Texas wants Houston for Power and Control of the Big 12 Conference in the future, if the Big 12 expands. It has nothing to do with what's best for the conference.
1. With 10 schools you need 8 votes to pass something.
2. With 12 schools you need 9.6 votes to pass something
3. With 14 schools you need 11.2 schools to pass something.
With Texas, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, & Houston. The Univ. of Texas controls 5 votes. The Northern schools are screwed. Why do you think Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, Texas A&M and Arkansas left the conference? They left because Texas controls the conference. The Big 12 should ask Texas to go Independent, like Notre Dame. Oh, No other conference wants them. Who wants to put up with their B.S..

If you think UT controls TCU and Baylor, there's no hope for you. Tech...you have a great argument for that. UH, possibly. Would they form a block on similar issues? Yes. You think UH or TT is going to be a bundle deal for UT to the PAC12? No. This isn't Oklahoma where a wealthy benefactor and the state legislature tie OU to OSU much tighter.
I would actually posit the idea that geography would help maintain the B12. A Texas/SWC division and a northern division with the winners playing in the championship game? That would work and sell tickets and involve teams with more games in their rivalries than current AAC teams have big games in their entire school history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(08-26-2016 09:15 PM)Puckhead48E Wrote:  If you think UT controls TCU and Baylor, there's no hope for you.

Meh, "controls" isn't quite the word I'd use. But there is a lot of influence. A lot.

(08-26-2016 08:45 PM)MrCincy Wrote:  Texas wants Houston for Power and Control of the Big 12 Conference in the future, if the Big 12 expands. It has nothing to do with what's best for the conference.
1. With 10 schools you need 8 votes to pass something.
2. With 12 schools you need 9.6 votes to pass something
3. With 14 schools you need 11.2 schools to pass something.
With Texas, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, & Houston. The Univ. of Texas controls 5 votes. The Northern schools are screwed. Why do you think Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, Texas A&M and Arkansas left the conference? They left because Texas controls the conference. The Big 12 should ask Texas to go Independent, like Notre Dame. Oh, No other conference wants them. Who wants to put up with their B.S..

You just need 50% plus one to pass most things. Texas never controlled enough to control simple majority votes and won't if Houston is added. Only a handful of issues require a super majority. However, as anchor schools, Texas and Oklahoma wield tremendous influence.

(08-26-2016 08:45 PM)MrCincy Wrote:  Texas wants Houston for Power and Control of the Big 12 Conference in the future, if the Big 12 expands. It has nothing to do with what's best for the conference.
1. With 10 schools you need 8 votes to pass something.
2. With 12 schools you need 9.6 votes to pass something
3. With 14 schools you need 11.2 schools to pass something.
With Texas, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, & Houston. The Univ. of Texas controls 5 votes. The Northern schools are screwed. Why do you think Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, Texas A&M and Arkansas left the conference? They left because Texas controls the conference. The Big 12 should ask Texas to go Independent, like Notre Dame. Oh, No other conference wants them. Who wants to put up with their B.S..

Your math has a wrong assumption. Super majority is NOT 80%. It's 75% or higher. So (all rounded up to whole numbers) at 10, it's 8. At 12, it's 9, and at 14, it's 11.

That means at 14 teams, you need 4 votes to block something. But Texas doesn't control 4 Texas school votes, b/c TCU and BU are private. UT only effectively controls TTU's vote. Houston would make it 3, but that is still one short of a block at 14.

And I'm sure the non-Texas schools wouldn't let UH in at 12. But at 14, yeah, I can see it.

(08-26-2016 09:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 08:45 PM)MrCincy Wrote:  Texas wants Houston for Power and Control of the Big 12 Conference in the future, if the Big 12 expands. It has nothing to do with what's best for the conference.
1. With 10 schools you need 8 votes to pass something.
2. With 12 schools you need 9.6 votes to pass something
3. With 14 schools you need 11.2 schools to pass something.
With Texas, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, & Houston. The Univ. of Texas controls 5 votes. The Northern schools are screwed. Why do you think Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, Texas A&M and Arkansas left the conference? They left because Texas controls the conference. The Big 12 should ask Texas to go Independent, like Notre Dame. Oh, No other conference wants them. Who wants to put up with their B.S..

