(07-27-2016 12:22 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Chairman John Whitmire Chairman of Higher Education Finance Committee and the most senior State House Rep in Texas and who happens to be a Coog says there will be no quid pro quo, with UT for their desired campus in Houston. Let's say they do get their campus it will probably be completely different then what UT envisioned it to be once the negotiations are finished, it will probably end up being some type of consortium made of UT/UH & Rice and possibly TTU as partners. UT timing for buying the land is suspect. They may have time it just right (knowing that Houston wants in the B12), so they can do some good ole fashion Texas horse trading with Houston. Comes to Texas politics everything is as clear as mud, with back room deals and all.

Of course, they're going to publicly deny it, but this is Texas politics we're talking about and they are old school rustlers.

(07-26-2016 10:12 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 09:41 PM)Wavetime Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 09:26 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 06:59 PM)Wavetime Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 11:57 AM)acc4life Wrote:  Houston is only receiving an invite from Texas in exchange for not blocking their building of a Houston based campus...amirite? There is some major political lassoing going on in the Lone Star state...

Depends on how you look at it. Maybe the Texas President doesn't want Houston, but can't play his cards. So, he agrees to say that Houston would be a good addition knowing that other schools will vote to keep them out. Their hands would be clean. You can't take anything for face value.

So instead, you dig for underlying meanings that in all probability aren't there.

You're right, it's a big conspiracy between Gov. Abbott, Lt. Gov. Patrick, the UT president and chancellor, the Texas Tech president, the Houston mayor, TCU's football and baseball coaches, and an assortment of TX state senators.

I'm not digging, it's politics. Do you really think that Texas or the other Texas schools want Houston? No,,,,why would they want the threat. Houston is on an incredible roll, TT, Baylor, etc want no part of the Coogs. That being said, could you imagine the backlash if word got out that the President of UT didn't want Houston? Of course they have to say that they want them. C'mon, you know that.

Hey, I may be 100% wrong, no one knows what's going on behind closed doors. Maybe the reporters are on the exact truth, but that rarely happens.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-that-wood

without the backdoor deal i honestly dont hink ut would care

UT will always be UT, if the win they will get recruits, they are UT and have more money than anyone plus they are like ND and can recruit national if they want

and secondly UT controls every texas school and used them like a power chip..im guessing you dont remember how Colorado got into the pac 10 ...the pac 10 sent out a group invite of 5 to OU, UT, TTECH, Okstate amd Colorado (with utah being the 6th member) ..Texas started to politic and manipulate the situation and planned to switch out Colorado for baylor to give texas more voting leverage in the pac 10...the pac 10 found out and sent Colorado a separate invite, only to have the other 4 back out
texas doesnt fear other texas schools and benefits from them as voting entity

Precisely the reason I say Texas is never leaving the B12 because it's good to be the "BIG DOG" Can't be the big dog any other conference they be just another dog among many. They ran the SWC they run the B12 and the decide to go to another conference they'll want to run that too or they are not going. Simple as that. All that talk about Texas leaving the B12 is hollow too me. Just a FYI Texas was the one that sponsored Houston into the old SWC. UT/UH destinies are intertwined been that way for some time, as much as the Horns don't won't to accept that reality.

(07-27-2016 12:35 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 10:12 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 09:41 PM)Wavetime Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 09:26 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 06:59 PM)Wavetime Wrote:  Depends on how you look at it. Maybe the Texas President doesn't want Houston, but can't play his cards. So, he agrees to say that Houston would be a good addition knowing that other schools will vote to keep them out. Their hands would be clean. You can't take anything for face value.

So instead, you dig for underlying meanings that in all probability aren't there.

You're right, it's a big conspiracy between Gov. Abbott, Lt. Gov. Patrick, the UT president and chancellor, the Texas Tech president, the Houston mayor, TCU's football and baseball coaches, and an assortment of TX state senators.

I'm not digging, it's politics. Do you really think that Texas or the other Texas schools want Houston? No,,,,why would they want the threat. Houston is on an incredible roll, TT, Baylor, etc want no part of the Coogs. That being said, could you imagine the backlash if word got out that the President of UT didn't want Houston? Of course they have to say that they want them. C'mon, you know that.

