(09-21-2013 08:26 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 08:03 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 07:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 07:41 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 07:39 PM)john01992 Wrote:  sorry but its true

No. It's your opinion, which doesn't make it true...

if you say the p12 lost out because they didnt get ou or texas then by that standard the b10, sec, & acc all lost out as well

you cant blame a conference for opting out of a high risk-high reward type move. texas is a great school, but it also has a lot of issues associated with being a conferencemate with them.

Had the P12 accepted Oklahoma, they most likely would have been able to get Texas as well, since the B12 would have most likely folded the tent after that. The P12 missed the boat, and it may never sail again...

Dodds admitted in a subsequent interview that the B12 would have died without OU. Moreover, there were only two marquee schools that PAC 12 had a chance at getting: TX and OU—period. When one of the two comes knocking on your door, you let him and his little brother in because your neighbor (the MWC) doesn’t have the assets that your two guess have and could bring (TX and TT). Moreover, as bitcruncher has pointed out to you, the PAC 12 would have likely gotten TX and TT because it was the only conference willing to accept both schools. Regarding the PAC taking a religious school like Baylor, please keep in mind that the PAC 12 was willing to lower its high academic standards (which is shocking) to accept OU, OSU, and TT if TX and the LHN were included in the deal. Consequently, the PAC 12 would have been willing to break bread with Baylor so that it could make loave$ of bread with TX and the LHN. CU and Utah (which met the PAC 12's high academic standards) only provided the PAC 12 with new markets to showcase an average conference at best. In fact, their pathetic performance in the PAC 12 has weakened the perception of the conference in my opinion. However, adding OU, OSU, and likely getting TX and TT in the process would have made an average PAC 12 better and much richer…..

these are athletic conferences, but ive always felt that it was academics that hold conferences together. the relationship between conferencemates goes a lot deeper than just football.

while the pac would of lowered their standards they already have some weak academic schools with oregon osu & wsu. the cali schools would rather associate over a weak academic school over a religious school on any day of the week.

the p12 historically has always built themselves by elevating other schools rather than finding schools who were already established. A big part of that is because they have to go outside their region to find a quality school. so instead they opt to build from within. recently its been utah, arizona & asu. in the last 30 or so years the only other schools that have been elevated like that were louisville & tcu.

and its worked out very nicely for them as both the arizona schools are typical power schools now. utah is still a project, but over time they will continue to distance themselves from their MWC roots and be more of a power school.

cu was already well established, but they are a california school at heart and over time they will build on their new west coast access.

the pac was a lot more comfortable doing something like that rather than go after texas which was very radical at the time and caused a lot of problems both logistical and the "texas question" of how to deal with the ego's of that school

(09-21-2013 08:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 08:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 08:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  all the smoke coming out of Texas has my full interest.

That's Mack Brown's career going up in smoke. Dodd's career was set ablaze by a burning ember falling from Brown's problems...

Yeah, but it could lead to much more than just those two being replaced.

Perhaps. But Texas becoming successful again will quiet down all that unrest, as well as Texas' fan's grumbling about conference affiliations...

(09-21-2013 08:39 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 08:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i just dont get how you can blame a conference for opting not to totally sell out to texas.

i mean you had issues with baylor, the LHN, unequal revenue sharing which came along with adding texas.....

and then theres the whole "what to do with them once they are in the conference" question

im sorry but the p12 made the right call here.

You're wrong. The P12 had a chance to get one of the NCAA's marquee football programs, and passed on it. That's a major mistake they may never get another chance at...

It was a stupid move, and falling back on academics as the reason they passed is just an excuse to save face...

The ACC had a similar decision when they accepted FSU, and they made the right choice. FSU's academic status has improved since joining too...

theres a big difference though. whats the point of adding a school with the potential that it could wreck the conference?

this is why i cant stand b12 fans. they think its all about football and are incapable of of looking 10 years into the future.

AFTER the p12 said no......
1. it was shown how texas decieved the b12 by vastly understating their plans with the LHN
2. aggie/mizz left
3. the ncaa/b12 came down hard on the LHN
4. the LHN proved to be a catsrrophic failure
5. texas tech had a hissy fit over being forced on the LHN

i think the p12 made the right call by steering clear of all that

(09-21-2013 09:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 08:39 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 08:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i just dont get how you can blame a conference for opting not to totally sell out to texas.

i mean you had issues with baylor, the LHN, unequal revenue sharing which came along with adding texas.....

and then theres the whole "what to do with them once they are in the conference" question

im sorry but the p12 made the right call here.

You're wrong. The P12 had a chance to get one of the NCAA's marquee football programs, and passed on it. That's a major mistake they may never get another chance at...