You just need 50% plus one to pass most things. Texas never controlled enough to control simple majority votes and won't if Houston is added. Only a handful of issues require a super majority. However, as anchor schools, Texas and Oklahoma wield tremendous influence.

Agree. Super majority only needed for conference additions, subtractions, or dissolution, afaik.

(08-26-2016 09:15 PM)Puckhead48E Wrote:  If you think UT controls TCU and Baylor, there's no hope for you. Tech...you have a great argument for that. UH, possibly. Would they form a block on similar issues? Yes. You think UH or TT is going to be a bundle deal for UT to the PAC12? No. This isn't Oklahoma where a wealthy benefactor and the state legislature tie OU to OSU much tighter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Excuse me brother, but a wealthy benefactor and the state legislature do not tie OU to OSU. You could say Oklahoma is not like Texas where the politicians get involved in conference realignment.

(08-26-2016 10:01 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 09:15 PM)Puckhead48E Wrote:  If you think UT controls TCU and Baylor, there's no hope for you. Tech...you have a great argument for that. UH, possibly. Would they form a block on similar issues? Yes. You think UH or TT is going to be a bundle deal for UT to the PAC12? No. This isn't Oklahoma where a wealthy benefactor and the state legislature tie OU to OSU much tighter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Excuse me brother, but a wealthy benefactor and the state legislature do not tie OU to OSU. You could say Oklahoma is not like Texas where the politicians get involved in conference realignment.

Are you suggesting OU is tied less to OSU than UT is to Tech? I don't buy it, but I'm willing to be convinced.

And I like their benefactor...he wields enormous amounts of in state power and he likes us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(08-27-2016 04:27 AM)Puckhead48E Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:01 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 09:15 PM)Puckhead48E Wrote:  If you think UT controls TCU and Baylor, there's no hope for you. Tech...you have a great argument for that. UH, possibly. Would they form a block on similar issues? Yes. You think UH or TT is going to be a bundle deal for UT to the PAC12? No. This isn't Oklahoma where a wealthy benefactor and the state legislature tie OU to OSU much tighter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Excuse me brother, but a wealthy benefactor and the state legislature do not tie OU to OSU. You could say Oklahoma is not like Texas where the politicians get involved in conference realignment.

Are you suggesting OU is tied less to OSU than UT is to Tech? I don't buy it, but I'm willing to be convinced.

And I like their benefactor...he wields enormous amounts of in state power and he likes us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure thing Bro. The main tie between OU and OSU is that the Administration's cooperate and not just in athletics, but in all things, which I will explain below. Plus they would like to stay in the same conference.

However, the legislature has never interfered with OU and OSU in any way and likely never will. For one thing the two schools each have their Board of Regents, but the ultimate governing body for both schools is the same and that is the State Board of Regents of Higher Education.

Another reason the politicians in Oklahoma would never hold OU back, is because about 70-80% of the voters in Oklahoma are OU fans. Any politician that goes against OU would be committing political suicide.

So the relationship between OU and OSU is very different than UT and Tech.

Lastly, Pickens lives in Texas and he does not have as much political clout in Oklahoma as you might think. I agree he does like SMU.. and also TCU and UT for that matter

Doesn't the fact that if Texas leaves it's over with pretty much mean they control the conference ?

Texas -

1. Doesn't want UH in a conference with UT, and
2. Will probably leave before or during any addition of potential schools to the Big 12.

(08-27-2016 10:37 AM)TU 1978 Wrote:  Texas -

1. Doesn't want UH in a conference with UT, and
2. Will probably leave before or during any addition of potential schools to the Big 12.

I agree. And my opinion is not a rap on UH. It's instead recognizing the idea that UT doesn't want UH to have a leveling of the playing field (UH will never have all the advantages of UT in TX) but on the FB field UH could dominate UT given a leveling of the playing field - IF UH can stay committed to the process.

(08-27-2016 11:43 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 10:37 AM)TU 1978 Wrote:  Texas -

1. Doesn't want UH in a conference with UT, and
2. Will probably leave before or during any addition of potential schools to the Big 12.

I agree. And my opinion is not a rap on UH. It's instead recognizing the idea that UT doesn't want UH to have a leveling of the playing field (UH will never have all the advantages of UT in TX) but on the FB field UH could dominate UT given a leveling of the playing field - IF UH can stay committed to the process.

Come again? You say on the football field UH could "dominate" UT?