Hey, I may be 100% wrong, no one knows what's going on behind closed doors. Maybe the reporters are on the exact truth, but that rarely happens.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-that-wood

without the backdoor deal i honestly dont hink ut would care

UT will always be UT, if the win they will get recruits, they are UT and have more money than anyone plus they are like ND and can recruit national if they want

and secondly UT controls every texas school and used them like a power chip..im guessing you dont remember how Colorado got into the pac 10 ...the pac 10 sent out a group invite of 5 to OU, UT, TTECH, Okstate amd Colorado (with utah being the 6th member) ..Texas started to politic and manipulate the situation and planned to switch out Colorado for baylor to give texas more voting leverage in the pac 10...the pac 10 found out and sent Colorado a separate invite, only to have the other 4 back out
texas doesnt fear other texas schools and benefits from them as voting entity

Precisely the reason I say Texas is never leaving the B12 because it's good to be the "BIG DOG" Can't be the big dog any other conference they be just another dog among many. They ran the SWC they run the B12 and the deicide to go to another conference they will have to run that too or they are not going. Simple as that. All that talk about Texas leaving the B12 is hollow too me. Just a FYI Texas was the one that sponsored Houston into the old SWC. UT/UH destinies are intertwined been that way for some time, as much as the Horns don't won't to accept that reality.

That is true and correct me if I am wrong, but that was only because the SEC was going to send an invite at the same time the SWC (UT Conference) did. Except, if I have read it right, UH chose the SWC over the SEC and again in 91 when Arkansas left.

(07-27-2016 12:47 AM)BattleCougarRed_88 Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 12:35 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 10:12 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 09:41 PM)Wavetime Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 09:26 PM)Kronke Wrote:  So instead, you dig for underlying meanings that in all probability aren't there.

You're right, it's a big conspiracy between Gov. Abbott, Lt. Gov. Patrick, the UT president and chancellor, the Texas Tech president, the Houston mayor, TCU's football and baseball coaches, and an assortment of TX state senators.

I'm not digging, it's politics. Do you really think that Texas or the other Texas schools want Houston? No,,,,why would they want the threat. Houston is on an incredible roll, TT, Baylor, etc want no part of the Coogs. That being said, could you imagine the backlash if word got out that the President of UT didn't want Houston? Of course they have to say that they want them. C'mon, you know that.

Hey, I may be 100% wrong, no one knows what's going on behind closed doors. Maybe the reporters are on the exact truth, but that rarely happens.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-that-wood

without the backdoor deal i honestly dont hink ut would care

UT will always be UT, if the win they will get recruits, they are UT and have more money than anyone plus they are like ND and can recruit national if they want

and secondly UT controls every texas school and used them like a power chip..im guessing you dont remember how Colorado got into the pac 10 ...the pac 10 sent out a group invite of 5 to OU, UT, TTECH, Okstate amd Colorado (with utah being the 6th member) ..Texas started to politic and manipulate the situation and planned to switch out Colorado for baylor to give texas more voting leverage in the pac 10...the pac 10 found out and sent Colorado a separate invite, only to have the other 4 back out
texas doesnt fear other texas schools and benefits from them as voting entity

Precisely the reason I say Texas is never leaving the B12 because it's good to be the "BIG DOG" Can't be the big dog any other conference they be just another dog among many. They ran the SWC they run the B12 and the deicide to go to another conference they will have to run that too or they are not going. Simple as that. All that talk about Texas leaving the B12 is hollow too me. Just a FYI Texas was the one that sponsored Houston into the old SWC. UT/UH destinies are intertwined been that way for some time, as much as the Horns don't won't to accept that reality.

That is true and correct me if I am wrong, but that was only because the SEC was going to send an invite at the same time the SWC (UT Conference) did. Except, if I have read it right, UH chose the SWC over the SEC and again in 91 when Arkansas left.

Houston almost had an invite in-hand in the mid 60's to join the SEC, Ole Miss I believe was going to sponsor them in until Coach Yeoman started recruiting AA players and that killed any momentum by by the SEC to invite, at that time the SEC did not recruit or play AA players. Actually the story goes, Texas invited Houston to the SWC because Houston was doing very well as an independent was ranked by Playboy magazine in one year to win the NC. The story goes Texas, wanted us in the SWC to slow our momentum as a program(old saying goes, I rather have them peeing on the outside of the tent with the rest of us, instead of into it, on us) They made UH wait almost 5 or 6 years after the invite to play our first game in the SWC, which by the way we won in our first year in the SWC, so much for slowing our momentum.

