(06-17-2014 08:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 07:56 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 07:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 04:08 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 03:19 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  That's actually not that far-fetched. If that happened, I'm curious as to what people think the fallout would be. My bet would be Oklahoma to the SEC along with one of Kansas/WVU.
If SEC takes WVU, the BigXii backfills and expands to 16 with Western schools (BYU, UNM, CSU, Boise, UNLV, SDSU, Fresno).
If the SEC takes Kansas, the BigXii backfills and expands with Eastern Schools (Cinci, UCF, USF, Memphis, ECU, UCONN, Houston).

That actually feels pretty stable with the PAC set at 12+1, the SEC set at 16, the BigXII set at 16, and the B1G/ACC in a stalemate at 14/14+1 waiting for the B1G to poach two schools to resolve to a B1G16/ACC12+ND.

Once Texas goes indy. break up the Big 12 and ALL the conferences however is best to maximize $. 16 in each conference and ND and Texas as indy with 1 G5 school moving up to make the numbers work.

If Texas does this, it will be with the ACC not the PAC. Already been spoken about. Likely Texas would get a 6 game contract in football with the ACC. They would take the one extra game that Notre Dame was offered and turned down in order to probably get the ACC to take two other Texas schools and allow Texas to have protected rivalry games with them. Notre Dame was offered that with Pitt and one other ACC school, I forget which one it was, but they turned it down in order to keep the 5 game contract instead of moving to six games.

It would have been BC.

This would seem to cut against the theory held by some that ND's administrators have a ("wink, wink") side deal with the ACC for eventual full football membership.

What better way to start down the slippery slope of a full eight game schedule than to offer to revive two old annual games for "only" one more ACC game commitment?

That would be a perfect "stealth" move to fool those stubborn, short sighted ND alumni and fans and placate their nostalgia with the renewed annual Pitt and BC games.

Instead, it seems more that ND is very willing to sacrifice its old annual opponents (Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Pitt, BC) in order to secure its independence and hold the line at five ACC games, and no more than five, for as long as one can see the future.

Whew! I sure am glad about that.....I wouldn't want those guys as full members in my conference.

I know, right?

(06-17-2014 08:13 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 07:56 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 07:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 04:08 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Once Texas goes indy. break up the Big 12 and ALL the conferences however is best to maximize $. 16 in each conference and ND and Texas as indy with 1 G5 school moving up to make the numbers work.

If Texas does this, it will be with the ACC not the PAC. Already been spoken about. Likely Texas would get a 6 game contract in football with the ACC. They would take the one extra game that Notre Dame was offered and turned down in order to probably get the ACC to take two other Texas schools and allow Texas to have protected rivalry games with them. Notre Dame was offered that with Pitt and one other ACC school, I forget which one it was, but they turned it down in order to keep the 5 game contract instead of moving to six games.

It would have been BC.

This would seem to cut against the theory held by some that ND's administrators have a ("wink, wink") side deal with the ACC for eventual full football membership.

What better way to start down the slippery slope of a full eight game schedule than to offer to revive two old annual games for "only" one more ACC game commitment?

That would be a perfect "stealth" move to fool those stubborn, short sighted ND alumni and fans and placate their nostalgia with the renewed annual Pitt and BC games.

Instead, it seems more that ND is very willing to sacrifice its old annual opponents (Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Pitt, BC) in order to secure its independence and hold the line at five ACC games, and no more than five, for as long as one can see the future.

Whew! I sure am glad about that.....I wouldn't want those guys as full members in my conference.

I know, right?

It's going to happen one day, TerryD.

(06-17-2014 08:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:13 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 07:56 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 07:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  If Texas does this, it will be with the ACC not the PAC. Already been spoken about. Likely Texas would get a 6 game contract in football with the ACC. They would take the one extra game that Notre Dame was offered and turned down in order to probably get the ACC to take two other Texas schools and allow Texas to have protected rivalry games with them. Notre Dame was offered that with Pitt and one other ACC school, I forget which one it was, but they turned it down in order to keep the 5 game contract instead of moving to six games.

It would have been BC.

This would seem to cut against the theory held by some that ND's administrators have a ("wink, wink") side deal with the ACC for eventual full football membership.

What better way to start down the slippery slope of a full eight game schedule than to offer to revive two old annual games for "only" one more ACC game commitment?

That would be a perfect "stealth" move to fool those stubborn, short sighted ND alumni and fans and placate their nostalgia with the renewed annual Pitt and BC games.

Instead, it seems more that ND is very willing to sacrifice its old annual opponents (Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Pitt, BC) in order to secure its independence and hold the line at five ACC games, and no more than five, for as long as one can see the future.

Whew! I sure am glad about that.....I wouldn't want those guys as full members in my conference.

I know, right?

It's going to happen one day, TerryD.

Zager and Evans.

(06-17-2014 05:19 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 04:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The weakest conference is always the one facing extinction.

That's the Big12.

Still, that may not hold true since Texas wants a private conference and the lesser schools will hang on no matter what to Texas.

As long as tx retains a bigger piece of the pie and a voting block this is true


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

More crack smoking.

Texas gets an equal share from the conference and has no voting block in the conference.

(06-17-2014 08:31 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 05:19 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 04:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The weakest conference is always the one facing extinction.

That's the Big12.

Still, that may not hold true since Texas wants a private conference and the lesser schools will hang on no matter what to Texas.

As long as tx retains a bigger piece of the pie and a voting block this is true


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

More crack smoking.

Texas gets an equal share from the conference and has no voting block in the conference.

Hi, Buccaineer!

Back to the original topic at hand and away from all the Big 12 jealousy and hate--it is interesting that the sports media is seeing UCF and not USF. Just a half decade ago USF was riding high, beating the FSU's and Miami's and Auburn's of the world and UCF wasn't on the same plane--and in just a few seasons things have completely turned around.

How do USF fans see this development and what if anything is the school doing to get back to where they had been?

(06-17-2014 08:37 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  Back to the original topic at hand and away from all the Big 12 jealousy and hate--it is interesting that the sports media is seeing UCF and not USF. Just a half decade ago USF was riding high, beating the FSU's and Miami's and Auburn's of the world and UCF wasn't on the same plane--and in just a few seasons things have completely turned around.

How do USF fans see this development and what if anything is the school doing to get back to where they had been?

Smells like troll bait.

(06-17-2014 08:39 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(06-17-2014 08:37 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  Back to the original topic at hand and away from all the Big 12 jealousy and hate--it is interesting that the sports media is seeing UCF and not USF. Just a half decade ago USF was riding high, beating the FSU's and Miami's and Auburn's of the world and UCF wasn't on the same plane--and in just a few seasons things have completely turned around.

How do USF fans see this development and what if anything is the school doing to get back to where they had been?

Smells like troll bait.

Hmmm, maybe your response is troll bait, I on the other hand asked a legitimate question that I'm interested in hearing about.

(06-17-2014 09:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  Time to close this thread. We've got 2 pages of people attacking Tbringer or whoever.

This one has run its course.