(05-06-2017 11:42 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  Here is how I remember the timeline. please correct if I'm wrong

1. Nebraska gets B10 invite over very vocal Missouri
2. reports p 10 will invite 6 B12 schools (texas, tech, a&m, Oklahoma, ok state and Colorado)
3. Texas government pressures Texas to replace Colorado with Baylor
4. Colorado makes move on its own and accepts P10 invite squashing Baylor plan
4. p 10 expansion still on table although a&m wants SEC
5. Reported that Missouri, iowa st K state and Kansas would join the BE (which still had Syracuse, Pitt and WVU and form a 20 team league)
6. Baylor would be odd man out, MWC seemed likely
7. PAC 10 doesn't expand with texas. a&m and Missouri still unhappy
8. P 10 invites Utah
9. BE invites TCU
10. Time passes A&M gets SEC invite
11. PAC 10 back on table again for 4 b12 schools (texas, tech and the okies)
12. Kansas , k stat and Missouri again in discussion for BE. Baylor & Iowa st no seat at table. MWC likely landing spot
13.Texas again decides to hold b12 together. Missouri non committal
14. Syracuse and Pitt announce plans to join ACC
15, Missouri gets SEC invite
16. b12 in panic to get back to 10 to keep bid and meet obligations
17. TCU backs out of BE joins B12
18. West Virginia gets B12 invite
19. end of BE FB intensifies

1. nebraska learns at a major meeting that expansion/realignment is going to happen and no one is talking about nu.....they panic and at that meeting get in contact with Big 10 commissioner to start the discussion

2. Texas, Tech, A&M, OU, OkState and CU are said to be talking with PAC 10 and larry "big plan" scott starts talking

3. there was never any remotely legitimate pressure for Baylor to be included they were not in the discussion

4. A&M makes it clear to the rest that they are not going to the PAC 10 no matter what period the end

5. nu at Big 12 meeting is put on the spot and they end up asking Texas to say they will make a commitment to stay and Texas says they will if nu does the same and the others except CU say they will as well

6. nu then tells everyone in the meeting that they cannot make that commitment they need to talk to the Big 10 more

7. Texas then says well we are not going to make that commitment

8. nu chancellor attempts to offer up a bunch of different "what ifs" after the meeting to UT President Powers and Powers tells him there is nothing left to discuss Texas (and 4 others) said they would stay if nu would do the same and nu declined

9. CU says they are taking their bong, futon and snowboard and leaving

10. nu says they are leaving

11. Utah joins PAC 12

12. Big 12 gets new tier 2 deal with Fox to replace the one that has expired

13. A&M says the Big 12 is their long term future home

14. A&M goes back on their word and says they are leaving

15. MU chancellor is in charge of the committee to find replacements for the Big 12

16. OU gets upset that they believe Texas is still looking around and makes wallflower statements

17. MU chancellor gets upset about that and the fact that they cannot get a hold of anyone on the "leadership" postilions at OU even trying to do so through their congressional delegation

18. MU chancellor steps down from chairing the Big 12 expansion committee

19. MU says leaving to SEC SEC SEC

20. Texas says they are staying in the Big 12 and OU and OkState do the same after informing the PAC 12

21. PAC 12 votes to table expansion

22. Big 12 works to expand and ends up with WVU and TCU

I can't believe how many of you guys are putting TCU ahead of Baylor in any realignment discussion.

Agreed it was dirty politics that landed Baylor in the B12 in the first place but they've made one of the most dramatic program turnarounds in the last 20 years. Beautiful new stadium and a paying their coaches right up with the elite of college football.

Enrollment
Baylor 16,787
TCU 10,394

It's a larger school than TCU too and more of an SEC school philosophically. SEC schools are in smaller college town markets. There isn't an equivalent to TCU in the SEC. They are more like an ACC school if that was a regional conference for them.

(05-06-2017 05:09 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I can't believe how many of you guys are putting TCU ahead of Baylor in any realignment discussion.

Agreed it was dirty politics that landed Baylor in the B12 in the first place but they've made one of the most dramatic program turnarounds in the last 20 years. Beautiful new stadium and a paying their coaches right up with the elite of college football.

Enrollment
Baylor 16,787
TCU 10,394

It's a larger school than TCU too and more of an SEC school philosophically. SEC schools are in smaller college town markets. There isn't an equivalent to TCU in the SEC. They are more like an ACC school if that was a regional conference for them.

