(11-24-2013 05:24 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 04:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If you are going to talk about 100 year decisions, and the disdain that Texas alums have for their current schedule, then maybe a little mental picture answers that question, or at least raises some issues about such a discussion.

**************************************************************************
Let's say that Texas and Kansas go the Big 10. They are both AAU.

Texas would be playing either in an 8 team division or a 4 team pod so let's look at both:

West Division: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Texas, and Wisconsin.

West Pod: Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas
******************************************************


Now let's say that Texas went to the PAC.

South Division: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah.

Southeast Pod: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

*******************************************************

Let's look at the SEC:

West Division: Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

West Pod: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

*******************************************************
Unless the ACC moved to 20 full members, or sacrificed two teams to either the SEC or Big 10 to make room for a 6 team division there is no way that Texas can move to the ACC without rivals and regional competition. So for now let's consider that the three scenarios above are the ones that Texas would face. Which one do you think if a move had to be made that the Horns would take.

I would rate the preferred conferences as 1. SEC for rivals and travel. 2. PAC for a core of rivals and academics. 3. Big 10 for academics. Kansas is hardly a rival for the Horns, Oklahoma is not AAU and not close enough in other Big 10 metrics to be really viable as a candidate, and Nebraska and Texas don't have much positive history together. But for the sake of argument if you replaced Kansas with Oklahoma in this scenario would the Texas alums really be happy with this schedule, or the university with the travel? If Texas makes this move A&M will eventually become the #1 program in the state.

But that's just my opinion. What do you guys think?

Well as I have said to you before, I do not think Texas will ever follow A&M anywhere, so the SEC is out for Texas. OU has said they want no part of the SEC. Also,I do not think OU will ever seperate from OSU. They are governed by one and the same Board.

OU and OSU can be separated. The situation for the Kansas's and the Oklahoma's of the world is that they cannot move if it causes a situation for little brother in which they are left in a worse position. If both schools can move to a different conference from each other while still being in equivalent positions then there is no reason for that board to stop the movement.

(11-24-2013 05:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 05:24 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 04:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If you are going to talk about 100 year decisions, and the disdain that Texas alums have for their current schedule, then maybe a little mental picture answers that question, or at least raises some issues about such a discussion.

**************************************************************************
Let's say that Texas and Kansas go the Big 10. They are both AAU.

Texas would be playing either in an 8 team division or a 4 team pod so let's look at both:

West Division: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Texas, and Wisconsin.

West Pod: Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas
******************************************************


Now let's say that Texas went to the PAC.

South Division: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah.

Southeast Pod: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

*******************************************************

Let's look at the SEC:

West Division: Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

West Pod: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

*******************************************************
Unless the ACC moved to 20 full members, or sacrificed two teams to either the SEC or Big 10 to make room for a 6 team division there is no way that Texas can move to the ACC without rivals and regional competition. So for now let's consider that the three scenarios above are the ones that Texas would face. Which one do you think if a move had to be made that the Horns would take.

I would rate the preferred conferences as 1. SEC for rivals and travel. 2. PAC for a core of rivals and academics. 3. Big 10 for academics. Kansas is hardly a rival for the Horns, Oklahoma is not AAU and not close enough in other Big 10 metrics to be really viable as a candidate, and Nebraska and Texas don't have much positive history together. But for the sake of argument if you replaced Kansas with Oklahoma in this scenario would the Texas alums really be happy with this schedule, or the university with the travel? If Texas makes this move A&M will eventually become the #1 program in the state.

But that's just my opinion. What do you guys think?

Well as I have said to you before, I do not think Texas will ever follow A&M anywhere, so the SEC is out for Texas. OU has said they want no part of the SEC. Also,I do not think OU will ever seperate from OSU. They are governed by one and the same Board.

Look, I was just listening to everyone talk about who might go where, and I thought it might help them to visualize what they were suggesting. Boren and Dodds, and possibly the Texas president will likely be gone before any of this happens. Mack Brown will likely be retired and who knows if Stoops will even be around when it goes down, if it goes down, so I wouldn't put so much faith in what has already been said either.

In all likelihood all of this kind of stuff is going to get brokered out in a new upper division and won't involve the intrigue of Delany, Slive, Swafford, Scott, and Bowlsby. And that's if it gets done at all.

