(11-01-2015 01:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 01:42 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 12:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 12:08 AM)NoDak Wrote:  SEC adds Oklahoma St and Texas Tech.

Yes, the SEC is going to sit back and take scraps after OU goes to the B1G and Texas to the ACC?

Why not? That's what they did with Texas A&M whom wasn't part of the Texas and friends to the PAC talk and they took Missouri that was turned down for Nebraska by The Big Ten.

Sorry but that is history as is, not SEC revisionist.

A&M was part of the Texahoma deal. They pulled out early because it was clear De Loss was holding all of the cards and not sharing information with College Station.

Besides I like the comparison you set up. The SEC gets two AAU schools with actual athletic history behind them and in the case of Missouri recent divisional titles plus 34 million in population between their states and the Big 10 gets two AAU schools one with a checkered basketball history and neither with much of an overall athletic history.

I think we did fine by that comparison. In fact it gets rougher if we go back to 90-92. You guys get a small state with a fading athletic program and a school that would bring the biggest black mark ever against the Big 10 with their scandal. The SEC gets Arkansas and South Carolina. So far I like all four of ours. How do you like yours?

I love them. Ever looked at an Iowa roster before and seen how many guys Ferentz likes to pull from Maryland and New Jersey?

You are dodging though. Texas A&M and Missouri were middling programs when the SEC picked them up. The SEC didn't pick them up to be power programs, they picked them up to get beat in the SEC and that backfired.

That is what is so funny about all the SEC Cheerleaders. That mentality is actually opposite to the mentality of SEC leadership. They didn't want to pack the conference with even more competition yet SEC cheerleaders think that they did and that they would want to do so again.

The Big Ten won the very first CFP and Iowa is going undefeated this year. What is there for me to not like exactly? You want me to be jealous about expansion picks? That's silly. I don't project The Big Ten expansion picks upon myself. I am not that tribalistic. I understand the move the conference made in terms of business and it should help Iowa recruit even more in that area so it seems fine.

I understand the reality of it that The Big Ten was courting North Carolina and it didn't work out. Maryland was ready to go and was always going to be part of that deal. Rutgers was the surprise but not a bad pick. They fill their role.

Missouri and Texas A&M did not fill their roles, they found immediate success in the SEC when no one thought they would. They actually illegitimized the mentality of SEC dominance by bringing in their big 12 rosters and winning immediately. Yes, they were cast offs whether you want to admit it or not. The Big Ten pushed away Missouri and Texas did not want Texas A&M being part of that situation. I am not sure Texas was ever serious about the Pac 12 or I they were actually just trying to scare away some schools. Who knows, but what we do know is that Texas A&M was a cast off. Sorry.

(11-01-2015 08:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 01:42 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 12:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 12:08 AM)NoDak Wrote:  SEC adds Oklahoma St and Texas Tech.

Yes, the SEC is going to sit back and take scraps after OU goes to the B1G and Texas to the ACC?

Why not? That's what they did with Texas A&M whom wasn't part of the Texas and friends to the PAC talk ...

First, TAMU, by any measure, isn't "scraps" like OSU and TT are. It's one of the most powerful, wealthy schools in the country. Neither is Missouri, a flagship.

Second, the scenario has the SEC taking these schools at the same time the B1G and ACC are getting better schools - Texas and Oklahoma, a whole different optics proposition than taking either on their own with no concurrent B1G/ACC expansion.

In any event, the SEC would never have any interest in OKST or TT, unless they were part of packages including OU and Texas, respectively.

OSU is not scraps. It has moved up to just outside the top ten Athletic Departments in the country in terms of money it brings in. That's just a little bit of reality there, deny it if you wish. In regards to TTU? I have never prognosticated them in the SEC. That was not my call so don't attribute it to me, k thanks.

Yes, the SEC would be interested in OSU. The only reason they might not be is because they would be afraid OSU would come in and NOT play their role in the same way that Missouri and Texas A&M suddenly found success in their first seasons with the SEC after being mediocre programs in the big 12.

(11-01-2015 09:21 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 09:18 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Fantasy.

Oklahoma will never be allowed into the B1G.

Yeah, despite a lot of people saying they could punch their own ticket, you may be right.