(07-27-2016 12:47 AM)BattleCougarRed_88 Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 12:35 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 10:12 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 09:41 PM)Wavetime Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 09:26 PM)Kronke Wrote:  So instead, you dig for underlying meanings that in all probability aren't there.

You're right, it's a big conspiracy between Gov. Abbott, Lt. Gov. Patrick, the UT president and chancellor, the Texas Tech president, the Houston mayor, TCU's football and baseball coaches, and an assortment of TX state senators.

I'm not digging, it's politics. Do you really think that Texas or the other Texas schools want Houston? No,,,,why would they want the threat. Houston is on an incredible roll, TT, Baylor, etc want no part of the Coogs. That being said, could you imagine the backlash if word got out that the President of UT didn't want Houston? Of course they have to say that they want them. C'mon, you know that.

Hey, I may be 100% wrong, no one knows what's going on behind closed doors. Maybe the reporters are on the exact truth, but that rarely happens.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-that-wood

without the backdoor deal i honestly dont hink ut would care

UT will always be UT, if the win they will get recruits, they are UT and have more money than anyone plus they are like ND and can recruit national if they want

and secondly UT controls every texas school and used them like a power chip..im guessing you dont remember how Colorado got into the pac 10 ...the pac 10 sent out a group invite of 5 to OU, UT, TTECH, Okstate amd Colorado (with utah being the 6th member) ..Texas started to politic and manipulate the situation and planned to switch out Colorado for baylor to give texas more voting leverage in the pac 10...the pac 10 found out and sent Colorado a separate invite, only to have the other 4 back out
texas doesnt fear other texas schools and benefits from them as voting entity

Precisely the reason I say Texas is never leaving the B12 because it's good to be the "BIG DOG" Can't be the big dog any other conference they be just another dog among many. They ran the SWC they run the B12 and the deicide to go to another conference they will have to run that too or they are not going. Simple as that. All that talk about Texas leaving the B12 is hollow too me. Just a FYI Texas was the one that sponsored Houston into the old SWC. UT/UH destinies are intertwined been that way for some time, as much as the Horns don't won't to accept that reality.

That is true and correct me if I am wrong, but that was only because the SEC was going to send an invite at the same time the SWC (UT Conference) did. Except, if I have read it right, UH chose the SWC over the SEC and again in 91 when Arkansas left.

Not true. Lol. Yall have lost touch with reality

This theme is repeated ad nauseum by houston fans.

The SWC started in 1914. It had a founders core.



The conference was critically ill in
1974

http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/...onference/

Houston joined the SWC in 1976 and conf died in 1996.

From 1996 until now (presumably) no fricks given about houston by any member that left.

So its 2016, Texas left houston to wander the desert for the same amount of time yall were conference mates, hardly what i would call intertwined destinies.

Lets dont get carried away coogs, come down from the mountain for a moment.

Texss hasnt strong armed you in for 20 years. Maybe they do this time. I have no idea.

(07-27-2016 01:54 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 12:47 AM)BattleCougarRed_88 Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 12:35 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 10:12 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 09:41 PM)Wavetime Wrote:  I'm not digging, it's politics. Do you really think that Texas or the other Texas schools want Houston? No,,,,why would they want the threat. Houston is on an incredible roll, TT, Baylor, etc want no part of the Coogs. That being said, could you imagine the backlash if word got out that the President of UT didn't want Houston? Of course they have to say that they want them. C'mon, you know that.

Hey, I may be 100% wrong, no one knows what's going on behind closed doors. Maybe the reporters are on the exact truth, but that rarely happens.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-that-wood

without the backdoor deal i honestly dont hink ut would care

UT will always be UT, if the win they will get recruits, they are UT and have more money than anyone plus they are like ND and can recruit national if they want

and secondly UT controls every texas school and used them like a power chip..im guessing you dont remember how Colorado got into the pac 10 ...the pac 10 sent out a group invite of 5 to OU, UT, TTECH, Okstate amd Colorado (with utah being the 6th member) ..Texas started to politic and manipulate the situation and planned to switch out Colorado for baylor to give texas more voting leverage in the pac 10...the pac 10 found out and sent Colorado a separate invite, only to have the other 4 back out
texas doesnt fear other texas schools and benefits from them as voting entity

Precisely the reason I say Texas is never leaving the B12 because it's good to be the "BIG DOG" Can't be the big dog any other conference they be just another dog among many. They ran the SWC they run the B12 and the deicide to go to another conference they will have to run that too or they are not going. Simple as that. All that talk about Texas leaving the B12 is hollow too me. Just a FYI Texas was the one that sponsored Houston into the old SWC. UT/UH destinies are intertwined been that way for some time, as much as the Horns don't won't to accept that reality.

