech going to the PAC 12. Tech was only Texas school in the Big 12 that didn't throw a temper tantrum when A&M decided to go to the SEC.

I will somewhat miss seeing UT and A&M on the schedule every year but it will be nice to be in a power conference without them. As for who I would to join us in a possible PAC 12 invite is up for debate. Would love to see OU and Oklahoma St join and maybe TCU?????

You might not like the analogy but it fits because during 2010-2011 realignment Tech and Baylor were not deciding their own fate in realignment just like kids dont get to decide their fate when parents get divorced. They were at the mercy of decisions being made by others.

(08-04-2013 12:05 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-04-2013 12:49 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 06:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 10:33 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 10:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Once again though, the Big 12 won't be picked apart piece by piece. It will be an all or nothing effort. Unfortunately SMU does not help with that. If Texas ends up taking two programs with them to the ACC, they will have to be easily accessible. TCU tops the list in accessibility.

Oklahoma State may be a number 2 team in a tiny market but they are a very strong program for a number 2 team. They are in the top 25 most profitable college football programs. They have a great coach that seems to be there for the long haul. They have great financial backing, in particular Mr Pickens. That means they have outstanding facilities and they will look great on the SECN where as SMU.....not so much. TCU has a nice stadium but it isn't really SEC sized. It is more of an ACC stadium and TCU itself is oh so very tiny. OSU just seems more like an SEC program than either TCU or SMU.

TCU is the superior choice to OSU for one very important reason: Location.
Having A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Alabama and LSU show up for games there every year allows the SEC to firmly plant its flag in the heart of the Big 12.

As for your UT to the ACC...if UT wants to go anywhere, the Texas team they HAVE to bring with them is Tech (and maybe Baylor too). If they dont and those two are not taken care of (and they define taken care of as being in the same league as UT) then thre is no way UT will get past legislature.

We did it because 1) UT was still there to take care of the kids after the divorce and 2) they stated in public that A&M leaving would not hurt the conference (thus absolving us of responsibility for the kids)

Texas Tech could become the Texas A&M of the PAC conference. What Texas would have to do would be to sign a binding agreement with tech that they will have a protected ooc rivalry game. I don't see why Tech would necessarily want to play in the ACC. They have a lot more in common with their Western neighbors. They would be out from the Texas shadow while still having what they would say A&M doesn't have. A rivalry with Texas.

My scenario would absolutely have Baylor going too. TCU and Baylor as the tiny privates that fit in with the ACC much better than OSU does. OSU fits in better with the SEC.

Thanks H. I appreciate the kind words. I think its funny seeing Tech labeled as kid from an aggie fan. The 3rd largest fan supported University in the State of Texas isn't a kid. The 29th largest fan supported University in the country isn't a kid (2012 attendance numbers). A&M and their fans should be pushing for Texas to go elsewhere and then support Tech going to the PAC 12. Tech was only Texas school in the Big 12 that didn't throw a temper tantrum when A&M decided to go to the SEC.

I will somewhat miss seeing UT and A&M on the schedule every year but it will be nice to be in a power conference without them. As for who I would to join us in a possible PAC 12 invite is up for debate. Would love to see OU and Oklahoma St join and maybe TCU?????

You might not like the analogy but it fits because during 2010-2011 realignment Tech and Baylor were not deciding their own fate in realignment just like kids dont get to decide their fate when parents get divorced. They were at the mercy of decisions being made by others.

It fits your view because Texas looks down on A&M the same way you do Tech and Baylor.

(08-04-2013 12:49 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 06:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 10:33 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 10:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 09:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Nice overall...still just can't see us taking Okie Lite, there's just nothing about them that screams "worth a priceless SEC expansion slot"

I'd rather we invested in one of the DFW privates like TCU or SMU than the number 2 team in a tiny market

Once again though, the Big 12 won't be picked apart piece by piece. It will be an all or nothing effort. Unfortunately SMU does not help with that. If Texas ends up taking two programs with them to the ACC, they will have to be easily accessible. TCU tops the list in accessibility.

Oklahoma State may be a number 2 team in a tiny market but they are a very strong program for a number 2 team. They are in the top 25 most profitable college football programs. They have a great coach that seems to be there for the long haul. They have great financial backing, in particular Mr Pickens. That means they have outstanding facilities and they will look great on the SECN where as SMU.....not so much. TCU has a nice stadium but it isn't really SEC sized. It is more of an ACC stadium and TCU itself is oh so very tiny. OSU just seems more like an SEC program than either TCU or SMU.