Now if Texas comes along for the ride, that might change things. Not that it should, but I'm speculating that it would.

I can only hope beyond hope that B1G leadership could see past the burnt orange carrot on a stick for the conference-ruining ugliness that it would be.

Texas would ruin the conference. Thinking it should run the show and demanding unequal revenue sharing, along with its own TV network.


I'll take OU in a second over Texas. But hopefully neither will ever be in the conference.


I can live with KU.

Texas should go independent. They and Notre Dame are the two that can and want to pull it off. So they should.

(11-01-2015 09:47 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 08:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 01:42 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 12:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 12:08 AM)NoDak Wrote:  SEC adds Oklahoma St and Texas Tech.

Yes, the SEC is going to sit back and take scraps after OU goes to the B1G and Texas to the ACC?

Why not? That's what they did with Texas A&M whom wasn't part of the Texas and friends to the PAC talk ...

First, TAMU, by any measure, isn't "scraps" like OSU and TT are. It's one of the most powerful, wealthy schools in the country. Neither is Missouri, a flagship.

Second, the scenario has the SEC taking these schools at the same time the B1G and ACC are getting better schools - Texas and Oklahoma, a whole different optics proposition than taking either on their own with no concurrent B1G/ACC expansion.

In any event, the SEC would never have any interest in OKST or TT, unless they were part of packages including OU and Texas, respectively.

OSU is not scraps. It has moved up to just outside the top ten Athletic Departments in the country in terms of money it brings in.

Believe what you want, but the only way the SEC would possibly, just possibly, be interested in OSU would be if Oklahoma was coming with them.

(11-01-2015 11:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 09:47 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 08:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 01:42 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 12:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the SEC is going to sit back and take scraps after OU goes to the B1G and Texas to the ACC?

Why not? That's what they did with Texas A&M whom wasn't part of the Texas and friends to the PAC talk ...

First, TAMU, by any measure, isn't "scraps" like OSU and TT are. It's one of the most powerful, wealthy schools in the country. Neither is Missouri, a flagship.

Second, the scenario has the SEC taking these schools at the same time the B1G and ACC are getting better schools - Texas and Oklahoma, a whole different optics proposition than taking either on their own with no concurrent B1G/ACC expansion.

In any event, the SEC would never have any interest in OKST or TT, unless they were part of packages including OU and Texas, respectively.

OSU is not scraps. It has moved up to just outside the top ten Athletic Departments in the country in terms of money it brings in.

Believe what you want, but the only way the SEC would possibly, just possibly, be interested in OSU would be if Oklahoma was coming with them.

You want to believe that, I get it.

I could see texas try football indy with a big 12 for other sports post OU/KU leaving. There are plenty of school's to back fill the big 12 if texas is sticking around. IT might be houston, cincy, memphis and Uconn to get to 12 with solid hoop additions. Than BYU as a football only to pair with texas going indy.

South: Texas*, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, houston, Memphis

North: OK state, Kan State, Io state, Cincy, WVU, Uconn

*byu football only

(11-01-2015 09:44 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  [quote='JRsec' pid='12580147' dateline='1446360737']
[quote='He1nousOne' pid='12580140' dateline='1446360153']

You are dodging though. Texas A&M and Missouri were middling programs when the SEC picked them up. The SEC didn't pick them up to be power programs, they picked them up to get beat in the SEC and that backfired.

That is what is so funny about all the SEC Cheerleaders. That mentality is actually opposite to the mentality of SEC leadership. They didn't want to pack the conference with even more competition yet SEC cheerleaders think that they did and that they would want to do so again.

In the case of Missouri I think there is some truth here. Of course this assumes you ignore that the Big Ten did the same thing with MD and Rutgers. Especially when you remember that their top choices were UVA and UNC.

(11-01-2015 11:24 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 09:44 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  [quote='JRsec' pid='12580147' dateline='1446360737']
[quote='He1nousOne' pid='12580140' dateline='1446360153']

You are dodging though. Texas A&M and Missouri were middling programs when the SEC picked them up. The SEC didn't pick them up to be power programs, they picked them up to get beat in the SEC and that backfired.