Well there is Vanderbilt. Nashville isn't DFW but it's not Starkville either. The appeal for T.C.U. is to be able to showcase your schools in DFW. A&M gives us all of the markets that Baylor would give us so they are redundant. DFW is a composite of factions. Some Texas, then A&M, then Oklahoma, then Arkansas, then T.C.U. or some order of those, it doesn't matter that much. But Add T.C.U. and A&M and Arkansas would be playing in DFW which energizes those local fans in addition to those of T.C.U.. It would be a win for both.

Baylor is larger, does have a nice facility, but they don't add enough and unfortunately for them they are doing a great impression of a leper.

But, T.C.U. isn't a must get. They would just be an advantageous one. Certainly Oklahoma would be the first priority. Texas would check all boxes. And in spite of what others say on this board, Slive and now Sankey have assured the conference that cultural fit will be an issue. So I don't really see a situation where we go after Iowa State although they are fine school and worthy of a location somewhere. Nor do I see Kanas being a priority. For one reason, the Jayhawks averaged 24,000 average football attendance last year. That's 53,000 below the SEC MEAN. And then there is that historical fit....it's not there. I could see West Virginia as a travel mate for another school, but I would understand if T.C.U. took that position as well.

(05-06-2017 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 05:09 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I can't believe how many of you guys are putting TCU ahead of Baylor in any realignment discussion.

Agreed it was dirty politics that landed Baylor in the B12 in the first place but they've made one of the most dramatic program turnarounds in the last 20 years. Beautiful new stadium and a paying their coaches right up with the elite of college football.

Enrollment
Baylor 16,787
TCU 10,394

It's a larger school than TCU too and more of an SEC school philosophically. SEC schools are in smaller college town markets. There isn't an equivalent to TCU in the SEC. They are more like an ACC school if that was a regional conference for them.

Well there is Vanderbilt. Nashville isn't DFW but it's not Starkville either. The appeal for T.C.U. is to be able to showcase your schools in DFW. A&M gives us all of the markets that Baylor would give us so they are redundant. DFW is a composite of factions. Some Texas, then A&M, then Oklahoma, then Arkansas, then T.C.U. or some order of those, it doesn't matter that much. But Add T.C.U. and A&M and Arkansas would be playing in DFW which energizes those local fans in addition to those of T.C.U.. It would be a win for both.

Baylor is larger, does have a nice facility, but they don't add enough and unfortunately for them they are doing a great impression of a leper.

But, T.C.U. isn't a must get. They would just be an advantageous one. Certainly Oklahoma would be the first priority. Texas would check all boxes. And in spite of what others say on this board, Slive and now Sankey have assured the conference that cultural fit will be an issue. So I don't really see a situation where we go after Iowa State although they are fine school and worthy of a location somewhere. Nor do I see Kanas being a priority. For one reason, the Jayhawks averaged 24,000 average football attendance last year. That's 53,000 below the SEC MEAN. And then there is that historical fit....it's not there. I could see West Virginia as a travel mate for another school, but I would understand if T.C.U. took that position as well.

Easy to forget West Virginia in all of this.

Pencil them into the SEC East and a nice fit with Tennessee and Kentucky. They travel well to bowl games. Act as a counterweight for VT in the ACC.

(05-06-2017 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Baylor is larger, does have a nice facility, but they don't add enough and unfortunately for them they are doing a great impression of a leper.

Sad but true.

I've liked Baylor since the Grant Teaff days but it's going to take a long time to wash off the stink from the past few years.

(05-06-2017 05:40 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Baylor is larger, does have a nice facility, but they don't add enough and unfortunately for them they are doing a great impression of a leper.

Sad but true.

I've liked Baylor since the Grant Teaff days but it's going to take a long time to wash off the stink from the past few years.

Yeah, I liked Grant Teaff too! You know if the administration had only come down hard on the coach and those covering up for athletes instead of assisting with the cover up forgiveness could have come much much earlier, perhaps even put to rest with a clean out of the Athletic Department. Instead they did everything that shouldn't have been done and now are seared in the public consciousness as Penn State on the Brazos. But making it even a bigger issue is the fact that they also are a Southern Baptist seminary and as host to such should have been the first institution to stand up for the rights of students and women who were abused by crimes emanating from their football team. They should have been the first to take it to the legal authorities and insist on justice. And that will stick in the minds of Baptists throughout their state. I would say the damage to this school will take at least a generation to recover from.