(08-27-2016 01:38 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 11:43 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 10:37 AM)TU 1978 Wrote:  Texas -

1. Doesn't want UH in a conference with UT, and
2. Will probably leave before or during any addition of potential schools to the Big 12.

I agree. And my opinion is not a rap on UH. It's instead recognizing the idea that UT doesn't want UH to have a leveling of the playing field (UH will never have all the advantages of UT in TX) but on the FB field UH could dominate UT given a leveling of the playing field - IF UH can stay committed to the process.

Come again? You say on the football field UH could "dominate" UT?

UH has been doing it on the field for several years already, UT just won't play UH. Apparently you're too close to "Texas" to see what the rest of the college FB nation has been seeing since 2010 out of UT - just a reminder, 5-7, 7-5, 8-4, 7-5, 6-6, 5-7 in the reg seasons. I know most UT fans think their's doesn't stink but their FB is developing a tradition of late that does......especially for a program with all the resources UT has.

(08-27-2016 01:59 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 01:38 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 11:43 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 10:37 AM)TU 1978 Wrote:  Texas -

1. Doesn't want UH in a conference with UT, and
2. Will probably leave before or during any addition of potential schools to the Big 12.

I agree. And my opinion is not a rap on UH. It's instead recognizing the idea that UT doesn't want UH to have a leveling of the playing field (UH will never have all the advantages of UT in TX) but on the FB field UH could dominate UT given a leveling of the playing field - IF UH can stay committed to the process.

Come again? You say on the football field UH could "dominate" UT?

UH has been doing it on the field for several years already, UT just won't play UH. Apparently you're too close to "Texas" to see what the rest of the college FB nation has been seeing since 2010 out of UT - just a reminder, 5-7, 7-5, 8-4, 7-5, 6-6, 5-7 in the reg seasons. I know most UT fans think their's doesn't stink but their FB is developing a tradition of late that does......especially for a program with all the resources UT has.

I did not know UH had played Texas the last several years. UH has not played the same level of competition Texas has. If UH had played OU, Baylor, TCU, OSU, Notre Dame, etc, the last few years instead of Tulane, Tulsa and yes SMU, their record would be a lot worse.

It is true Texas has been down, but you are kidding yourself if you think they will not be back. As you said... especially with their resources.

(08-27-2016 02:45 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 01:59 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 01:38 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 11:43 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 10:37 AM)TU 1978 Wrote:  Texas -

1. Doesn't want UH in a conference with UT, and
2. Will probably leave before or during any addition of potential schools to the Big 12.

I agree. And my opinion is not a rap on UH. It's instead recognizing the idea that UT doesn't want UH to have a leveling of the playing field (UH will never have all the advantages of UT in TX) but on the FB field UH could dominate UT given a leveling of the playing field - IF UH can stay committed to the process.

Come again? You say on the football field UH could "dominate" UT?

UH has been doing it on the field for several years already, UT just won't play UH. Apparently you're too close to "Texas" to see what the rest of the college FB nation has been seeing since 2010 out of UT - just a reminder, 5-7, 7-5, 8-4, 7-5, 6-6, 5-7 in the reg seasons. I know most UT fans think their's doesn't stink but their FB is developing a tradition of late that does......especially for a program with all the resources UT has.

I did not know UH had played Texas the last several years. UH has not played the same level of competition Texas has. If UH had played OU, Baylor, TCU, OSU, Notre Dame, etc, the last few years instead of Tulane, Tulsa and yes SMU, their record would be a lot worse.

It is true Texas has been down, but you are kidding yourself if you think they will not be back. As you said... especially with their resources.

Down for 6-7 years is getting more like a trend or a habit, through two different coaches. And the only thing during that period keeping UH from beating UT is that UT won't play UH. We have the same problem in TN with our UT with all the resources.

(08-27-2016 06:26 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 02:45 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 01:59 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 01:38 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 11:43 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  I agree. And my opinion is not a rap on UH. It's instead recognizing the idea that UT doesn't want UH to have a leveling of the playing field (UH will never have all the advantages of UT in TX) but on the FB field UH could dominate UT given a leveling of the playing field - IF UH can stay committed to the process.

Come again? You say on the football field UH could "dominate" UT?