That is what is so funny about all the SEC Cheerleaders. That mentality is actually opposite to the mentality of SEC leadership. They didn't want to pack the conference with even more competition yet SEC cheerleaders think that they did and that they would want to do so again.

In the case of Missouri I think there is some truth here. Of course this assumes you ignore that the Big Ten did the same thing with MD and Rutgers. Especially when you remember that their top choices were UVA and UNC.

I actually don't ignore that. I even said that recently in response to JR but I am not the one in denial.

It is the truth about Missouri and it is the truth about Texas A&M. The Aggies went after the SEC because of Texas talking about taking it's real friends and going elsewhere.

Texas A&M was a cast off and thus they proactively made a first move. The same was the case for Missouri. Their initial choice didn't want them.

Now in regards to Rutgers, they took the golden ticket after their contemporaries in The Big East all left them. Rutgers was on a publicized list of approved schools by Big Ten Presidents a long time ago. So, while they were not a top choice, they had been looked at for a long time.

Maryland and Rutgers were not final moves, they are pieces and they havnt come in and thrown the hierarchy out of order. They havnt come in and taken opportunities from anyone else like Missouri and Texas A&M have. In that regard, they have worked out better for The Big Ten than cast offs A&M and Missouri have for The SEC.

(10-31-2015 11:17 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Let's imagine that news just broke of OU/Kansas joining the Big Ten. The Big Ten now sits at 16. The Big 12 is in crisis mode...

...what would happen next?

(I'm most interested in ACC fans' ideas and the SEC fans' plans to keep up in the arms race...)

Big XII-II would then be the Big XII-IV.

Teams left in Big XII-IV...Baylor, Texas Tech, Texas, TCU, Okla State, Kansas State, West Virginia, Iowa State.

First move would be for every school left behind to figure out if they want to or can bug out.

Texas - would be welcomed by every conference in the country. Probably could get in the SEC over TAMU objections too. For purposes of this argument lets decide that they're fine with staying in whatever is left or becoming independent if the conference disintegrates.

Baylor - Only a desperate P5 conference would take them. They're private. They discriminate. They're small. They don't bring any markets. The B1G or the PAC wouldn't take them no matter what. The ACC isn't going to take them either. The SEC isn't taking them. Baylor is stuck. Even if they run off 10 straight national championships.

Texas Tech - Only gets a look from the PAC if they go with Texas. On their own, no one is going to take them

Oklahoma State - Good program, but with out OU...Maybe with Texas to the PAC 12. I can see some unlikely scenario where the SEC might take a look. Most likely stuck.

Kansas State - See OSU. Most likely stuck

Iowa State - Stuck

West Virginia - Most likely stuck

TCU - Most likely stuck. Actually puts you in the DFW market, which could be valuable...but they're small and private. In a much better position than Baylor. But still - probably stuck.

----

In your scenario, the most likely result would be for Texas to sit where it is, no one else to have a dance partner and the conference to expand by adding teams.

There's any number of teams that could be added.

Pick four from

SDSU, BYU (if interested - doubtful), Boise, Houston, Memphis, Connecticut, UCF, USF, and Cincinnati

The new Big XII would remain P5.

---

Biggest losers in this scenario. MWC/AAC teams that get left behind.

---

Biggest winner - UMass as someone is going to need them. Maybe JMU, but I still think they'd manage to screw that up.

---

(11-01-2015 11:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 11:24 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 09:44 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  [quote='JRsec' pid='12580147' dateline='1446360737']
[quote='He1nousOne' pid='12580140' dateline='1446360153']

You are dodging though. Texas A&M and Missouri were middling programs when the SEC picked them up. The SEC didn't pick them up to be power programs, they picked them up to get beat in the SEC and that backfired.

That is what is so funny about all the SEC Cheerleaders. That mentality is actually opposite to the mentality of SEC leadership. They didn't want to pack the conference with even more competition yet SEC cheerleaders think that they did and that they would want to do so again.

In the case of Missouri I think there is some truth here. Of course this assumes you ignore that the Big Ten did the same thing with MD and Rutgers. Especially when you remember that their top choices were UVA and UNC.

I actually don't ignore that. I even said that recently in response to JR but I am not the one in denial.

It is the truth about Missouri and it is the truth about Texas A&M. The Aggies went after the SEC because of Texas talking about taking it's real friends and going elsewhere.