I just wanted people to have to look at what Texas in the Big 10 would actually look like, or Texas in the PAC, or Texas in the SEC. Truthfully I could see the PAC, or with the right terms and number of travel companions even the ACC. What I don't see is a Texas move to the Big 10. Such a move would be cultural suicide and would only benefit A&M.

Well you asked what we thought and I simply told you what I thought

I doubt Mack Brown and Bob Stoops had much to say about this. I know at OU the decisions on what has happened in the past came from the top and I would think the same applies at Texas and those don't usually change.

From my perspective I do not see a new upper division being formed. It would probably be best for all concerned, but they seem to have backed away from that and now are talking about some sort of governace within the current framework.

(11-24-2013 06:22 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 05:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 05:24 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 04:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If you are going to talk about 100 year decisions, and the disdain that Texas alums have for their current schedule, then maybe a little mental picture answers that question, or at least raises some issues about such a discussion.

**************************************************************************
Let's say that Texas and Kansas go the Big 10. They are both AAU.

Texas would be playing either in an 8 team division or a 4 team pod so let's look at both:

West Division: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Texas, and Wisconsin.

West Pod: Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas
******************************************************


Now let's say that Texas went to the PAC.

South Division: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah.

Southeast Pod: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

*******************************************************

Let's look at the SEC:

West Division: Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

West Pod: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

*******************************************************
Unless the ACC moved to 20 full members, or sacrificed two teams to either the SEC or Big 10 to make room for a 6 team division there is no way that Texas can move to the ACC without rivals and regional competition. So for now let's consider that the three scenarios above are the ones that Texas would face. Which one do you think if a move had to be made that the Horns would take.

I would rate the preferred conferences as 1. SEC for rivals and travel. 2. PAC for a core of rivals and academics. 3. Big 10 for academics. Kansas is hardly a rival for the Horns, Oklahoma is not AAU and not close enough in other Big 10 metrics to be really viable as a candidate, and Nebraska and Texas don't have much positive history together. But for the sake of argument if you replaced Kansas with Oklahoma in this scenario would the Texas alums really be happy with this schedule, or the university with the travel? If Texas makes this move A&M will eventually become the #1 program in the state.

But that's just my opinion. What do you guys think?

Well as I have said to you before, I do not think Texas will ever follow A&M anywhere, so the SEC is out for Texas. OU has said they want no part of the SEC. Also,I do not think OU will ever seperate from OSU. They are governed by one and the same Board.

Look, I was just listening to everyone talk about who might go where, and I thought it might help them to visualize what they were suggesting. Boren and Dodds, and possibly the Texas president will likely be gone before any of this happens. Mack Brown will likely be retired and who knows if Stoops will even be around when it goes down, if it goes down, so I wouldn't put so much faith in what has already been said either.

In all likelihood all of this kind of stuff is going to get brokered out in a new upper division and won't involve the intrigue of Delany, Slive, Swafford, Scott, and Bowlsby. And that's if it gets done at all.

I just wanted people to have to look at what Texas in the Big 10 would actually look like, or Texas in the PAC, or Texas in the SEC. Truthfully I could see the PAC, or with the right terms and number of travel companions even the ACC. What I don't see is a Texas move to the Big 10. Such a move would be cultural suicide and would only benefit A&M.

Well you asked what we thought and I simply told you what I thought

I doubt Mack Brown and Bob Stoops had much to say about this. I know at OU the decisions on what has happened in the past came from the top and I would think the same applies at Texas and those don't usually change.

From my perspective I do not see a new upper division being formed. It would probably be best for all concerned, but they seem to have backed away from that and now are talking about some sort of governace within the current framework.

That's not what is being said over on Shaggy.

(11-24-2013 04:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If you are going to talk about 100 year decisions, and the disdain that Texas alums have for their current schedule, then maybe a little mental picture answers that question, or at least raises some issues about such a discussion.

**************************************************************************
Let's say that Texas and Kansas go the Big 10. They are both AAU.

Texas would be playing either in an 8 team division or a 4 team pod so let's look at both:

West Division: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Texas, and Wisconsin.

West Pod: Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas
******************************************************


Now let's say that Texas went to the PAC.

South Division: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah.