That is true and correct me if I am wrong, but that was only because the SEC was going to send an invite at the same time the SWC (UT Conference) did. Except, if I have read it right, UH chose the SWC over the SEC and again in 91 when Arkansas left.

Not true. Lol. Yall have lost touch with reality

This theme is repeated ad nauseum by houston fans.

The SWC started in 1914. It had a founders core.



The conference was critically ill in
1974

http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/...onference/

Houston joined the SWC in 1976 and conf died in 1996.

From 1996 until now (presumably) no fricks given about houston by any member that left.

So its 2016, Texas left houston to wander the desert for the same amount of time yall were conference mates, hardly what i would call intertwined destinies.

Lets dont get carried away coogs, come down from the mountain for a moment.

Texss hasnt strong armed you in for 20 years. Maybe they do this time. I have no idea.

In the past, no one gave two fricks about Memphis just like no one did after joining C-USA and the AAC. Your point?

(07-27-2016 02:53 AM)BattleCougarRed_88 Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 01:54 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 12:47 AM)BattleCougarRed_88 Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 12:35 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 10:12 PM)pesik Wrote:  without the backdoor deal i honestly dont hink ut would care

UT will always be UT, if the win they will get recruits, they are UT and have more money than anyone plus they are like ND and can recruit national if they want

and secondly UT controls every texas school and used them like a power chip..im guessing you dont remember how Colorado got into the pac 10 ...the pac 10 sent out a group invite of 5 to OU, UT, TTECH, Okstate amd Colorado (with utah being the 6th member) ..Texas started to politic and manipulate the situation and planned to switch out Colorado for baylor to give texas more voting leverage in the pac 10...the pac 10 found out and sent Colorado a separate invite, only to have the other 4 back out
texas doesnt fear other texas schools and benefits from them as voting entity

Precisely the reason I say Texas is never leaving the B12 because it's good to be the "BIG DOG" Can't be the big dog any other conference they be just another dog among many. They ran the SWC they run the B12 and the deicide to go to another conference they will have to run that too or they are not going. Simple as that. All that talk about Texas leaving the B12 is hollow too me. Just a FYI Texas was the one that sponsored Houston into the old SWC. UT/UH destinies are intertwined been that way for some time, as much as the Horns don't won't to accept that reality.

That is true and correct me if I am wrong, but that was only because the SEC was going to send an invite at the same time the SWC (UT Conference) did. Except, if I have read it right, UH chose the SWC over the SEC and again in 91 when Arkansas left.

Not true. Lol. Yall have lost touch with reality

This theme is repeated ad nauseum by houston fans.

The SWC started in 1914. It had a founders core.



The conference was critically ill in
1974

http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/...onference/

Houston joined the SWC in 1976 and conf died in 1996.

From 1996 until now (presumably) no fricks given about houston by any member that left.

So its 2016, Texas left houston to wander the desert for the same amount of time yall were conference mates, hardly what i would call intertwined destinies.

Lets dont get carried away coogs, come down from the mountain for a moment.

Texss hasnt strong armed you in for 20 years. Maybe they do this time. I have no idea.

In the past, no one gave two fricks about Memphis just like no one did after joining C-USA and the AAC. Your point?

My point is a you dont know that, we were founding members of both cusa, the great midwest and thr aac conferences, Thee swc was on its death bed you joined a dead conference and your hubris needs to be toned down a notch. The rest is pretty clear. If texas or any of your other bretheren wanted you that much youd already be there. Good luck but so what you are no better than any school in the aac.

Your insufferable pomposity in tiresome.