Texas A&M was a cast off and thus they proactively made a first move. The same was the case for Missouri. Their initial choice didn't want them.

Now in regards to Rutgers, they took the golden ticket after their contemporaries in The Big East all left them. Rutgers was on a publicized list of approved schools by Big Ten Presidents a long time ago. So, while they were not a top choice, they had been looked at for a long time.

Maryland and Rutgers were not final moves, they are pieces and they havnt come in and thrown the hierarchy out of order. They havnt come in and taken opportunities from anyone else like Missouri and Texas A&M have. In that regard, they have worked out better for The Big Ten than cast offs A&M and Missouri have for The SEC.

Google Texahoma and reread the whole affair. Your timeline is wrong. And remember there was Texahoma and Texahoma II. Keep 'em straight.

Sorry, Missouri and Texas A&M were cast offs. IF you actually think otherwise then your head is in the sand. Texas A&M knew what was up. Now let me add that they are both still great schools and have added to the academic footprint of the SEC but both of them went to the SEC because they were feeling cast aside and/or left out.

The same can be said of Maryland and Rutgers, so that response is unavailable as a "defense".

News just broke that this is a dumb thread.

I don't see a world in which, if the BigXII were to collapse, that TCU, WVU, OSU, Baylor, or Tech would get left out of the P4.

(10-31-2015 11:24 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Why would ACC have to do anything?

Sounds like in your scenario, that some Big 12 schools would be calling John Swofford.

This

(11-01-2015 09:18 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Fantasy.

Oklahoma will never be allowed into the B1G.

As with Nebraska, who with or without the AAU status was a bit of an outlier academically, Oklahoma's size and athletic prowess would trump everything.

(11-01-2015 11:42 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Sorry, Missouri and Texas A&M were cast offs. IF you actually think otherwise then your head is in the sand. Texas A&M knew what was up. Now let me add that they are both still great schools and have added to the academic footprint of the SEC but both of them went to the SEC because they were feeling cast aside and/or left out.

The same can be said of Maryland and Rutgers, so that response is unavailable as a "defense".

He1nous, A&M was never a cast off. Its wishful thinking on your part. Mizzou you may have an argument for, but A&M no way. A&M has had eyes for the SEC for 20+ years, timing finally lined up.

(11-01-2015 12:46 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 09:18 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Fantasy.

Oklahoma will never be allowed into the B1G.

As with Nebraska, who with or without the AAU status was a bit of an outlier academically, Oklahoma's size and athletic prowess would trump everything.

I disagree.

When Lincoln adds the U of Neb Health Center in Omaha under its own research numbers, as Kansas does with its KU Health Center in KC, then it's up to B1G standard.

Unlike Missouri. And unlike Oklahoma, which has already put the OU Health Center in OKU under the Norman research numbers ... but they still don't stack up.

(11-01-2015 12:47 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 11:42 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Sorry, Missouri and Texas A&M were cast offs. IF you actually think otherwise then your head is in the sand. Texas A&M knew what was up. Now let me add that they are both still great schools and have added to the academic footprint of the SEC but both of them went to the SEC because they were feeling cast aside and/or left out.

The same can be said of Maryland and Rutgers, so that response is unavailable as a "defense".

He1nous, A&M was never a cast off. Its wishful thinking on your part. Mizzou you may have an argument for, but A&M no way. A&M has had eyes for the SEC for 20+ years, timing finally lined up.

If the SEC was their #1 play then they would have never taken part in talks to go with 5 other schools to the PAC. It wasn't their first choice, it was their second choice and they went there after they were cast out of the talks to join the PAC.

Why would that be wishful thinking on my part? I don't give a damn about Texas A&M. This is simply how it actually is. Stop being an apologist for the SEC children around here. They have a mod that covers for them while we have a mod that is an apologist for them. Great....

(11-01-2015 11:43 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  News just broke that this is a dumb thread.

Same retreaded thoughts, different title of thread. I could start a thread title "Big XII is considering expansion" and it would get 40 pages even though it would be the same stuff talked about on the 368 other threads about Big XII expansion.

Obviously, people here don't get tired of repeating themselves on the same subject....lol