It was a stupid move, and falling back on academics as the reason they passed is just an excuse to save face...

The ACC had a similar decision when they accepted FSU, and they made the right choice. FSU's academic status has improved since joining too...

theres a big difference though. whats the point of adding a school with the potential that it could wreck the conference?

We were discussing Oklahoma, not Texas. Make sure you remember what the conversation is about next time...

That's what I hate about know-it-alls. They think they know everything, yet continually forget what the hell the discussion is about...

(09-21-2013 09:07 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 09:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 08:39 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 08:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i just dont get how you can blame a conference for opting not to totally sell out to texas.

i mean you had issues with baylor, the LHN, unequal revenue sharing which came along with adding texas.....

and then theres the whole "what to do with them once they are in the conference" question

im sorry but the p12 made the right call here.

You're wrong. The P12 had a chance to get one of the NCAA's marquee football programs, and passed on it. That's a major mistake they may never get another chance at...

It was a stupid move, and falling back on academics as the reason they passed is just an excuse to save face...

The ACC had a similar decision when they accepted FSU, and they made the right choice. FSU's academic status has improved since joining too...

theres a big difference though. whats the point of adding a school with the potential that it could wreck the conference?

We were discussing Oklahoma, not Texas. Make sure you remember what the conversation is about next time...

That's what I hate about know-it-alls. They think they know everything, yet continually forget what the hell the discussion is about...

same thing though. ou doesnt have the ego associated with texas, but in terms of the conference's image and logistics.....they had their problems as well

how do you deal with ou & osu in a p14?

The same way they dealt with Arizona and Arizona St....

(09-21-2013 08:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 08:26 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 08:03 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 07:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 07:41 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  No. It's your opinion, which doesn't make it true...

if you say the p12 lost out because they didnt get ou or texas then by that standard the b10, sec, & acc all lost out as well

you cant blame a conference for opting out of a high risk-high reward type move. texas is a great school, but it also has a lot of issues associated with being a conferencemate with them.

Had the P12 accepted Oklahoma, they most likely would have been able to get Texas as well, since the B12 would have most likely folded the tent after that. The P12 missed the boat, and it may never sail again...

Dodds admitted in a subsequent interview that the B12 would have died without OU. Moreover, there were only two marquee schools that PAC 12 had a chance at getting: TX and OU—period. When one of the two comes knocking on your door, you let him and his little brother in because your neighbor (the MWC) doesn’t have the assets that your two guess have and could bring (TX and TT). Moreover, as bitcruncher has pointed out to you, the PAC 12 would have likely gotten TX and TT because it was the only conference willing to accept both schools. Regarding the PAC taking a religious school like Baylor, please keep in mind that the PAC 12 was willing to lower its high academic standards (which is shocking) to accept OU, OSU, and TT if TX and the LHN were included in the deal. Consequently, the PAC 12 would have been willing to break bread with Baylor so that it could make loave$ of bread with TX and the LHN. CU and Utah (which met the PAC 12's high academic standards) only provided the PAC 12 with new markets to showcase an average conference at best. In fact, their pathetic performance in the PAC 12 has weakened the perception of the conference in my opinion. However, adding OU, OSU, and likely getting TX and TT in the process would have made an average PAC 12 better and much richer…..

My comments in bold:

these are athletic conferences, but ive always felt that it was academics that hold conferences together. the relationship between conferencemates goes a lot deeper than just football.

If it were only about athletics with the PAC 12, OU and OSU would be in the conference.

while the pac would of lowered their standards they already have some weak academic schools with oregon osu & wsu. the cali schools would rather associate over a weak academic school over a religious school on any day of the week.

TX makes more money than any school in the nation (according to Dodds and the PAC 12 knows this). If TX was willing to give up control of the LHN in exchange for Baylor being in the PAC 12, Baylor is probably in. However, all we can do is speculate.....

the p12 historically has always built themselves by elevating other schools rather than finding schools who were already established. A big part of that is because they have to go outside their region to find a quality school. so instead they opt to build from within. recently its been utah, arizona & asu. in the last 30 or so years the only other schools that have been elevated like that were louisville & tcu.

and its worked out very nicely for them as both the arizona schools are typical power schools now. utah is still a project, but over time they will continue to distance themselves from their MWC roots and be more of a power school.

Utah was a backup selection when Scotts' first attempt to get TX, aTm, OU, etc... failed and he ended up with only CU.

cu was already well established, but they are a california school at heart and over time they will build on their new west coast access.