UH has been doing it on the field for several years already, UT just won't play UH. Apparently you're too close to "Texas" to see what the rest of the college FB nation has been seeing since 2010 out of UT - just a reminder, 5-7, 7-5, 8-4, 7-5, 6-6, 5-7 in the reg seasons. I know most UT fans think their's doesn't stink but their FB is developing a tradition of late that does......especially for a program with all the resources UT has.

I did not know UH had played Texas the last several years. UH has not played the same level of competition Texas has. If UH had played OU, Baylor, TCU, OSU, Notre Dame, etc, the last few years instead of Tulane, Tulsa and yes SMU, their record would be a lot worse.

It is true Texas has been down, but you are kidding yourself if you think they will not be back. As you said... especially with their resources.

Down for 6-7 years is getting more like a trend or a habit, through two different coaches. And the only thing during that period keeping UH from beating UT is that UT won't play UH. We have the same problem in TN with our UT with all the resources.

Strong will be gone after this year.....then say hello to Nick Saban...or Tom Herman

(08-27-2016 09:42 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 06:26 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 02:45 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 01:59 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 01:38 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Come again? You say on the football field UH could "dominate" UT?

UH has been doing it on the field for several years already, UT just won't play UH. Apparently you're too close to "Texas" to see what the rest of the college FB nation has been seeing since 2010 out of UT - just a reminder, 5-7, 7-5, 8-4, 7-5, 6-6, 5-7 in the reg seasons. I know most UT fans think their's doesn't stink but their FB is developing a tradition of late that does......especially for a program with all the resources UT has.

I did not know UH had played Texas the last several years. UH has not played the same level of competition Texas has. If UH had played OU, Baylor, TCU, OSU, Notre Dame, etc, the last few years instead of Tulane, Tulsa and yes SMU, their record would be a lot worse.

It is true Texas has been down, but you are kidding yourself if you think they will not be back. As you said... especially with their resources.

Down for 6-7 years is getting more like a trend or a habit, through two different coaches. And the only thing during that period keeping UH from beating UT is that UT won't play UH. We have the same problem in TN with our UT with all the resources.

Strong will be gone after this year.....then say hello to Nick Saban...or Tom Herman

I doubt Nick Saban leaves for a lesser conference like the big 12. Not to mention alabama is easily able to out pay Texas, since Saban is already the highest paid coach at 7 mil.

(08-27-2016 09:42 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 06:26 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 02:45 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 01:59 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-27-2016 01:38 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Come again? You say on the football field UH could "dominate" UT?

UH has been doing it on the field for several years already, UT just won't play UH. Apparently you're too close to "Texas" to see what the rest of the college FB nation has been seeing since 2010 out of UT - just a reminder, 5-7, 7-5, 8-4, 7-5, 6-6, 5-7 in the reg seasons. I know most UT fans think their's doesn't stink but their FB is developing a tradition of late that does......especially for a program with all the resources UT has.

I did not know UH had played Texas the last several years. UH has not played the same level of competition Texas has. If UH had played OU, Baylor, TCU, OSU, Notre Dame, etc, the last few years instead of Tulane, Tulsa and yes SMU, their record would be a lot worse.

It is true Texas has been down, but you are kidding yourself if you think they will not be back. As you said... especially with their resources.

Down for 6-7 years is getting more like a trend or a habit, through two different coaches. And the only thing during that period keeping UH from beating UT is that UT won't play UH. We have the same problem in TN with our UT with all the resources.

Strong will be gone after this year.....then say hello to Nick Saban...or Tom Herman

That sort of talk is typical UT - like they can "beckon" anyone to be their coach...but they have Strong & they are building a strong tradition of losing. BTW, Saban will retire at UA after he wins another NT. What those too close to UT don't see is that UT has built a culture of entitlement & they are holding on to a myth, a fantasy of status that no longer applies when it comes to performance on the field - and ironically the delusion is so deep they don't even understand it.

Delusional is comparing UH and UT to Tenn and Memphis. UH actually has a history of playing football in a big conference. Memphis has had a very impressive run...don't let that color your glasses to much.
And UT doesn't fear UH like they don't fear any Texas team other than the potential of A&M. Why? That's illogical you say? They look down on UH and on TCU and Baylor and SMU and Tech(well, everyone looks down on tech). If you look down on someone, it never occurred to you that they could achieve a certain level of success against them.

BTW, that's the same way Tennessee feels about Memphis. Heck, PSU feels that way about Temple even after being smacked around by then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk