(05-09-2016 07:15 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:32 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:21 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:18 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I guess none of the Larry Scott flight trackers remember that before visiting the Texahoma 4 and before cancelling his trip to KC, Larry Scott made a stop in SLC. Utah.

I think it is what someone said above. The smoke was about A&M saying no, and Kansas' invite was probably lost in the shuffle, and missed by some of us.

Kansas didn't get an invite. Scott was in SLC June 3 then returned June 11. Scott never even went to Kansas. The only reason Kansas comes up is because there was a flight scheduled to KCI- a flight that never happened. When A&M opted out, Utah got the call. That's how it happened.

You might want to read the above recent posts and link to the Oregon newspaper.

That's a blog post by a no name writer. Literally no name, as not even attributed to an author. There's no authority in it. It makes bleacher report look like hardcore journalism. Speaking of BR, PAC10, Why Utah is a Done Deal says exactly how it went down including Utah AD returning from vacation to receive the invite (conditional on A&M no) before Scott hit up the Texahoma 4. KU was the potential replacement for OU should OU go to the SEC, which briefly looked possible.

(05-10-2016 08:02 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:15 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:32 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:21 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:18 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I guess none of the Larry Scott flight trackers remember that before visiting the Texahoma 4 and before cancelling his trip to KC, Larry Scott made a stop in SLC. Utah.

I think it is what someone said above. The smoke was about A&M saying no, and Kansas' invite was probably lost in the shuffle, and missed by some of us.

Kansas didn't get an invite. Scott was in SLC June 3 then returned June 11. Scott never even went to Kansas. The only reason Kansas comes up is because there was a flight scheduled to KCI- a flight that never happened. When A&M opted out, Utah got the call. That's how it happened.

You might want to read the above recent posts and link to the Oregon newspaper.

That's a blog post by a no name writer. Literally no name, as not even attributed to an author. There's no authority in it. It makes bleacher report look like hardcore journalism. Speaking of BR, PAC10, Why Utah is a Done Deal says exactly how it went down including Utah AD returning from vacation to receive the invite (conditional on A&M no) before Scott hit up the Texahoma 4. KU was the potential replacement for OU should OU go to the SEC, which briefly looked possible.

Uh... That 'blog post' is The Oregonian, the top paper in Oregon. It isn't some bleacher report blog.
Utah wasn't called up until Texas balked at the invite. The PAC then went to plan B to keep Colorado and then issue an invite to Utah.

(05-10-2016 08:31 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 08:02 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:15 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:32 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:21 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I think it is what someone said above. The smoke was about A&M saying no, and Kansas' invite was probably lost in the shuffle, and missed by some of us.

Kansas didn't get an invite. Scott was in SLC June 3 then returned June 11. Scott never even went to Kansas. The only reason Kansas comes up is because there was a flight scheduled to KCI- a flight that never happened. When A&M opted out, Utah got the call. That's how it happened.

You might want to read the above recent posts and link to the Oregon newspaper.

That's a blog post by a no name writer. Literally no name, as not even attributed to an author. There's no authority in it. It makes bleacher report look like hardcore journalism. Speaking of BR, PAC10, Why Utah is a Done Deal says exactly how it went down including Utah AD returning from vacation to receive the invite (conditional on A&M no) before Scott hit up the Texahoma 4. KU was the potential replacement for OU should OU go to the SEC, which briefly looked possible.

Uh... That 'blog post' is The Oregonian, the top paper in Oregon. It isn't some bleacher report blog.
Utah wasn't called up until Texas balked at the invite. The PAC then went to plan B to keep Colorado and then issue an invite to Utah.

Thanks MWC........you got it right.

(05-10-2016 08:31 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 08:02 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:15 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:32 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:21 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I think it is what someone said above. The smoke was about A&M saying no, and Kansas' invite was probably lost in the shuffle, and missed by some of us.

Kansas didn't get an invite. Scott was in SLC June 3 then returned June 11. Scott never even went to Kansas. The only reason Kansas comes up is because there was a flight scheduled to KCI- a flight that never happened. When A&M opted out, Utah got the call. That's how it happened.

You might want to read the above recent posts and link to the Oregon newspaper.