TCU is the superior choice to OSU for one very important reason: Location.
Having A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Alabama and LSU show up for games there every year allows the SEC to firmly plant its flag in the heart of the Big 12.

As for your UT to the ACC...if UT wants to go anywhere, the Texas team they HAVE to bring with them is Tech (and maybe Baylor too). If they dont and those two are not taken care of (and they define taken care of as being in the same league as UT) then thre is no way UT will get past legislature.

We did it because 1) UT was still there to take care of the kids after the divorce and 2) they stated in public that A&M leaving would not hurt the conference (thus absolving us of responsibility for the kids)

Texas Tech could become the Texas A&M of the PAC conference. What Texas would have to do would be to sign a binding agreement with tech that they will have a protected ooc rivalry game. I don't see why Tech would necessarily want to play in the ACC. They have a lot more in common with their Western neighbors. They would be out from the Texas shadow while still having what they would say A&M doesn't have. A rivalry with Texas.

My scenario would absolutely have Baylor going too. TCU and Baylor as the tiny privates that fit in with the ACC much better than OSU does. OSU fits in better with the SEC.

Thanks H. I appreciate the kind words. I think its funny seeing Tech labeled as kid from an aggie fan. The 3rd largest fan supported University in the State of Texas isn't a kid. The 29th largest fan supported University in the country isn't a kid (2012 attendance numbers). A&M and their fans should be pushing for Texas to go elsewhere and then support Tech going to the PAC 12. Tech was only Texas school in the Big 12 that didn't throw a temper tantrum when A&M decided to go to the SEC.

I will somewhat miss seeing UT and A&M on the schedule every year but it will be nice to be in a power conference without them. As for who I would to join us in a possible PAC 12 invite is up for debate. Would love to see OU and Oklahoma St join and maybe TCU?????

Well, first off, if Tech negotiators are worth anything at all then Tech will negotiate themselves into a binding and protected yearly rivalry match up with the Longhorns. Their vote in this scenario is extremely important. If Tech goes along with this WITHOUT that stipulation then they have done themselves an extreme disservice. So with that said it may end up being Tech with the protected match up with Texas going forward and not A&M.

In terms of possibilities for your partners. I personally think ISU and KSU are very strong possibilities. As for the fourth, my opinion would be that Texas would try to take two Texas programs with them but maybe they end up only taking one due to negotiations with the ACC. If that happens then my opinion is that it is Baylor. They have the better overall Athletic Department between them and TCU and that will matter to the ACC. In that case TCU could absolutely be the fourth program going to the PAC with you. That would certainly sweeten up the deal for Tech, KSU and ISU. That would insure a game IN Texas every year for them.

Now that you have caused me to think about that....Texas might have to compromise with you three and let TCU go with just so that this happens. Perhaps UConn does get picked up as #16 for the ACC. ESPN will be very happy with that.

(08-04-2013 01:42 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(08-04-2013 12:05 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-04-2013 12:49 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 06:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 10:33 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  TCU is the superior choice to OSU for one very important reason: Location.
Having A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Alabama and LSU show up for games there every year allows the SEC to firmly plant its flag in the heart of the Big 12.

As for your UT to the ACC...if UT wants to go anywhere, the Texas team they HAVE to bring with them is Tech (and maybe Baylor too). If they dont and those two are not taken care of (and they define taken care of as being in the same league as UT) then thre is no way UT will get past legislature.

We did it because 1) UT was still there to take care of the kids after the divorce and 2) they stated in public that A&M leaving would not hurt the conference (thus absolving us of responsibility for the kids)

Texas Tech could become the Texas A&M of the PAC conference. What Texas would have to do would be to sign a binding agreement with tech that they will have a protected ooc rivalry game. I don't see why Tech would necessarily want to play in the ACC. They have a lot more in common with their Western neighbors. They would be out from the Texas shadow while still having what they would say A&M doesn't have. A rivalry with Texas.

My scenario would absolutely have Baylor going too. TCU and Baylor as the tiny privates that fit in with the ACC much better than OSU does. OSU fits in better with the SEC.