(07-27-2016 01:54 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 12:47 AM)BattleCougarRed_88 Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 12:35 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 10:12 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 09:41 PM)Wavetime Wrote:  I'm not digging, it's politics. Do you really think that Texas or the other Texas schools want Houston? No,,,,why would they want the threat. Houston is on an incredible roll, TT, Baylor, etc want no part of the Coogs. That being said, could you imagine the backlash if word got out that the President of UT didn't want Houston? Of course they have to say that they want them. C'mon, you know that.

Hey, I may be 100% wrong, no one knows what's going on behind closed doors. Maybe the reporters are on the exact truth, but that rarely happens.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-that-wood

without the backdoor deal i honestly dont hink ut would care

UT will always be UT, if the win they will get recruits, they are UT and have more money than anyone plus they are like ND and can recruit national if they want

and secondly UT controls every texas school and used them like a power chip..im guessing you dont remember how Colorado got into the pac 10 ...the pac 10 sent out a group invite of 5 to OU, UT, TTECH, Okstate amd Colorado (with utah being the 6th member) ..Texas started to politic and manipulate the situation and planned to switch out Colorado for baylor to give texas more voting leverage in the pac 10...the pac 10 found out and sent Colorado a separate invite, only to have the other 4 back out
texas doesnt fear other texas schools and benefits from them as voting entity

Precisely the reason I say Texas is never leaving the B12 because it's good to be the "BIG DOG" Can't be the big dog any other conference they be just another dog among many. They ran the SWC they run the B12 and the deicide to go to another conference they will have to run that too or they are not going. Simple as that. All that talk about Texas leaving the B12 is hollow too me. Just a FYI Texas was the one that sponsored Houston into the old SWC. UT/UH destinies are intertwined been that way for some time, as much as the Horns don't won't to accept that reality.

That is true and correct me if I am wrong, but that was only because the SEC was going to send an invite at the same time the SWC (UT Conference) did. Except, if I have read it right, UH chose the SWC over the SEC and again in 91 when Arkansas left.

Not true. Lol. Yall have lost touch with reality

This theme is repeated ad nauseum by houston fans.

The SWC started in 1914. It had a founders core.



The conference was critically ill in
1974

http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/...onference/

Houston joined the SWC in 1976 and conf died in 1996.

From 1996 until now (presumably) no fricks given about houston by any member that left.

So its 2016, Texas left houston to wander the desert for the same amount of time yall were conference mates, hardly what i would call intertwined destinies.

Lets dont get carried away coogs, come down from the mountain for a moment.

Texss hasnt strong armed you in for 20 years. Maybe they do this time. I have no idea.

Shere speak on things you know, you know nothing about the inside dealing of UH and its FB and University history in the State of Texas and out, I do because I lived some of it and know others who have before me who are Coog Alum who I know who lived it the 60's early 70's before I got there, who can speak with authority about UH and UT inside history. I sense a little jealousy and envy in your post, my friend. Truth isn't pomposity its just truth. No one try to glorify the history of Houston, just stating historical fact. If the post rub you the wrong way don't read therm. I and other UH faithful have told our mates on this board many times we learned our lesson in being left out, (Frank the Tank finally realized this in his analysis in making UH no. 1 for expansion candidate after having us a low candidate in his initial analysis, being in Texas and all and the B12 not needing another Texas member) we learned to play the political game and it may payoff handsomely for us hopefully this time around, But I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch. If things work out for us, maybe Memphis can learn a thing or two from Houston on how to get things done. If it doesn't, we still be here kicking Tiger butt. Here looking at ya. Cheers buddy!

(07-27-2016 08:15 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 01:54 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 12:47 AM)BattleCougarRed_88 Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 12:35 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 10:12 PM)pesik Wrote:  without the backdoor deal i honestly dont hink ut would care

UT will always be UT, if the win they will get recruits, they are UT and have more money than anyone plus they are like ND and can recruit national if they want

and secondly UT controls every texas school and used them like a power chip..im guessing you dont remember how Colorado got into the pac 10 ...the pac 10 sent out a group invite of 5 to OU, UT, TTECH, Okstate amd Colorado (with utah being the 6th member) ..Texas started to politic and manipulate the situation and planned to switch out Colorado for baylor to give texas more voting leverage in the pac 10...the pac 10 found out and sent Colorado a separate invite, only to have the other 4 back out
texas doesnt fear other texas schools and benefits from them as voting entity

Precisely the reason I say Texas is never leaving the B12 because it's good to be the "BIG DOG" Can't be the big dog any other conference they be just another dog among many. They ran the SWC they run the B12 and the deicide to go to another conference they will have to run that too or they are not going. Simple as that. All that talk about Texas leaving the B12 is hollow too me. Just a FYI Texas was the one that sponsored Houston into the old SWC. UT/UH destinies are intertwined been that way for some time, as much as the Horns don't won't to accept that reality.