Southeast Pod: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

*******************************************************

Let's look at the SEC:

West Division: Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

West Pod: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

*******************************************************
Unless the ACC moved to 20 full members, or sacrificed two teams to either the SEC or Big 10 to make room for a 6 team division there is no way that Texas can move to the ACC without rivals and regional competition. So for now let's consider that the three scenarios above are the ones that Texas would face. Which one do you think if a move had to be made that the Horns would take.

I would rate the preferred conferences as 1. SEC for rivals and travel. 2. PAC for a core of rivals and academics. 3. Big 10 for academics. Kansas is hardly a rival for the Horns, Oklahoma is not AAU and not close enough in other Big 10 metrics to be really viable as a candidate, and Nebraska and Texas don't have much positive history together. But for the sake of argument if you replaced Kansas with Oklahoma in this scenario would the Texas alums really be happy with this schedule, or the university with the travel? If Texas makes this move A&M will eventually become the #1 program in the state.

But that's just my opinion. What do you guys think?

You hit the nail on the head. The one thing I would point out though is that there is little chance the B1G would refuse to take OU. They would in a heartbeat if they could have Kansas and Texas, and likely without Texas.

(11-24-2013 06:27 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 04:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If you are going to talk about 100 year decisions, and the disdain that Texas alums have for their current schedule, then maybe a little mental picture answers that question, or at least raises some issues about such a discussion.

**************************************************************************
Let's say that Texas and Kansas go the Big 10. They are both AAU.

Texas would be playing either in an 8 team division or a 4 team pod so let's look at both:

West Division: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Texas, and Wisconsin.

West Pod: Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas
******************************************************


Now let's say that Texas went to the PAC.

South Division: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah.

Southeast Pod: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

*******************************************************

Let's look at the SEC:

West Division: Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

West Pod: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

*******************************************************
Unless the ACC moved to 20 full members, or sacrificed two teams to either the SEC or Big 10 to make room for a 6 team division there is no way that Texas can move to the ACC without rivals and regional competition. So for now let's consider that the three scenarios above are the ones that Texas would face. Which one do you think if a move had to be made that the Horns would take.

I would rate the preferred conferences as 1. SEC for rivals and travel. 2. PAC for a core of rivals and academics. 3. Big 10 for academics. Kansas is hardly a rival for the Horns, Oklahoma is not AAU and not close enough in other Big 10 metrics to be really viable as a candidate, and Nebraska and Texas don't have much positive history together. But for the sake of argument if you replaced Kansas with Oklahoma in this scenario would the Texas alums really be happy with this schedule, or the university with the travel? If Texas makes this move A&M will eventually become the #1 program in the state.

But that's just my opinion. What do you guys think?

You hit the nail on the head. The one thing I would point out though is that there is little chance the B1G would refuse to take OU. They would in a heartbeat if they could have Kansas and Texas, and likely without Texas.

I could see that, I just don't think Texas will go for it. And if the Horns don't I don't see Oklahoma doing it either, especially if Texas and the Cowboys went elsewhere together.

I agree with 90% of what JR, and others, have said.

Still, I think anybody would take OU. The whole academic metric argument really only holds water if a school doesn't have any other outstanding factor going for it.

Any of your 'elite' programs, OU being one of them, would be welcome anywhere.

(11-24-2013 06:32 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I agree with 90% of what JR, and others, have said.

Still, I think anybody would take OU. The whole academic metric argument really only holds water if a school doesn't have any other outstanding factor going for it.

Any of your 'elite' programs, OU being one of them, would be welcome anywhere.

I understand what you are saying, but there has been consternation about even Nebraska's addition (albeit after the fact) as it pertains to the Huskers being the only non-AAU member of the Big 10. Oklahoma's credentials are similar to those of the Huskers, and they aren't losing AAU status, they are hoping one day to attain it, but based upon what I've read they are not that close. Like Nebraska they will bring a past football brand that is fading and without Texas recruiting connections would only further deteriorate, just like Nebraska has. Now if no other options on the East coast are available I agree they could take Oklahoma. But, I don't think the Big 10 pulls the trigger on that until they have exhausted Eastern targets.

(11-24-2013 06:20 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 05:24 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 04:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If you are going to talk about 100 year decisions, and the disdain that Texas alums have for their current schedule, then maybe a little mental picture answers that question, or at least raises some issues about such a discussion.

**************************************************************************
Let's say that Texas and Kansas go the Big 10. They are both AAU.