Thanks H. I appreciate the kind words. I think its funny seeing Tech labeled as kid from an aggie fan. The 3rd largest fan supported University in the State of Texas isn't a kid. The 29th largest fan supported University in the country isn't a kid (2012 attendance numbers). A&M and their fans should be pushing for Texas to go elsewhere and then support Tech going to the PAC 12. Tech was only Texas school in the Big 12 that didn't throw a temper tantrum when A&M decided to go to the SEC.

I will somewhat miss seeing UT and A&M on the schedule every year but it will be nice to be in a power conference without them. As for who I would to join us in a possible PAC 12 invite is up for debate. Would love to see OU and Oklahoma St join and maybe TCU?????

You might not like the analogy but it fits because during 2010-2011 realignment Tech and Baylor were not deciding their own fate in realignment just like kids dont get to decide their fate when parents get divorced. They were at the mercy of decisions being made by others.

It fits your view because Texas looks down on A&M the same way you do Tech and Baylor.

So you are saying Tech and Baylor could have struck their own conference deal and were not having their fate decided by what UT decided to do?

(08-04-2013 03:06 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-04-2013 01:42 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(08-04-2013 12:05 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-04-2013 12:49 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 06:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Texas Tech could become the Texas A&M of the PAC conference. What Texas would have to do would be to sign a binding agreement with tech that they will have a protected ooc rivalry game. I don't see why Tech would necessarily want to play in the ACC. They have a lot more in common with their Western neighbors. They would be out from the Texas shadow while still having what they would say A&M doesn't have. A rivalry with Texas.

My scenario would absolutely have Baylor going too. TCU and Baylor as the tiny privates that fit in with the ACC much better than OSU does. OSU fits in better with the SEC.

Thanks H. I appreciate the kind words. I think its funny seeing Tech labeled as kid from an aggie fan. The 3rd largest fan supported University in the State of Texas isn't a kid. The 29th largest fan supported University in the country isn't a kid (2012 attendance numbers). A&M and their fans should be pushing for Texas to go elsewhere and then support Tech going to the PAC 12. Tech was only Texas school in the Big 12 that didn't throw a temper tantrum when A&M decided to go to the SEC.

I will somewhat miss seeing UT and A&M on the schedule every year but it will be nice to be in a power conference without them. As for who I would to join us in a possible PAC 12 invite is up for debate. Would love to see OU and Oklahoma St join and maybe TCU?????

You might not like the analogy but it fits because during 2010-2011 realignment Tech and Baylor were not deciding their own fate in realignment just like kids dont get to decide their fate when parents get divorced. They were at the mercy of decisions being made by others.

It fits your view because Texas looks down on A&M the same way you do Tech and Baylor.

So you are saying Tech and Baylor could have struck their own conference deal and were not having their fate decided by what UT decided to do?

I haven't said we could strike our own deal at all. What I'm saying, is you trash Tech and Baylor in much the same way Texas trashes their little brother in College Station. Honestly, it gets old especially coming from you and your status with Texas A&M University.

You need to grow thicker skin if you get offended by me saying something as simple and true as the fact that Baylor and Tech didn't get to decide their own fate in the last round of realignment.

Like I said, I have no problem admitting our roles in the last round of realignment. I think we will have a say in the next round but that doesn't stop you from bringing up the past.

Did you even read the post?

The whole point was that UT would not be able to replicate our leaving without Baylor and Tech being taken care of first. But you miss that because you feel immeadietly slighted because of the truth about the past being mentioned to make that point.

(08-03-2013 02:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I'll take a shot at a 3 x 24 model:

SEC North:
Kentucky, Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

SEC East:
Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, S. Carolina

SEC South:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Miss State, South Florida

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Miami, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M


Big 10 East:
Boston College, Connecticut, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers

Big 10 South:
Duke, Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Purdue, Virginia

Big 10 North:
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Big 10 West:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Rice


PAC North:
California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington St.

PAC West:
Arizona, Arizona St., Hawaii, San Diego State, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.

PAC South:
Brigham Young, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, U.N.L.V., Wyoming

PAC East:
Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Looks like you have 7 in the B10 south. No WF from existing B5; it just bought the coliseum WF plays in, they'll stay. Also, altho a bit biased, don't see how Cincy could be left out of a 72 team configuration. UC is a hard fit in your conferences tho. Too many eastern teams or better stated too few quality western teams to choose from.