That is true and correct me if I am wrong, but that was only because the SEC was going to send an invite at the same time the SWC (UT Conference) did. Except, if I have read it right, UH chose the SWC over the SEC and again in 91 when Arkansas left.

Not true. Lol. Yall have lost touch with reality

This theme is repeated ad nauseum by houston fans.

The SWC started in 1914. It had a founders core.



The conference was critically ill in
1974

http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/...onference/

Houston joined the SWC in 1976 and conf died in 1996.

From 1996 until now (presumably) no fricks given about houston by any member that left.

So its 2016, Texas left houston to wander the desert for the same amount of time yall were conference mates, hardly what i would call intertwined destinies.

Lets dont get carried away coogs, come down from the mountain for a moment.

Texss hasnt strong armed you in for 20 years. Maybe they do this time. I have no idea.

Shere speak on things you know, you know nothing about the inside dealing of UH and its FB and University history in the State of Texas and out, I do because I lived some of it and know others who have before me who are Coog Alum who I know who lived it the 60's early 70's before I got there, who can speak with authority about UH and UT inside history. I sense a little jealousy and envy in your post, my friend. Truth isn't pomposity its just truth. No one try to glorify the history of Houston, just stating historical fact. If the post rub you the wrong way don't read therm. I and other UH faithful have told our mates on this board many times we learned our lesson in being left out, (Frank the Tank finally realized this in his analysis in making UH no. 1 for expansion candidate after having us a low candidate in his initial analysis, being in Texas and all and the B12 not needing another Texas member) we learned to play the political game and it may payoff handsomely for us hopefully this time around, But I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch. If things work out for us, maybe Memphis can learn a thing or to from Houston and how to get things done. If it doesn't we still be here kicking Tiger butt. Here looking at ya. Cheers buddy!

[img]http://thompsonian.info/SWC-TSHOF/SDC10102-TSHOF-SWC-mascots-painted-poster.JPG/[img]

No jealousy at all. I wouldnt comment if that were the case. Everything I posted is true with a reference, not pompous opinion. If i am wrong enlighten me, otherwise carry on with your hubris.

Ill leave this right here for you to consider

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" 

Good luck

(07-27-2016 08:40 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 08:15 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 01:54 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 12:47 AM)BattleCougarRed_88 Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 12:35 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Precisely the reason I say Texas is never leaving the B12 because it's good to be the "BIG DOG" Can't be the big dog any other conference they be just another dog among many. They ran the SWC they run the B12 and the deicide to go to another conference they will have to run that too or they are not going. Simple as that. All that talk about Texas leaving the B12 is hollow too me. Just a FYI Texas was the one that sponsored Houston into the old SWC. UT/UH destinies are intertwined been that way for some time, as much as the Horns don't won't to accept that reality.

That is true and correct me if I am wrong, but that was only because the SEC was going to send an invite at the same time the SWC (UT Conference) did. Except, if I have read it right, UH chose the SWC over the SEC and again in 91 when Arkansas left.

Not true. Lol. Yall have lost touch with reality

This theme is repeated ad nauseum by houston fans.

The SWC started in 1914. It had a founders core.



The conference was critically ill in
1974

http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/...onference/

Houston joined the SWC in 1976 and conf died in 1996.

From 1996 until now (presumably) no fricks given about houston by any member that left.

So its 2016, Texas left houston to wander the desert for the same amount of time yall were conference mates, hardly what i would call intertwined destinies.

Lets dont get carried away coogs, come down from the mountain for a moment.

Texss hasnt strong armed you in for 20 years. Maybe they do this time. I have no idea.