Texas would be playing either in an 8 team division or a 4 team pod so let's look at both:

West Division: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Texas, and Wisconsin.

West Pod: Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas
******************************************************


Now let's say that Texas went to the PAC.

South Division: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah.

Southeast Pod: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

*******************************************************

Let's look at the SEC:

West Division: Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

West Pod: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

*******************************************************
Unless the ACC moved to 20 full members, or sacrificed two teams to either the SEC or Big 10 to make room for a 6 team division there is no way that Texas can move to the ACC without rivals and regional competition. So for now let's consider that the three scenarios above are the ones that Texas would face. Which one do you think if a move had to be made that the Horns would take.

I would rate the preferred conferences as 1. SEC for rivals and travel. 2. PAC for a core of rivals and academics. 3. Big 10 for academics. Kansas is hardly a rival for the Horns, Oklahoma is not AAU and not close enough in other Big 10 metrics to be really viable as a candidate, and Nebraska and Texas don't have much positive history together. But for the sake of argument if you replaced Kansas with Oklahoma in this scenario would the Texas alums really be happy with this schedule, or the university with the travel? If Texas makes this move A&M will eventually become the #1 program in the state.

But that's just my opinion. What do you guys think?

Well as I have said to you before, I do not think Texas will ever follow A&M anywhere, so the SEC is out for Texas. OU has said they want no part of the SEC. Also,I do not think OU will ever seperate from OSU. They are governed by one and the same Board.

OU and OSU can be separated. The situation for the Kansas's and the Oklahoma's of the world is that they cannot move if it causes a situation for little brother in which they are left in a worse position. If both schools can move to a different conference from each other while still being in equivalent positions then there is no reason for that board to stop the movement.

Don't know where you are getting your info on the "situation" but I do not believe that is accurate for the Oklahoma schools. Now your statement that being in equivalent conferences there is no reason for the Board to stop the movement......well maybe, maybe not. There are a lot of non-athletic relationships involved between the two schools and for now the two schools do not want to split. Granted that could change.

(11-24-2013 06:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 06:22 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 05:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 05:24 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 04:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If you are going to talk about 100 year decisions, and the disdain that Texas alums have for their current schedule, then maybe a little mental picture answers that question, or at least raises some issues about such a discussion.

**************************************************************************
Let's say that Texas and Kansas go the Big 10. They are both AAU.

Texas would be playing either in an 8 team division or a 4 team pod so let's look at both:

West Division: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Texas, and Wisconsin.

West Pod: Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas
******************************************************


Now let's say that Texas went to the PAC.

South Division: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah.

Southeast Pod: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

*******************************************************

Let's look at the SEC:

West Division: Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

West Pod: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

*******************************************************
Unless the ACC moved to 20 full members, or sacrificed two teams to either the SEC or Big 10 to make room for a 6 team division there is no way that Texas can move to the ACC without rivals and regional competition. So for now let's consider that the three scenarios above are the ones that Texas would face. Which one do you think if a move had to be made that the Horns would take.

I would rate the preferred conferences as 1. SEC for rivals and travel. 2. PAC for a core of rivals and academics. 3. Big 10 for academics. Kansas is hardly a rival for the Horns, Oklahoma is not AAU and not close enough in other Big 10 metrics to be really viable as a candidate, and Nebraska and Texas don't have much positive history together. But for the sake of argument if you replaced Kansas with Oklahoma in this scenario would the Texas alums really be happy with this schedule, or the university with the travel? If Texas makes this move A&M will eventually become the #1 program in the state.

But that's just my opinion. What do you guys think?

Well as I have said to you before, I do not think Texas will ever follow A&M anywhere, so the SEC is out for Texas. OU has said they want no part of the SEC. Also,I do not think OU will ever seperate from OSU. They are governed by one and the same Board.

Look, I was just listening to everyone talk about who might go where, and I thought it might help them to visualize what they were suggesting. Boren and Dodds, and possibly the Texas president will likely be gone before any of this happens. Mack Brown will likely be retired and who knows if Stoops will even be around when it goes down, if it goes down, so I wouldn't put so much faith in what has already been said either.

In all likelihood all of this kind of stuff is going to get brokered out in a new upper division and won't involve the intrigue of Delany, Slive, Swafford, Scott, and Bowlsby. And that's if it gets done at all.