(05-06-2017 05:40 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Baylor is larger, does have a nice facility, but they don't add enough and unfortunately for them they are doing a great impression of a leper.

Sad but true.

I've liked Baylor since the Grant Teaff days but it's going to take a long time to wash off the stink from the past few years.

I'd give it 5 years. Coincides when the B12 grant of rights expires.

(05-06-2017 11:42 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  Here is how I remember the timeline. please correct if I'm wrong

1. Nebraska gets B10 invite over very vocal Missouri 12th June 2010
2. reports p 10 will invite 6 B12 schools (texas, tech, a&m, Oklahoma, ok state and Colorado) 03rd June 2010
3. Texas government pressures Texas to replace Colorado with Baylor
4. Colorado makes move on its own and accepts P10 invite squashing Baylor plan 10th June 2010
4. p 10 expansion still on table although a&m wants SEC
5. Reported that Missouri, iowa st K state and Kansas would join the BE (which still had Syracuse, Pitt and WVU and form a 20 team league)
6. Baylor would be odd man out, MWC seemed likely
7. PAC 10 doesn't expand with texas. a&m and Missouri still unhappy Approx. 14th June 2010
8. P 10 invites Utah 17th June 2010
9. BE invites TCU 30th November 2010
10. Time passes A&M gets SEC invite 26th September 2011
11. PAC 10 back on table again for 4 b12 schools (texas, tech and the okies)
12. Kansas , k stat and Missouri again in discussion for BE. Baylor & Iowa st no seat at table. MWC likely landing spot
13.Texas again decides to hold b12 together. Missouri non committal
14. Syracuse and Pitt announce plans to join ACC 18th September 2011
15. Missouri gets SEC invite 06th November 2011
16. b12 in panic to get back to 10 to keep bid and meet obligations
17. TCU backs out of BE joins B12 10th October 2011
18. West Virginia gets B12 invite 28th October 2011
19. end of BE FB intensifies

Dates in bold are my edits. Based partly on Orangefan's realignment timeline thread

(05-06-2017 06:01 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 05:40 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Baylor is larger, does have a nice facility, but they don't add enough and unfortunately for them they are doing a great impression of a leper.

Sad but true.

I've liked Baylor since the Grant Teaff days but it's going to take a long time to wash off the stink from the past few years.

I'd give it 5 years. Coincides when the B12 grant of rights expires.

5 years is a decent amount of time, and Baylor has made a change in administration. Hopefully, there will be a lot of cleanup and a LOT of healing.

I think JR is right. It'll take at least a generation for Baylor to overcome the damage to their reputation. Just as with Penn State, where outsiders still think of Sandusky, Paterno, and scandal, Baylor will be known for scandal and the ensuing coverup for a long time to come.

I think they're toxic. The Pac and B1G were never options for Baylor, even without scandal. The SEC and ACC will have better options.

Missouri, specifically the governor, was very vocal, but I believe their were some back door promises/intentions made by the B1G that led to the public mess. It must have angered and alarmed the B1G when the governor publicly stepped out on a limb. There are rules regarding how conferences make contact with other conference schools. Nebraska was a national product and took the B1G off the hook. Nebraska found out and made the call. At this point in time Missouri could not wait to get out of the completely dysfunctional Big XII. Guess the excitement got the best of them. I do not believe Missouri ever thought there was a chance to join the SEC. I would not trade a thing now though. We are in the strongest and most caring conference in CFB.

Two elements need to be inserted into the June 2010 timeline

First Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, and Texas A&M floated the idea of moving as a group to the B1G
http://www.omaha.com/huskers/barfknecht-...l?mode=jqm
(Note: a curious element in this group, both Oklahoma and Nebraska thought Missouri was already packing their bags for the SEC)

Second, about the same time Texas lawmakers wanted to to replace with Colorado with Baylor, the Pac-10 expansion committee (Presidents and Chancellors) had Scott go back to Texas and tell them to replace Oklahoma State with Kansas. Supposedly this was enough for Texas to pull out.