Shere speak on things you know, you know nothing about the inside dealing of UH and its FB and University history in the State of Texas and out, I do because I lived some of it and know others who have before me who are Coog Alum who I know who lived it the 60's early 70's before I got there, who can speak with authority about UH and UT inside history. I sense a little jealousy and envy in your post, my friend. Truth isn't pomposity its just truth. No one try to glorify the history of Houston, just stating historical fact. If the post rub you the wrong way don't read therm. I and other UH faithful have told our mates on this board many times we learned our lesson in being left out, (Frank the Tank finally realized this in his analysis in making UH no. 1 for expansion candidate after having us a low candidate in his initial analysis, being in Texas and all and the B12 not needing another Texas member) we learned to play the political game and it may payoff handsomely for us hopefully this time around, But I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch. If things work out for us, maybe Memphis can learn a thing or to from Houston and how to get things done. If it doesn't we still be here kicking Tiger butt. Here looking at ya. Cheers buddy!

[img]http://thompsonian.info/SWC-TSHOF/SDC10102-TSHOF-SWC-mascots-painted-poster.JPG/[img]

No jealousy at all. I wouldnt comment if that were the case. Everything I posted is true with a reference, not pompous opinion. If i am wrong enlighten me, otherwise carry on with your hubris.

Ill leave this right here for you to consider

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" 

Good luck

LOOK AT THE COOG AIN'T HE PURDY?

(07-27-2016 01:54 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Not true. Lol. Yall have lost touch with reality

This theme is repeated ad nauseum by houston fans.

Shere you may want to deny it but we were a close vote away from being in the SEC in the 60's. Ole Miss was our sponsor we have the official documents in our archives (was posted online sometime ago but don't have the time to find it today). As for the invite in the early 90's that is more rumor than fact. Could it be true? Of course but we don't have the hard evidence like we did from the 60's.

(07-27-2016 01:54 AM)shere khan Wrote:  So its 2016, Texas left houston to wander the desert for the same amount of time yall were conference mates, hardly what i would call intertwined destinies.

Lets dont get carried away coogs, come down from the mountain for a moment.

Texss hasnt strong armed you in for 20 years. Maybe they do this time. I have no idea.

As for the SWC we were slated to be invited by the conference years before we actually were. At that time (somewhere between 5-10 year don't have the exact date at the tip of my fingers) we were sponsored by Texas for membership. Rice (who was a much stronger program and power player then) got wind of it and suggested that they should be our sponsors with both being in Houston.

This was a bait and switch by the Owls as they never intended for us to be invited all along. So Texas dropped its sponsorship in favor of Rice and low and behold, as we were literally (if I recall correctly) sitting in the hallway, stabbed us in the back and came out to tell us we won't 'be joining the SWC. Which is among the main reasons we have just a deep hatred for Rice.

So to sum up we have seen the politics of the 90's (the B12 formation), the back stabbing lying to our face (the 1st SWC invite), and we are not naive to think that it couldn't happen again. We have played this game for over 50 years and outsiders just make me laugh if they think they know what is going on when it comes to politics and football in the State of Texas......

(07-27-2016 08:55 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 01:54 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Not true. Lol. Yall have lost touch with reality

This theme is repeated ad nauseum by houston fans.

Shere you may want to deny it but we were a close vote away from being in the SEC in the 60's. Ole Miss was our sponsor we have the official documents in our archives (was posted online sometime ago but don't have the time to find it today). As for the invite in the early 90's that is more rumor than fact. Could it be true? Of course but we don't have the hard evidence like we did from the 60's.

(07-27-2016 01:54 AM)shere khan Wrote:  So its 2016, Texas left houston to wander the desert for the same amount of time yall were conference mates, hardly what i would call intertwined destinies.

Lets dont get carried away coogs, come down from the mountain for a moment.

Texss hasnt strong armed you in for 20 years. Maybe they do this time. I have no idea.

As for the SWC we were slated to be invited by the conference years before we actually were. At that time (somewhere between 5-10 year don't have the exact date at the tip of my fingers) we were sponsored by Texas for membership. Rice (who was a much stronger program and power player then) got wind of it and suggested that they should be our sponsors with both being in Houston.

This was a bait and switch by the Owls as they never intended for us to be invited all along. So Texas dropped its sponsorship in favor of Rice and low and behold, as we were literally (if I recall correctly) sitting in the hallway, stabbed us in the back and came out to tell us we won't 'be joining the SWC. Which is among the main reasons we have just a deep hatred for Rice.