CU will always be just another market and never close to being marquee in the PAC 12 (which OU is and was foolishly turned down).

the pac was a lot more comfortable doing something like that rather than go after texas which was very radical at the time and caused a lot of problems both logistical and the "texas question" of how to deal with the ego's of that school

The fact you keep overlooking is that the PAC was willing to lower its academic standards to get into the Texas market on two different occasions. Moreover, it was so determined to get into that market with TX and the LHN that it made the worst realignment mistake ever by a conference when it closed the door on marquee OU (when it could have possibly gotten TX as well).

(09-21-2013 09:19 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The same way they dealt with Arizona and Arizona St....

asu & zona fit in so well because
1. geography, they are a lot closer to the p12 schools (like usc & ucla) than ou/osu. plus they are in the same timezone (remember that argument you used earlier)

2. they dont have nearby power schools from other conferences. asu & zona were in their own little world when you consider that new mexico utah & nevada dont have a power school

with a p14

1. the one sticking point within the p12 is that every school wants to play as many cali schools as possible. at 12 teams they can only play 3, but every school gets equal access. with 14 teams you start messing around with that and have teams playing only 2 cali schools in some years while others get 3.

2. the p12 is a very old conference and traditionally a smaller conference. this means that the bonds between each schools is much deeper than other conferences because they have down true round robin for the longest amount of time. so when you go to 14 teams with divisions you start to kill a lot of these deep bonds between schools.

3. the p12 is a unique conf. because every single schools has a major rivalry with another in-conference school. you just dont see that with other conferences. so when you do set up divisions the biggest question is which rivalry gets split between divisions

4. the other question is how to set up divisions. the cali schools will insist on being in the same division. meanwhile all the schools will fight tooth and nail to not get stuck with ou/osu. you have a situation where 3 schools will win big while the other 5 will lose big.

(09-21-2013 09:26 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 08:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 08:26 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 08:03 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 07:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  if you say the p12 lost out because they didnt get ou or texas then by that standard the b10, sec, & acc all lost out as well

you cant blame a conference for opting out of a high risk-high reward type move. texas is a great school, but it also has a lot of issues associated with being a conferencemate with them.

Had the P12 accepted Oklahoma, they most likely would have been able to get Texas as well, since the B12 would have most likely folded the tent after that. The P12 missed the boat, and it may never sail again...

Dodds admitted in a subsequent interview that the B12 would have died without OU. Moreover, there were only two marquee schools that PAC 12 had a chance at getting: TX and OU—period. When one of the two comes knocking on your door, you let him and his little brother in because your neighbor (the MWC) doesn’t have the assets that your two guess have and could bring (TX and TT). Moreover, as bitcruncher has pointed out to you, the PAC 12 would have likely gotten TX and TT because it was the only conference willing to accept both schools. Regarding the PAC taking a religious school like Baylor, please keep in mind that the PAC 12 was willing to lower its high academic standards (which is shocking) to accept OU, OSU, and TT if TX and the LHN were included in the deal. Consequently, the PAC 12 would have been willing to break bread with Baylor so that it could make loave$ of bread with TX and the LHN. CU and Utah (which met the PAC 12's high academic standards) only provided the PAC 12 with new markets to showcase an average conference at best. In fact, their pathetic performance in the PAC 12 has weakened the perception of the conference in my opinion. However, adding OU, OSU, and likely getting TX and TT in the process would have made an average PAC 12 better and much richer…..

My comments in bold:

these are athletic conferences, but ive always felt that it was academics that hold conferences together. the relationship between conferencemates goes a lot deeper than just football.

If it were only about athletics with the PAC 12, OU and OSU would be in the conference.

while the pac would of lowered their standards they already have some weak academic schools with oregon osu & wsu. the cali schools would rather associate over a weak academic school over a religious school on any day of the week.

TX makes more money than any school in the nation (according to Dodds and the PAC 12 knows this). If TX was willing to give up control of the LHN in exchange for Baylor being in the PAC 12, Baylor is probably in. However, all we can do is speculate.....

the p12 historically has always built themselves by elevating other schools rather than finding schools who were already established. A big part of that is because they have to go outside their region to find a quality school. so instead they opt to build from within. recently its been utah, arizona & asu. in the last 30 or so years the only other schools that have been elevated like that were louisville & tcu.

and its worked out very nicely for them as both the arizona schools are typical power schools now. utah is still a project, but over time they will continue to distance themselves from their MWC roots and be more of a power school.

Utah was a backup selection when Scotts' first attempt to get TX, aTm, OU, etc... failed and he ended up with only CU.

cu was already well established, but they are a california school at heart and over time they will build on their new west coast access.