I just wanted people to have to look at what Texas in the Big 10 would actually look like, or Texas in the PAC, or Texas in the SEC. Truthfully I could see the PAC, or with the right terms and number of travel companions even the ACC. What I don't see is a Texas move to the Big 10. Such a move would be cultural suicide and would only benefit A&M.

Well you asked what we thought and I simply told you what I thought

I doubt Mack Brown and Bob Stoops had much to say about this. I know at OU the decisions on what has happened in the past came from the top and I would think the same applies at Texas and those don't usually change.

From my perspective I do not see a new upper division being formed. It would probably be best for all concerned, but they seem to have backed away from that and now are talking about some sort of governace within the current framework.

That's not what is being said over on Shaggy.

So what is Shaggy and what is being said?

(11-24-2013 04:20 PM)UCF_SystemsEng Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 02:54 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It is partly that, but they ARE unhappy with their schedule.

My buddy showed me their 2014 home schedule and said there is no way in hell he is getting season tickets "for that tour of mediocrity" as he put it.

Oh and the probability of UT ever being in the SEC is incredibly low so as to be a non-issue. Simply too many issues they cant overcome...starting with the 3 little brothers who will pitch absolute fits at getting left behind.

UT has a pretty solid home schedule in 2014, your buddy is a complete tool.

-UNT
-BYU
-BU
-ISU
-WVU
-TCU

....yeah I understand why he wasn't willing to shell out thousands of dollars to that and is only planning on going to BYU

(11-24-2013 06:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 06:32 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I agree with 90% of what JR, and others, have said.

Still, I think anybody would take OU. The whole academic metric argument really only holds water if a school doesn't have any other outstanding factor going for it.

Any of your 'elite' programs, OU being one of them, would be welcome anywhere.

I understand what you are saying, but there has been consternation about even Nebraska's addition (albeit after the fact) as it pertains to the Huskers being the only non-AAU member of the Big 10. Oklahoma's credentials are similar to those of the Huskers, and they aren't losing AAU status, they are hoping one day to attain it, but based upon what I've read they are not that close. Like Nebraska they will bring a past football brand that is fading and without Texas recruiting connections would only further deteriorate, just like Nebraska has. Now if no other options on the East coast are available I agree they could take Oklahoma. But, I don't think the Big 10 pulls the trigger on that until they have exhausted Eastern targets.

Well, I'd argue that there are only every maybe five programs that are truly elite.

I also don't necessarily agree that OU is fading.

The PAC already turned OU down and I can see the B1g hesitating on them if they aren't part of a UT deal either

(11-24-2013 06:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 06:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 06:32 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I agree with 90% of what JR, and others, have said.

Still, I think anybody would take OU. The whole academic metric argument really only holds water if a school doesn't have any other outstanding factor going for it.

Any of your 'elite' programs, OU being one of them, would be welcome anywhere.

I understand what you are saying, but there has been consternation about even Nebraska's addition (albeit after the fact) as it pertains to the Huskers being the only non-AAU member of the Big 10. Oklahoma's credentials are similar to those of the Huskers, and they aren't losing AAU status, they are hoping one day to attain it, but based upon what I've read they are not that close. Like Nebraska they will bring a past football brand that is fading and without Texas recruiting connections would only further deteriorate, just like Nebraska has. Now if no other options on the East coast are available I agree they could take Oklahoma. But, I don't think the Big 10 pulls the trigger on that until they have exhausted Eastern targets.

Well, I'd argue that there are only every maybe five programs that are truly elite.

I also don't necessarily agree that OU is fading.

Well do you think Nebraska has faded? They were in the same position as Oklahoma prior to their move. Their name is known but their history is dying out with the Boomers. Their past glory means little to today's generations. I would say that Oklahoma's track wouldn't be much different if they made that move.

(11-24-2013 06:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 04:20 PM)UCF_SystemsEng Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 02:54 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It is partly that, but they ARE unhappy with their schedule.

My buddy showed me their 2014 home schedule and said there is no way in hell he is getting season tickets "for that tour of mediocrity" as he put it.

Oh and the probability of UT ever being in the SEC is incredibly low so as to be a non-issue. Simply too many issues they cant overcome...starting with the 3 little brothers who will pitch absolute fits at getting left behind.

UT has a pretty solid home schedule in 2014, your buddy is a complete tool.