That's a blog post by a no name writer. Literally no name, as not even attributed to an author. There's no authority in it. It makes bleacher report look like hardcore journalism. Speaking of BR, PAC10, Why Utah is a Done Deal says exactly how it went down including Utah AD returning from vacation to receive the invite (conditional on A&M no) before Scott hit up the Texahoma 4. KU was the potential replacement for OU should OU go to the SEC, which briefly looked possible.

Uh... That 'blog post' is The Oregonian, the top paper in Oregon. It isn't some bleacher report blog.
Utah wasn't called up until Texas balked at the invite. The PAC then went to plan B to keep Colorado and then issue an invite to Utah.

that was an anonymous article picked up off the wire service and posted on the Oregonian blog. It is not Oregonian content, and if it's like any other newspaper's blog, it doesn't have editorial oversight like the actual paper.

(05-10-2016 09:59 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 08:31 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 08:02 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 07:15 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 05:32 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Kansas didn't get an invite. Scott was in SLC June 3 then returned June 11. Scott never even went to Kansas. The only reason Kansas comes up is because there was a flight scheduled to KCI- a flight that never happened. When A&M opted out, Utah got the call. That's how it happened.

You might want to read the above recent posts and link to the Oregon newspaper.

That's a blog post by a no name writer. Literally no name, as not even attributed to an author. There's no authority in it. It makes bleacher report look like hardcore journalism. Speaking of BR, PAC10, Why Utah is a Done Deal says exactly how it went down including Utah AD returning from vacation to receive the invite (conditional on A&M no) before Scott hit up the Texahoma 4. KU was the potential replacement for OU should OU go to the SEC, which briefly looked possible.

Uh... That 'blog post' is The Oregonian, the top paper in Oregon. It isn't some bleacher report blog.
Utah wasn't called up until Texas balked at the invite. The PAC then went to plan B to keep Colorado and then issue an invite to Utah.

that was an anonymous article picked up off the wire service and posted on the Oregonian blog. It is not Oregonian content, and if it's like any other newspaper's blog, it doesn't have editorial oversight like the actual paper.

Was that "KU to the PAC 16 article" link printed by the Oregonian during June of 2010, or was it some blog post with no author attached, or something in the comments section? Or some other explanation? The link definitely makes it look legit. The Oregonian is a big legit newspaper, there no questioning that. Can anyone clear this up?
Cheers!

Sigh...just Google: Kansas university to the Pac 10.

Seems kind of pointless to endlessly debate something that happened six years ago, that never came to fruition. At the very least, there is proof here that the scenario was not made up, and was legitimately reported. It doesn't matter if it was actually true or not, because we may never be privy'd to that information. So long as we can show it was a legitimate discussion at the time, is that not good enough?

(05-10-2016 12:29 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Seems kind of pointless to endlessly debate something that happened six years ago, that never came to fruition. At the very least, there is proof here that the scenario was not made up, and was legitimately reported. It doesn't matter if it was actually true or not, because we may never be privy'd to that information. So long as we can show it was a legitimate discussion at the time, is that not good enough?

Isn't that what we do on here? If we could all agree on everything then this website wouldn't be necessary...its kind of what we do on here. That would be like CNN or Fox News removing the guest panel full of talking heads with one talking head saying __the other head saying __. Just sayin...
Cheers!

The Calif newspaper "Orange County Register" reported that Scott was headed to talk with Texas and scheduled to meet with Kansas on following Monday. Just fyi.

Orange County Register

(05-10-2016 12:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Sigh...just Google: Kansas university to the Pac 10.

It's a lot easier to fund rumors of "KU to PAC12" since the "Utah to PAC12" rumors get buried under all the reports of Utah actually being invited to the PAC12.

(05-10-2016 03:44 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 12:29 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Seems kind of pointless to endlessly debate something that happened six years ago, that never came to fruition. At the very least, there is proof here that the scenario was not made up, and was legitimately reported. It doesn't matter if it was actually true or not, because we may never be privy'd to that information. So long as we can show it was a legitimate discussion at the time, is that not good enough?

Isn't that what we do on here? If we could all agree on everything then this website wouldn't be necessary...its kind of what we do on here. That would be like CNN or Fox News removing the guest panel full of talking heads with one talking head saying __the other head saying __. Just sayin...
Cheers!

In genera yes. I was specifically referring to this topic since it is so old, and not current or anything.