Tweet 1:



Tweet 2:



Tweet 3:

the last time UT agreed to letting UH in their current conference, it was the first step towards the end of that conference.........

(05-21-2016 01:57 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  the last time UT agreed to letting UH in their current conference, it was the first step towards the end of that conference.........

I'm thinking Arkansas leaving was the first step towards the end of the SWC.

It is all about TV dollars. Right now, UH could probably be competitive on the field, but they do not bring any TV dollars. THat is where Tillman Fertitta does not get it.

I imagine the academic side of the house at UH is getting more and more unhappy with what seems to be a huge financial push with athletics.

(05-21-2016 02:00 PM)Minnewaska Owl Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 01:57 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  the last time UT agreed to letting UH in their current conference, it was the first step towards the end of that conference.........

I'm thinking Arkansas leaving was the first step towards the end of the SWC.

UH came in long before Arkansas left.

(05-21-2016 06:32 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 02:00 PM)Minnewaska Owl Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 01:57 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  the last time UT agreed to letting UH in their current conference, it was the first step towards the end of that conference.........

I'm thinking Arkansas leaving was the first step towards the end of the SWC.

UH came in long before Arkansas left.

Are you sure the breakup wasn't caused by this expansion vote?

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/m...=southwest conference

(05-21-2016 06:28 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  I imagine the academic side of the house at UH is getting more and more unhappy with what seems to be a huge financial push with athletics.

academic side?

It's not a big deal. The SEC will grab UH within the next five years.

(05-22-2016 10:05 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  It's not a big deal. The SEC will grab UH within the next five years.

I don't think so. There's some bad blood there. I think we'd get an invite before they would, even though we jilted them once.

I could be wrong. Money has a way of healing a lot of wounds--see South Carolina. But I think the dislike for UH is greater than the dislike for South Carolina was.

(05-22-2016 10:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2016 10:05 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  It's not a big deal. The SEC will grab UH within the next five years.

I don't think so. There's some bad blood there. I think we'd get an invite before they would, even though we jilted them once.

I could be wrong. Money has a way of healing a lot of wounds--see South Carolina. But I think the dislike for UH is greater than the dislike for South Carolina was.

As far as I know, there's no bad blood between UH and the SEC, and I can't think of any reason why there would be any. I've never heard that before. As for the BIG12, the Texas schools don't want UH because UH would benefit tremendously from being a member. They're threatened by UH. They especially don't want to have to compete against them for recruits. And it pains me to say this, but I can think of about 15 schools that would get a P5 invite before Rice. I wish the B12 would add 4. That way, there may be a major shakeup on the G5 level that would benefit Rice in some way, like a merger.

(05-23-2016 10:45 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  As far as I know, there's no bad blood between UH and the SEC, and I can't think of any reason why there would be any.

I'm guessing you haven't talked to a lot of SEC people. They turn their noses up pretty quickly at any mention of UH. I think a lot of it is a perception of "Cougar High." I don't fully understand why they are so dismissive of UH. But in my experience, they are, pretty consistently.

(05-23-2016 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:45 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  As far as I know, there's no bad blood between UH and the SEC, and I can't think of any reason why there would be any.

I'm guessing you haven't talked to a lot of SEC people. They turn their noses up pretty quickly at any mention of UH. I think a lot of it is a perception of "Cougar High." I don't fully understand why they are so dismissive of UH. But in my experience, they are, pretty consistently.

The SEC is probably "dismissive" of most schools that aren't P5, but it's nothing a few more years of winning and investing can't cure. UH would be perfect for the SEC. It's close, has a lot of fans, a new stadium, and it prioritizes athletics. Sickening.

I will agree that it appears at this point in time that UH's first priority is athletics.

(05-24-2016 12:02 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:45 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  As far as I know, there's no bad blood between UH and the SEC, and I can't think of any reason why there would be any.

I'm guessing you haven't talked to a lot of SEC people. They turn their noses up pretty quickly at any mention of UH. I think a lot of it is a perception of "Cougar High." I don't fully understand why they are so dismissive of UH. But in my experience, they are, pretty consistently.

The SEC is probably "dismissive" of most schools that aren't P5, but it's nothing a few more years of winning and investing can't cure. UH would be perfect for the SEC. It's close, has a lot of fans, a new stadium, and it prioritizes athletics. Sickening.

UH adds nothing to the SEC. SEC wants UT and OU. UT doesn't want SEC. OU isn't going anywhere without Okie St. SEC doesn't want an odd number, and doesn't want to go to 18. My guess is that SEC ends up with OU and Okie St in about 5 years. Probably about the time that the XII falls apart. UT arrogance has killed a good part of that league already.

(05-24-2016 12:02 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:45 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  As far as I know, there's no bad blood between UH and the SEC, and I can't think of any reason why there would be any.