-UNT
-BYU
-BU
-ISU
-WVU
-TCU

....yeah I understand why he wasn't willing to shell out thousands of dollars to that and is only planning on going to BYU

Thousands? Is he buying tickets for a busload? Season tickets does get you the opportunity (not guaranteed-depending on demand) to buy tickets for UCLA in Arlington and Oklahoma in Dallas.

(11-24-2013 06:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 06:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 06:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 06:32 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I agree with 90% of what JR, and others, have said.

Still, I think anybody would take OU. The whole academic metric argument really only holds water if a school doesn't have any other outstanding factor going for it.

Any of your 'elite' programs, OU being one of them, would be welcome anywhere.

I understand what you are saying, but there has been consternation about even Nebraska's addition (albeit after the fact) as it pertains to the Huskers being the only non-AAU member of the Big 10. Oklahoma's credentials are similar to those of the Huskers, and they aren't losing AAU status, they are hoping one day to attain it, but based upon what I've read they are not that close. Like Nebraska they will bring a past football brand that is fading and without Texas recruiting connections would only further deteriorate, just like Nebraska has. Now if no other options on the East coast are available I agree they could take Oklahoma. But, I don't think the Big 10 pulls the trigger on that until they have exhausted Eastern targets.

Well, I'd argue that there are only every maybe five programs that are truly elite.

I also don't necessarily agree that OU is fading.

Well do you think Nebraska has faded? They were in the same position as Oklahoma prior to their move. Their name is known but their history is dying out with the Boomers. Their past glory means little to today's generations. I would say that Oklahoma's track wouldn't be much different if they made that move.

I can certainly see why.

I think most people would agree Nebraska has faded.

In my opinion the whole thing comes down to people's conception of the term elite. In my opinion elite teams are the ones that don't usually fade from prominence or if they do they come back around every decade, essentially, the programs that are the best of all time.

(11-24-2013 06:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 06:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 06:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 06:32 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I agree with 90% of what JR, and others, have said.

Still, I think anybody would take OU. The whole academic metric argument really only holds water if a school doesn't have any other outstanding factor going for it.

Any of your 'elite' programs, OU being one of them, would be welcome anywhere.

I understand what you are saying, but there has been consternation about even Nebraska's addition (albeit after the fact) as it pertains to the Huskers being the only non-AAU member of the Big 10. Oklahoma's credentials are similar to those of the Huskers, and they aren't losing AAU status, they are hoping one day to attain it, but based upon what I've read they are not that close. Like Nebraska they will bring a past football brand that is fading and without Texas recruiting connections would only further deteriorate, just like Nebraska has. Now if no other options on the East coast are available I agree they could take Oklahoma. But, I don't think the Big 10 pulls the trigger on that until they have exhausted Eastern targets.

Well, I'd argue that there are only every maybe five programs that are truly elite.

I also don't necessarily agree that OU is fading.

Well do you think Nebraska has faded? They were in the same position as Oklahoma prior to their move. Their name is known but their history is dying out with the Boomers. Their past glory means little to today's generations. I would say that Oklahoma's track wouldn't be much different if they made that move.

Nebraska's situation then and Oklahoma's now are similar? Hardly.

Norman is a short drive from the most dense recruiting metro area in the entire country. Nebraska is no where near the same. Nebraska relied upon "other practices" during their prime in order to keep up. Oklahoma has a large presence in the DFW metro area. Oklahoma is actually staying ahead of the curve in regard to new facilities for use by the athletic department.

They are no where near the same in this regard and quite frankly I am having a hard time believing that you actually think along these lines JR.

Just say it...the usual mumbo jumbo about how programs go to die in the Big Ten despite the fact that both Penn State and Nebraska were already declining. In fact now that Penn State is free of Paterno, they have a bright future again. As soon as Pelini is gone from Nebraska then they too will be able to go forward with a fresh face.

Yes, Nebraska has a new reality now and yes Oklahoma would have a new reality in the Big Ten but if you are going to try and claim that they would fade from significance then you are not being genuine with that statement because we both know that isn't true.

(11-24-2013 07:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 06:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 06:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 06:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 06:32 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I agree with 90% of what JR, and others, have said.

Still, I think anybody would take OU. The whole academic metric argument really only holds water if a school doesn't have any other outstanding factor going for it.