This paints a picture everyone going every which direction. Most of all it paints Texas as very indecisive -as if they never thought through what they wanted to do and were figuring it out on the fly from the minute the B1G approached them,and oblivious to how their deliberations looked to the rest of the Big XII. It also paints a picture of the four schools who left having a decisive view on where they wanted to go, and they went. Oklahoma seems to have been just as unready as Texas for the league breaking up, and were in reaction mode.

(05-06-2017 09:27 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Missouri, specifically the governor, was very vocal, but I believe their were some back door promises/intentions made by the B1G that led to the public mess. It must have angered and alarmed the B1G when the governor publicly stepped out on a limb. There are rules regarding how conferences make contact with other conference schools. Nebraska was a national product and took the B1G off the hook. Nebraska found out and made the call. At this point in time Missouri could not wait to get out of the completely dysfunctional Big XII. Guess the excitement got the best of them. I do not believe Missouri ever thought there was a chance to join the SEC. I would not trade a thing now though. We are in the strongest and most caring conference in CFB.

The former governor could not keep his mouth shut on any subject. According to statements made by Elwood Gordon Gee, then President of the THE Ohio State University, the presidents of the schools of the Big 10 were angry with the governor for running his mouth when everything was supposed to be hush hush. As punishment, NU was invited with the intention of making Mizzou wait a couple of years for an invitation. After all, Mizzou had no other options. The Big 10 leadership was shocked when the SEC invited Mizzou.

(05-06-2017 09:50 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Two elements need to be inserted into the June 2010 timeline

First Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, and Texas A&M floated the idea of moving as a group to the B1G
http://www.omaha.com/huskers/barfknecht-...l?mode=jqm
(Note: a curious element in this group, both Oklahoma and Nebraska thought Missouri was already packing their bags for the SEC)

Second, about the same time Texas lawmakers wanted to to replace with Colorado with Baylor, the Pac-10 expansion committee (Presidents and Chancellors) had Scott go back to Texas and tell them to replace Oklahoma State with Kansas. Supposedly this was enough for Texas to pull out.


This paints a picture everyone going every which direction. Most of all it paints Texas as very indecisive -as if they never thought through what they wanted to do and were figuring it out on the fly from the minute the B1G approached them,and oblivious to how their deliberations looked to the rest of the Big XII. It also paints a picture of the four schools who left having a decisive view on where they wanted to go, and they went. Oklahoma seems to have been just as unready as Texas for the league breaking up, and were in reaction mode.

I sincerely doubt that Texas gave a damn about replacing Oklahoma State with Kansas.

(05-06-2017 10:39 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 09:50 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Two elements need to be inserted into the June 2010 timeline

First Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, and Texas A&M floated the idea of moving as a group to the B1G
http://www.omaha.com/huskers/barfknecht-...l?mode=jqm
(Note: a curious element in this group, both Oklahoma and Nebraska thought Missouri was already packing their bags for the SEC)

Second, about the same time Texas lawmakers wanted to to replace with Colorado with Baylor, the Pac-10 expansion committee (Presidents and Chancellors) had Scott go back to Texas and tell them to replace Oklahoma State with Kansas. Supposedly this was enough for Texas to pull out.


This paints a picture everyone going every which direction. Most of all it paints Texas as very indecisive -as if they never thought through what they wanted to do and were figuring it out on the fly from the minute the B1G approached them,and oblivious to how their deliberations looked to the rest of the Big XII. It also paints a picture of the four schools who left having a decisive view on where they wanted to go, and they went. Oklahoma seems to have been just as unready as Texas for the league breaking up, and were in reaction mode.

I sincerely doubt that Texas gave a damn about replacing Oklahoma State with Kansas.

That isn't what happened, either. Kansas would have been the "replacement" for Texas A&M, not Oklahoma State. The Pac-10 knew in advance that A&M was likely to say no even if UT said yes.

(05-06-2017 10:37 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 09:27 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Missouri, specifically the governor, was very vocal, but I believe their were some back door promises/intentions made by the B1G that led to the public mess. It must have angered and alarmed the B1G when the governor publicly stepped out on a limb. There are rules regarding how conferences make contact with other conference schools. Nebraska was a national product and took the B1G off the hook. Nebraska found out and made the call. At this point in time Missouri could not wait to get out of the completely dysfunctional Big XII. Guess the excitement got the best of them. I do not believe Missouri ever thought there was a chance to join the SEC. I would not trade a thing now though. We are in the strongest and most caring conference in CFB.