CU will always be just another market and never close to being marquee in the PAC 12 (which OU is and was foolishly turned down).

the pac was a lot more comfortable doing something like that rather than go after texas which was very radical at the time and caused a lot of problems both logistical and the "texas question" of how to deal with the ego's of that school

The fact you keep overlooking is that the PAC was willing to lower its academic standards to get into the Texas market on two different occasions. Moreover, it was so determined to get into that market with TX and the LHN that it made the worst realignment mistake ever by a conference when it closed the door on marquee OU (when it could have possibly gotten TX as well).

you keep overlooking the fact that the p12 already has bad academic schools. it was never about lower academic standards it was about ending the "no-religion" roadblock.

at the time of the CU move

football #19 all time wins
athletics 22 national championships
academics #31 ARWU world ranking
the only power school in colorado, one of the fastest growing states and one of the biggest cities in its time zone

the fact is that CU is indeed a marquee p12 school that is very attractive. theres a reason why the p12 has wanted them since the early 90s

sure there football is down right now, but if you judge a move by just football...you will get burned badly every time

(09-21-2013 09:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you keep overlooking the fact that the p12 already has bad academic schools. it was never about lower academic standards it was about ending the "no-religion" roadblock.

The PAC 12 sees itself as a better academic conference than the B12 and turning away OU and OSU is proof of that. Moreover, turning them away had nothing to do with religion—it was about academics when TX and the LHN weren’t part of the deal. When I reference the PAC 12 academic standards, I’m referring to how it perceives itself and won’t take schools unless a certain academic profile is met (I sure other criteria is considered as well). Why else do you think the PAC 12 slammed the door in the face of one of only two marquees schools it could get?

(09-21-2013 10:19 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 09:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you keep overlooking the fact that the p12 already has bad academic schools. it was never about lower academic standards it was about ending the "no-religion" roadblock.

The PAC 12 sees itself as a better academic conference than the B12 and turning away OU and OSU is proof of that. Moreover, turning them away had nothing to with religion—it was about academics when TX and the LHN weren’t part of the deal. When I reference the PAC 12 academic standards, I’m referring to how it perceives itself and won’t take schools unless a certain academic profile is met (I sure other criteria is considered as well). Why else do you think the PAC 12 slammed the door in the face of one of only two marquees schools it could get?

yes and thats all true. however they would of slammed the door shut on texas as well if texas insisted they had to bring baylor along. the p12 doesnt mind bring in bad academic schools to lure in an elite academic school in the process, however religion is like a 3rd rail for the p12.....you just dont touch it

(09-21-2013 10:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 10:19 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 09:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you keep overlooking the fact that the p12 already has bad academic schools. it was never about lower academic standards it was about ending the "no-religion" roadblock.

The PAC 12 sees itself as a better academic conference than the B12 and turning away OU and OSU is proof of that. Moreover, turning them away had nothing to with religion—it was about academics when TX and the LHN weren’t part of the deal. When I reference the PAC 12 academic standards, I’m referring to how it perceives itself and won’t take schools unless a certain academic profile is met (I sure other criteria is considered as well). Why else do you think the PAC 12 slammed the door in the face of one of only two marquees schools it could get?

yes and thats all true. however they would of slammed the door shut on texas as well if texas insisted they had to bring baylor along. the p12 doesnt mind bring in bad academic schools to lure in an elite academic school in the process, however religion is like a 3rd rail for the p12.....you just dont touch it

I think you’ve either contradicted yourself or have gotten off topic, which is about the PAC 12 turning down OU and OSU….

(09-21-2013 10:30 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 10:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 10:19 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 09:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you keep overlooking the fact that the p12 already has bad academic schools. it was never about lower academic standards it was about ending the "no-religion" roadblock.

The PAC 12 sees itself as a better academic conference than the B12 and turning away OU and OSU is proof of that. Moreover, turning them away had nothing to with religion—it was about academics when TX and the LHN weren’t part of the deal. When I reference the PAC 12 academic standards, I’m referring to how it perceives itself and won’t take schools unless a certain academic profile is met (I sure other criteria is considered as well). Why else do you think the PAC 12 slammed the door in the face of one of only two marquees schools it could get?

yes and thats all true. however they would of slammed the door shut on texas as well if texas insisted they had to bring baylor along. the p12 doesnt mind bring in bad academic schools to lure in an elite academic school in the process, however religion is like a 3rd rail for the p12.....you just dont touch it

I think you’ve either contradicted yourself or have gotten off topic, which is about the PAC 12 turning down OU and OSU….

so far on this thread the following scenarios have been brought up......
-a pac 16
-a pac 16 with baylor
-a pac 14

its kinda hard to keep up with which hypothetical we are talking about

This thread is going nowhere fast...