So to sum up we have seen the politics of the 90's (the B12 formation), the back stabbing lying to our face (the 1st SWC invite), and we are not naive to think that it couldn't happen again. We have played this game for over 50 years and outsiders just make me laugh if they think they know what is going on when it comes to politics and football in the State of Texas......

We were close with the SEC too, oldtiger knows that story better than me. I dont doubt houston was.

You just pointed out exactly what i was saying about texas in your post.

"as we were literally (if I recall correctly) sitting in the hallway, [Texas] stabbed us in the back and came out to tell us we won't 'be joining the SWC."

I dont think it was rice that bumped you but texas tech. Rice was an original member. Tech joined in 1958, maybe they bumped you.

I know college football pretty well even though i didnt live in Texas. I know stuff about lotsa places i havent been and political dealings far more complicated and intriguing than texas football. My generation reads books.

(07-27-2016 09:45 AM)shere khan Wrote:  I dont think it was rice that bumped you but texas tech. Rice was an original member. Tech joined in 1958, maybe they bumped you.

I know college football pretty well even though i didnt live in Texas. I know stuff about lotsa places i havent been and political dealings far more complicated and intriguing than texas football. My generation reads books.

It was Rice not sure how Tech voted but Rice being our "sponsor" carried a lot of weight and them voting against us swayed anyone on the fence.

You should see my library I am an avid reader as well. Don't get me started on anything historical its my passion/area of focus.

My point being the normal rules don't apply to football and the State of Texas. We wont' have the same old trick pulled on us again. We have the right people in the right places. At worst we have people indifferent to us in other locations. Other than message board trolls we don't really have the push to keep us out anymore.

As for the governor and other politicians it works for them form a public perception standpoint but also from a financial one. UH in the B12 (or any P5) is a financial windfall for the region. Hotels, tourism, etc. would all go up and only get higher. Not to mention the increased revenue and less demand on public funding.

Before any of you go there I am not claiming (at least right away....lol) that they are all coming to see us. I am talking about visiting fans spending their dollars in Texas and in Houston that may not have before or at least to a lesser extent before.

(07-26-2016 09:16 PM)Goldenbuc Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 12:03 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Yes you are correct however if oklahoma dosent want houston in to the point of of saying they are leaving
If ok says its us or them that houston is out

The non-Texas schools don't care about what Texas schools want or their politicians. If UT says "we'll leave" OK would say, "go ahead". Texas ain't gonna leave over Houston. That's truth.

And the Texas schools will stick together and vote the same bloc. That's truth

(07-26-2016 11:57 AM)acc4life Wrote:  Houston is only receiving an invite from Texas in exchange for not blocking their building of a Houston based campus...amirite? There is some major political lassoing going on in the Lone Star state...

lol coming from a Va Tech fan

(07-27-2016 09:45 AM)shere khan Wrote:  We were close with the SEC too, oldtiger knows that story better than me. I dont doubt houston was.

80s we were too - hip and hip with Arkansas, stayed loyal to SWC..

that worked out well

How many people really believe UH would be able to block UT from opening UT-Houston? I get trying to connect the dots but if UT wants UT- Houston, they will get UT-Houston.

(07-27-2016 02:56 PM)3rdWardCoog Wrote:  How many people really believe UH would be able to block UT from opening UT-Houston? I get trying to connect the dots but if UT wants UT- Houston, they will get UT-Houston.

Whitmire is head of the committee it would have to go through.

(07-27-2016 02:44 PM)ShockerBob Wrote:  

(07-26-2016 11:57 AM)acc4life Wrote:  Houston is only receiving an invite from Texas in exchange for not blocking their building of a Houston based campus...amirite? There is some major political lassoing going on in the Lone Star state...

lol coming from a Va Tech fan

Get back to me when you have a football team and join a real basketball conference.

(07-27-2016 03:00 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 02:56 PM)3rdWardCoog Wrote:  How many people really believe UH would be able to block UT from opening UT-Houston? I get trying to connect the dots but if UT wants UT- Houston, they will get UT-Houston.

Whitmire is head of the committee it would have to go through.

Not saying you are wrong but how sure are we Whitmire has the authority to stop UT. I have seen where is he chair of the Finance Higher Ed Subcommittee (not in his bio on State of Texas web). Wouldn't the final veto have to be voted on by the Finance or Higher Ed committee? I am just asking because I see this thrown around about how UH can block UT but it just hard for me to believe that,