The former governor could not keep his mouth shut on any subject. According to statements made by Elwood Gordon Gee, then President of the THE Ohio State University, the presidents of the schools of the Big 10 were angry with the governor for running his mouth when everything was supposed to be hush hush. As punishment, NU was invited with the intention of making Mizzou wait a couple of years for an invitation. After all, Mizzou had no other options. The Big 10 leadership was shocked when the SEC invited Mizzou.

I think Mizzou was shocked when the SEC actually became an option. Big loser= B1G. To be honest, Nebraska was a great choice for them, but they could have invited both. It worked out for Missouri quite well though.

The point of the five to the Big Ten is that Texas and Oklahoma did not seem to have a plan. That showed in their hesitation and eventual inaction. (My WAG is it was Jamie Pollard of Iowa State is the AD who was point on this)

Multiple offers were out there but these came too fast, almost all at once. Competing options were in effect which covered most of the schools. The situation was fluid. What we saw in public was not everything going on. Scenarios lived and died in just a day or two days. There were more variations on who could go where. But my point is the schools were mostly not cocked and loaded to leave except the four who did leave. That Oklahoma many weeks later became active in trying to move tells me they simply hadn't thought about it much before they were approached. That is why they did nothing at first.

Nebraska and Texas A&M wanted to get away from Texas no matter what (why else would Texas A&M plan to break for the SEC, and even allow their name to be floated with the B1G; Nebraska laid it out in public how they felt Texas was the problem), while Colorado was going to the Pac-10 regardless of what anyone else did (reversing their narrow decision to go B12 instead of Pac-10 two decades earlier), and on top of that Missouri was on the line with the SEC for some time the June blow up.

I think Boren and Oklahoma's desire to leave as soon as it's feasible, goes back to June 2010, when they were caught without a plan, finding themselves reacting repeatedly to events. But they have made a decision, much like Missouri did.

Texas, it's a business decision, pure and simple. Cold simple business, whatever is best for Texas. In 2010 they did not think about the emotional reaction of others in the conference - which is remarkable in its blindness.

(05-07-2017 12:48 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The point of the five to the Big Ten is that Texas and Oklahoma did not seem to have a plan. That showed in their hesitation and eventual inaction. (My WAG is it was Sheahon Zenger of Iowa State is the AD who was point on this)

Multiple offers were out there but these came too fast, almost all at once. Competing options were in effect which covered most of the schools. The situation was fluid. What we saw in public was not everything going on. Scenarios lived and died in just a day or two days. There were more variations on who could go where. But my point is the schools were mostly not cocked and loaded to leave except the four who did leave. That Oklahoma many weeks later became active in trying to move tells me they simply hadn't thought about it much before they were approached. That is why they did nothing at first.

Nebraska and Texas A&M wanted to get away from Texas no matter what (why else would Texas A&M plan to break for the SEC, and even allow their name to be floated with the B1G; Nebraska laid it out in public how they felt Texas was the problem), while Colorado was going to the Pac-10 regardless of what anyone else did (reversing their narrow decision to go B12 instead of Pac-10 two decades earlier), and on top of that Missouri was on the line with the SEC for some time the June blow up.

I think Boren and Oklahoma's desire to leave as soon as it's feasible, goes back to June 2010, when they were caught without a plan, finding themselves reacting repeatedly to events. But they have made a decision, much like Missouri did.

Texas, it's a business decision, pure and simple. Cold simple business, whatever is best for Texas. In 2010 they did not think about the emotional reaction of others in the conference - which is remarkable in its blindness.

You are wrong about Nebraska and A&M's motivations. What their presidents wrote after the fact has been posted on this board many times. To be succinct, Nebraska wanted stability, money and prestige. A&M wanted to be recognized as a good school outside the state of Texas + money.

(05-07-2017 12:48 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The point of the five to the Big Ten is that Texas and Oklahoma did not seem to have a plan. That showed in their hesitation and eventual inaction. (My WAG is it was Jamie Pollard of Iowa State is the AD who was point on this)

Multiple offers were out there but these came too fast, almost all at once. Competing options were in effect which covered most of the schools. The situation was fluid. What we saw in public was not everything going on. Scenarios lived and died in just a day or two days. There were more variations on who could go where. But my point is the schools were mostly not cocked and loaded to leave except the four who did leave. That Oklahoma many weeks later became active in trying to move tells me they simply hadn't thought about it much before they were approached. That is why they did nothing at first.

