Especially Houston. Houston to the Big 12 would just cannibalize recruiting for the league. The Big 12 needs to branch out into the southeast with expansion.”
(09-15-2016 03:57 PM)EagleFWB Wrote: I've never understood Houston going in for that very reason. Just too many Texas teams.
Problem is - it's like any other state. Politics play a part no matter what the coaches say. If there is enough political push to bring Houston in, it'll happen. If not, it won't. The only question is how much, if any, political pull does Houston, Rice or SMU have? Besides, since Texas plans to secede from the union, maybe they plan keep their football in state.
Especially Houston. Houston to the Big 12 would just cannibalize recruiting for the league. The Big 12 needs to branch out into the southeast with expansion.”
We're in I tell ya! We're in!***
Just a guess, but I'm sure he was thinking Tulane, UCF, USF. Hell, probably even UAB.
(09-15-2016 03:57 PM)EagleFWB Wrote: I've never understood Houston going in for that very reason. Just too many Texas teams.
Problem is - it's like any other state. Politics play a part no matter what the coaches say. If there is enough political push to bring Houston in, it'll happen. If not, it won't. The only question is how much, if any, political pull does Houston, Rice or SMU have? Besides, since Texas plans to secede from the union, maybe they plan keep their football in state.
'Xactly right...Baylor (very successful NOW, but the UK of Big 12 football in the past) was on the way out and political pull saved them....ditto VATech, when UVA fully supported them for ACC membership...and UL had lots of political pull and money in Kentucky.
Kinda surprised Utah actually has more political support in-state than BYU (I guess being in Salt lake City has its privileges...and half the Winter Olympic Games were practically played on Utah's campus and it's multi-million $ spruced-up football stadium), hence the Utes are in the PAC-12 and BYU is outside lookin' in.
As for Mis'sippi, there will NEVER be any political support to pump up Southern Miss----the idea that a successful Mis'sippi Southern program would hurt OP/MSUcks is as ingrained and coded in our psyche right along with "States Rights", "supporting the second amendment at all costs" and "SEC-SEC-SEC is the best and always will be the best.."
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2016 05:39 PM by eaglebeaver.)
(09-15-2016 03:57 PM)EagleFWB Wrote: I've never understood Houston going in for that very reason. Just too many Texas teams.
Problem is - it's like any other state. Politics play a part no matter what the coaches say. If there is enough political push to bring Houston in, it'll happen. If not, it won't. The only question is how much, if any, political pull does Houston, Rice or SMU have? Besides, since Texas plans to secede from the union, maybe they plan keep their football in state.
'Xactly right...Baylor (very successful NOW, but the UK of Big 12 football in the past) was on the way out and political pull saved them....ditto VATech, when UVA fully supported them for ACC membership...and UL had lots of political pull and money in Kentucky.
Kinda surprised Utah actually has more political support in-state than BYU (I guess being in Salt lake City has its privileges...and half the Winter Olympic Games were practically played on Utah's campus and it's multi-million $ spruced-up football stadium), hence the Utes are in the PAC-12 and BYU is outside lookin' in.
As for Mis'sippi, there will NEVER be any political support to pump up Southern Miss----the idea that a successful Mis'sippi Southern program would hurt OP/MSUcks is as ingrained and coded in our psyche right along with "States Rights", "supporting the second amendment at all costs" and "SEC-SEC-SEC is the best and always will be the best.."
Supporting States Rights and the 2nd Amendment is the only things those idiots do correctly...must you mention the two most vital rights in the same breath as the shatty $ec?!?
(09-15-2016 03:57 PM)EagleFWB Wrote: I've never understood Houston going in for that very reason. Just too many Texas teams.
Problem is - it's like any other state. Politics play a part no matter what the coaches say. If there is enough political push to bring Houston in, it'll happen. If not, it won't. The only question is how much, if any, political pull does Houston, Rice or SMU have? Besides, since Texas plans to secede from the union, maybe they plan keep their football in state.
'Xactly right...Baylor (very successful NOW, but the UK of Big 12 football in the past) was on the way out and political pull saved them....ditto VATech, when UVA fully supported them for ACC membership...and UL had lots of political pull and money in Kentucky.
Kinda surprised Utah actually has more political support in-state than BYU (I guess being in Salt lake City has its privileges...and half the Winter Olympic Games were practically played on Utah's campus and it's multi-million $ spruced-up football stadium), hence the Utes are in the PAC-12 and BYU is outside lookin' in.
As for Mis'sippi, there will NEVER be any political support to pump up Southern Miss----the idea that a successful Mis'sippi Southern program would hurt OP/MSUcks is as ingrained and coded in our psyche right along with "States Rights", "supporting the second amendment at all costs" and "SEC-SEC-SEC is the best and always will be the best.."
Supporting States Rights and the 2nd Amendment is the only things those idiots do correctly...must you mention the two most vital rights in the same breath as the shatty $ec?!?
'cause they are inseparable...almost akin to the 10 commandments, only more important in Mis'issi'pi!
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2016 08:46 PM by eaglebeaver.)
Meh, it's the only time this Coast boy says, "well bless his heart". Then I usually say something like, "hold still, there's some chit on your hat where the logo should be..."
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2016 08:50 PM by usmstang.)