(08-05-2013 12:23 PM)indydoug Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 02:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I'll take a shot at a 3 x 24 model:

SEC North:
Kentucky, Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

SEC East:
Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, S. Carolina

SEC South:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Miss State, South Florida

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Miami, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

Big 10 East:
Connecticut, Duke, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers

Big 10 South:
Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Purdue, Virginia

Big 10 North:
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Big 10 West:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Rice


PAC North:
California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington St.

PAC West:
Arizona, Arizona St., Hawaii, San Diego State, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.

PAC South:
Brigham Young, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, U.N.L.V., Wyoming

PAC East:
Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Looks like you have 7 in the B10 south. No WF from existing B5; it just bought the coliseum WF plays in, they'll stay. Also, altho a bit biased, don't see how Cincy could be left out of a 72 team configuration. UC is a hard fit in your conferences tho. Too many eastern teams or better stated too few quality western teams to choose from.

That's exactly right. The West is too thin and the East is too plush. The 4 x 18 models accommodate Cincinnati quite nicely. If it goes to 3 conferences at some point there will be likely only 60 teams. That's why I don't think that scenario likely to happen. We may start with something like a 4 x 16, but I feel confident it will move to 72 at some point shortly after that. And a feel that way for a variety of reasons ranging from elimination of a coalition for legal action (as 72 accommodates everyone up to a reasonable investment line) and depth of conference strength being to too much for mid level teams to enjoy, to the need for some cross over markets.

(08-04-2013 06:38 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(08-04-2013 03:06 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-04-2013 01:42 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(08-04-2013 12:05 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-04-2013 12:49 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  Thanks H. I appreciate the kind words. I think its funny seeing Tech labeled as kid from an aggie fan. The 3rd largest fan supported University in the State of Texas isn't a kid. The 29th largest fan supported University in the country isn't a kid (2012 attendance numbers). A&M and their fans should be pushing for Texas to go elsewhere and then support Tech going to the PAC 12. Tech was only Texas school in the Big 12 that didn't throw a temper tantrum when A&M decided to go to the SEC.

I will somewhat miss seeing UT and A&M on the schedule every year but it will be nice to be in a power conference without them. As for who I would to join us in a possible PAC 12 invite is up for debate. Would love to see OU and Oklahoma St join and maybe TCU?????

You might not like the analogy but it fits because during 2010-2011 realignment Tech and Baylor were not deciding their own fate in realignment just like kids dont get to decide their fate when parents get divorced. They were at the mercy of decisions being made by others.

It fits your view because Texas looks down on A&M the same way you do Tech and Baylor.

So you are saying Tech and Baylor could have struck their own conference deal and were not having their fate decided by what UT decided to do?

I haven't said we could strike our own deal at all. What I'm saying, is you trash Tech and Baylor in much the same way Texas trashes their little brother in College Station. Honestly, it gets old especially coming from you and your status with Texas A&M University.

Little brother is soon gonna have over 30,000 more seats in College Station than they will in Austin. Compliments of the SEC.

The only issue I have with the 4 x 18 (better even than 4 x 16) solution is that you clearly going to be handing out some golden tickets. The fight for those 8 spots could be just as contentious as trying to demote some schools under the 4 x 16 model.

Of course what I think would be an amazing spectacle and completely Machiavellian is if you auctioned off the last 6 slots to the highest bidder.

(08-05-2013 03:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The only issue I have with the 4 x 18 (better even than 4 x 16) solution is that you clearly going to be handing out some golden tickets. The fight for those 8 spots could be just as contentious as trying to demote some schools under the 4 x 16 model.

Of course what I think would be an amazing spectacle and completely Machiavellian is if you auctioned off the last 6 slots to the highest bidder.

That's funny, cruel, and intriguing at the same time. That's quite an accomplishment for a post!

(08-05-2013 03:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The only issue I have with the 4 x 18 (better even than 4 x 16) solution is that you clearly going to be handing out some golden tickets. The fight for those 8 spots could be just as contentious as trying to demote some schools under the 4 x 16 model.

Of course what I think would be an amazing spectacle and completely Machiavellian is if you auctioned off the last 6 slots to the highest bidder.

I thought all of this was based upon the highest bidders?

In all seriousness though, 4x16 is in reference to Major Conferences. That doesn't mean we couldn't end up seeing one or maybe two mid major conferences in Division 4. That could end up with a number of schools such as 20.