Any of your 'elite' programs, OU being one of them, would be welcome anywhere.

I understand what you are saying, but there has been consternation about even Nebraska's addition (albeit after the fact) as it pertains to the Huskers being the only non-AAU member of the Big 10. Oklahoma's credentials are similar to those of the Huskers, and they aren't losing AAU status, they are hoping one day to attain it, but based upon what I've read they are not that close. Like Nebraska they will bring a past football brand that is fading and without Texas recruiting connections would only further deteriorate, just like Nebraska has. Now if no other options on the East coast are available I agree they could take Oklahoma. But, I don't think the Big 10 pulls the trigger on that until they have exhausted Eastern targets.

Well, I'd argue that there are only every maybe five programs that are truly elite.

I also don't necessarily agree that OU is fading.

Well do you think Nebraska has faded? They were in the same position as Oklahoma prior to their move. Their name is known but their history is dying out with the Boomers. Their past glory means little to today's generations. I would say that Oklahoma's track wouldn't be much different if they made that move.

I can certainly see why.

I think most people would agree Nebraska has faded.

In my opinion the whole thing comes down to people's conception of the term elite. In my opinion elite teams are the ones that don't usually fade from prominence or if they do they come back around every decade, essentially, the programs that are the best of all time.

All things fade H.O.D.. It is the nature of life. Some decisions bring that on more quickly than others. If you polled people of random generations you would get quite different answers for what they see as the all time top 5 programs, or even all time top 10 programs. Your results wouldn't be as divergent perhaps on a sports board with statistics junkies, but among the average fan at games the answers, I would wager would vary wildly between generations. Viewership is probably the best indicator of fading reputation. Take care. JR

(11-24-2013 03:15 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 02:36 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 02:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 12:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Why on earth would Texas want to leave the Big 12?

Why would you even ask that question?

If Texas was totally happy with that home they wouldn't keep investigating other opportunities. If your'e happy in your marriage you don't keep updating your eHarmony dating profile.

Where since the dust settled has it been shown Texas investigated other opportunities?.

They have investigated every opportunity to leave the Big12 they could over the last few years. Today's Big12 is a lesser conference compared to the one they were looking at leaving twice in the lat few years---so what exactly has changed since that time, other than Colorado, Nebraska, Mizzo, and Texas A&M are gone? I don't know if they have or have not quietly investigated opportunities. My guess is that it's far more likely that they have than that they have not.

How do you know they have investigated every opportunity to leave the Big12, since as I said the dust settled from the last round. Sure they did a couple years ago when realignment was in full swing and so did most of the Big12.

Now you are saying you really don't know, but your guess is they have. That was not what you said in your first post and that is what I took exception to. If you had qualified your first statement as your best guess.....no problem.

Personally I think they are happy in the Big12.

Investigations and conference talks are virtually always done in secret and are not going to be front page news if the parties have anything to do with it. If they were in discussions at this very moment, there likely woudn't be any links. We are all just spouting opinions here--just as you have provided no links to indicate that Texas HASN'T investigated every possibility. FWIW, my opinion is based upon their past behavior (along with the typical useless rumors that make the realignment discussion boards so intriguing).

BTW--I think they are happy in the B-12 in the sense that if nothing better comes along then the Big-12 is ok for now. I mean with the LHN and he B-12 payout, Texas is clearing about 35 million in media earnings---nobody can match that. With that in mind, I think the Big-10 would be only viable spot for Texas to move to. The Big-10 is the only conference with the potential to earn the Longhorns more money than they currently get.

(11-24-2013 04:31 PM)UCF_SystemsEng Wrote:  The American stands ready to welcome UT as our 12th all-sports member.

lol...You know, that's funny, but I wonder what the AAC, with all its big markets might be worth if they added--

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St

North

Oklahoma
Oklahoma St
Cinci
Navy
Tulsa
Temple
UConn
Memphis


South

Texas
Texas Tech
Houston
Tulane
SMU
UCF
USF
ECU

Bet it might get a bid of more than 20 million a year....

I still think it will be a couple years before UT jumps ship to a new conference but when they do I believe it will be to the PAC12. The only other conference that I believe would have a chance at landing them would be the ACC IMO. The B1G just seems like a strange fit to me and the SEC already has to many big fish in that pond to make sense for either party.