I'm guessing you haven't talked to a lot of SEC people. They turn their noses up pretty quickly at any mention of UH. I think a lot of it is a perception of "Cougar High." I don't fully understand why they are so dismissive of UH. But in my experience, they are, pretty consistently.

The SEC is probably "dismissive" of most schools that aren't P5, but it's nothing a few more years of winning and investing can't cure. UH would be perfect for the SEC. It's close, has a lot of fans, a new stadium, and it prioritizes athletics. Sickening.

If you think UH is perfect for the SEC you haven't visited many SEC schools have you...

A&M was a good fit for the SEC.

(05-24-2016 09:50 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 12:02 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:45 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  As far as I know, there's no bad blood between UH and the SEC, and I can't think of any reason why there would be any.

I'm guessing you haven't talked to a lot of SEC people. They turn their noses up pretty quickly at any mention of UH. I think a lot of it is a perception of "Cougar High." I don't fully understand why they are so dismissive of UH. But in my experience, they are, pretty consistently.

The SEC is probably "dismissive" of most schools that aren't P5, but it's nothing a few more years of winning and investing can't cure. UH would be perfect for the SEC. It's close, has a lot of fans, a new stadium, and it prioritizes athletics. Sickening.

If you think UH is perfect for the SEC you haven't visited many SEC schools have you...

A&M was a good fit for the SEC.

With the Aggies in the SEC they have no need for the Cougars. They get more than enough of the Houston market.

(05-24-2016 09:58 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  With the Aggies in the SEC they have no need for the Cougars. They get more than enough of the Houston market.

Of course they don't. Just like the Big 12 doesn't need them (or us).

As has been discussed on here literally dozens of times, this is predominantly about TV markets. Even giving UH the benefit of the doubt that they are capturing more eyes/fan interest in the local area in recent years, Texas already captures the Houston MSA for the Big 12 just as A&M does for the SEC.

There is a reason why schools in smaller markets - like Memphis and Cincinnati - are seen as more likely candidates than UH ... they bring new TV markets into the equation. And, quite frankly, I get UH's (and Tillman's) frustration given the investment they have made. I also give them props for recognizing the current landscape and making a concerted effort to compete.

The two schools that probably offer the most benefit to the Big 12 right now are BYU (national fan base) and UConn (brings some viewers in the Northeast Corridor). However, each of these bring their own set of issues (Sunday scheduling with BYU and geographic outlier with UConn).

I'm actually not so sure that the Big 12 expands right now ... in fact, everything I've read recently suggests that they might pass at least for now. But if they do, I would go with BYU and one of UConn/Memphis/Cincinnati (West Virginia also needs a travel partner).

(05-24-2016 09:50 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 12:02 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:45 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  As far as I know, there's no bad blood between UH and the SEC, and I can't think of any reason why there would be any.

I'm guessing you haven't talked to a lot of SEC people. They turn their noses up pretty quickly at any mention of UH. I think a lot of it is a perception of "Cougar High." I don't fully understand why they are so dismissive of UH. But in my experience, they are, pretty consistently.

The SEC is probably "dismissive" of most schools that aren't P5, but it's nothing a few more years of winning and investing can't cure. UH would be perfect for the SEC. It's close, has a lot of fans, a new stadium, and it prioritizes athletics. Sickening.

If you think UH is perfect for the SEC you haven't visited many SEC schools have you...

A&M was a good fit for the SEC.

I've been to several games at LSU. I was there when UH beat them in 1997. I saw them beat Kentucky a few years later. So yes, I have been to an SEC school and football game. It's amazing. UH is in it's infancy right now. All the investments made on the backs of it's student body have only just begun. You know it as well as I do. It's just the beginning. In fact, the reason the B12 won't invite them is because their threatened by UH. That says a lot. That speaks of enormous, big-time potential. Sorry, but it's true.

(05-24-2016 09:58 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:50 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 12:02 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:45 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  As far as I know, there's no bad blood between UH and the SEC, and I can't think of any reason why there would be any.

I'm guessing you haven't talked to a lot of SEC people. They turn their noses up pretty quickly at any mention of UH. I think a lot of it is a perception of "Cougar High." I don't fully understand why they are so dismissive of UH. But in my experience, they are, pretty consistently.

The SEC is probably "dismissive" of most schools that aren't P5, but it's nothing a few more years of winning and investing can't cure. UH would be perfect for the SEC. It's close, has a lot of fans, a new stadium, and it prioritizes athletics. Sickening.

If you think UH is perfect for the SEC you haven't visited many SEC schools have you...

A&M was a good fit for the SEC.

With the Aggies in the SEC they have no need for the Cougars. They get more than enough of the Houston market.

The rumors I hear all the time are that 14 is a bad number, and that 16 would be ideal for scheduling and travel purposes. If that's true, they'll expand someday. And if it's true that they have no need for the Cougars, they certainly have no need for Rice.