(08-05-2013 03:07 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Little brother is soon gonna have over 30,000 more seats in College Station than they will in Austin. Compliments of the SEC.

30,000????? Are you sure????

http://kylefield.com/faq

Quote:What is the seating capacity going to be?

Seating capacity is expected to be 102,500 for the 2015 season.

http://www.texassports.com/sports/2013/7...spx?id=205

Quote:In 2009, south end zone seating was upgraded and expanded, increasing the stadium's capacity to 100,119, making it the sixth-largest collegiate stadium in the country and the largest in the southwest.

According to rumor, Texas is planning on enclosing the south end of dkr stadium.

(08-05-2013 09:01 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 03:07 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Little brother is soon gonna have over 30,000 more seats in College Station than they will in Austin. Compliments of the SEC.

30,000????? Are you sure????

http://kylefield.com/faq

Quote:What is the seating capacity going to be?

Seating capacity is expected to be 102,500 for the 2015 season.

http://www.texassports.com/sports/2013/7...spx?id=205

Quote:In 2009, south end zone seating was upgraded and expanded, increasing the stadium's capacity to 100,119, making it the sixth-largest collegiate stadium in the country and the largest in the southwest.

According to rumor, Texas is planning on enclosing the south end of dkr stadium.

One of the other threads, regarding three straight years of falling UT season tix holders, said that the Horns are downsizing their stadium with the upgrades, to seat 70,000. I do find that a bit odd. Maybe someone in Austin can comment on this... The Aggies are adding for sure.

We are expanding because of need.

UT is (supposedly) expanding out of the desire to have their number be bigger than our number.

Maybe they should worry about trying to sell out their season tickets before soothing their peen envy of A&M.

Wont be easy though, they are struggling to sell tickets to this year's schedule so I have no idea how they will convince their fans THIS is worth it:

2014

North Texas
BYU
Baylor
TCU
Iowa State
WVU

(08-06-2013 08:06 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  We are expanding because of need.

UT is (supposedly) expanding out of the desire to have their number be bigger than our number.

Maybe they should worry about trying to sell out their season tickets before soothing their peen envy of A&M.

Wont be easy though, they are struggling to sell tickets to this year's schedule so I have no idea how they will convince their fans THIS is worth it:

2014

North Texas
BYU
Baylor
TCU
Iowa State
WVU

As soon as Texas hires a big name coach, everybody will be back on board.

(08-06-2013 08:06 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  We are expanding because of need.

UT is (supposedly) expanding out of the desire to have their number be bigger than our number.

Maybe they should worry about trying to sell out their season tickets before soothing their peen envy of A&M.

Wont be easy though, they are struggling to sell tickets to this year's schedule so I have no idea how they will convince their fans THIS is worth it:

2014

North Texas
BYU
Baylor
TCU
Iowa State
WVU

I think it is a very real point that A&M's success mixed with all that the SEC is doing right now is a threat to Texas from the Longhorn perspective. I do think that will spur them into action sooner rather than later.

Another thing that may spur them to action is all this talk of trying to finalize an ACCN. The ACC is the only conference Texas could go to and maintain their LHN. None of us really know where the talks are in regards to the ACCN. Texas may or may not know. It is quite possible though that the clock is ticking on that option.

(08-06-2013 10:19 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-06-2013 08:06 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  We are expanding because of need.

UT is (supposedly) expanding out of the desire to have their number be bigger than our number.

Maybe they should worry about trying to sell out their season tickets before soothing their peen envy of A&M.

Wont be easy though, they are struggling to sell tickets to this year's schedule so I have no idea how they will convince their fans THIS is worth it:

2014

North Texas
BYU
Baylor
TCU
Iowa State
WVU

I think it is a very real point that A&M's success mixed with all that the SEC is doing right now is a threat to Texas from the Longhorn perspective. I do think that will spur them into action sooner rather than later.

Another thing that may spur them to action is all this talk of trying to finalize an ACCN. The ACC is the only conference Texas could go to and maintain their LHN. None of us really know where the talks are in regards to the ACCN. Texas may or may not know. It is quite possible though that the clock is ticking on that option.

A successful A&M combined with what is perceived to be a lousy schedule is definitely hurting the Longhorn faithful. But leaving the B12 might not be a realistic option at the juncture. If that's the case, then Texas will need to reevaluate their OOC scheduling; to include dropping cupcake match-ups for more intriguing inter-sectional games like ND-UT.