Nebraska and Texas A&M wanted to get away from Texas no matter what (why else would Texas A&M plan to break for the SEC, and even allow their name to be floated with the B1G; Nebraska laid it out in public how they felt Texas was the problem), while Colorado was going to the Pac-10 regardless of what anyone else did (reversing their narrow decision to go B12 instead of Pac-10 two decades earlier), and on top of that Missouri was on the line with the SEC for some time the June blow up.

I think Boren and Oklahoma's desire to leave as soon as it's feasible, goes back to June 2010, when they were caught without a plan, finding themselves reacting repeatedly to events. But they have made a decision, much like Missouri did.

Texas, it's a business decision, pure and simple. Cold simple business, whatever is best for Texas. In 2010 they did not think about the emotional reaction of others in the conference - which is remarkable in its blindness.

the highlighted part is 100% false nebraska actually publicly stated the exact opposite

https://www.orangepower.com/threads/the-...ald.97761/

• Perlman first reached out to the Big Ten this January after a tipster warned him that even an elite football school like Nebraska could be left standing on the sidelines in a major conference shake-up that appeared to be brewing.

Nebraska shared a lot of history with Big 12 schools. Plus, when you get right down to it, Perlman says, Nebraska had no major beefs with the way the Big 12 was run.

Osborne had opposed the relocation of the conference offices from Kansas City to Dallas. He also fought anchoring the conference title game in Dallas, preferring it move between cities in the north and the south.

But Perlman didn't really share those geographic concerns. In fact, he actually would end up voting to play the title game in Dallas for the next several years. “I wasn't prepared to sit in Kansas City in the cold,'' Perlman said.

And on the issues of greatest import, “Nebraska was getting largely what it wanted,'' Perlman said.

While some schools complained about the league's unequal distribution of revenue from network TV contracts, Nebraska wasn't among them. It joined Texas as a strong proponent of giving big-time football schools — those most appealing to the networks — a bigger slice of the pie.

Plus, Perlman said, the Big 12 had just recently completed important conversations about whether to form its own TV network for secondary sports programming, akin to the Big Ten's.

While many have blamed Texas and its plans to start its own Longhorn TV network as the reason a Big 12 network never got off the ground, Nebraska wasn't on board with a conference network, either. Nebraska's support was conditional on the high-profile schools taking a larger cut of that revenue, too — a condition some schools strongly opposed.

As a result of those talks, Nebraska, like Texas, was now moving to create its own network. A consultant's study had concluded that a Husker network would succeed and bring in seven-figure revenue on top of what Nebraska was getting from major network telecasts.

Perlman said NU was on track to have its network running by the fall of 2011 — actually ahead of Texas' timetable.

For all those reasons, when Perlman first heard of Big Ten expansion, he didn't give it five minutes' thought.

that is an interview with the chancellor of nu and it 100% refutes your statement that nebraska was looking to get away from Texas or that they had a problem with Texas

his statements show you could not be more wrong

(05-06-2017 02:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 10:20 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  You are basically correct. Colorado was a part of the original six. Then Baylor started politicking to replace Colorado. That is when Scott issued an invite to Colorado to kill Baylor's plan.

No, CU had an invitation to join from day one. A small number of delusional politician-clowns with no real power loudly squawked that they wanted to force Baylor in. CU just waited to accept until after Texas said no because the idea was that, if UT said yes, they would announce all six new members at once.

Such a horribly kept secret that writers were asking who from the Big XII would join Colorado.

Oklahoma has been laying the groundwork to challenge the GoR and media contracts. They demanded/asked for a conference network, conference expansion and a CCG. Only the CCG passed. If Oklahoma can demonstrate that they are being damaged by these, they may have found a crack in the GoR and Media contracts.

The 3rd party notification requirement is a joke. You publicly say you are not interested then continue the discussion in private.

If the big 3 leave (Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas) the B12 is still strong enough to raid the AAC and MWC. Each school that leaves after that diminishes that ability exponentially.