CSNbbs

According to the new speculation, the Pac-16 is back on and going to take Texas, OU, OSU and...Texas Tech?

Is Texas Tech a deal breaker for Texas or something? Are they tied to them?

They're in the middle of nowhere. Their football is mediocre. Their bball is going downhill. Their academics are...anemic...at best.

I don't really get why the PAC would want them and not someone like Kansas or, hell, Missouri.

Someone help me out here.

Tech is pretty much tied to Texas from what I understand but it isn't like they don't offer something to the Pac 16.

- They provide a second school in the lone star state. Texas Tech is a good size public school(31,637 enrollment) with plenty of alumni and fans around the state. My brother lives in Dallas and tells me he knows as many Tech fans as A&M and Longhorn fans.

- They provide the only major football program for the Western side of the state. Come to think of it Tech and UTEP might provide the only sports options for the western side of the state.


- They have a good football program and a fairly good size stadium. Jones AT&T has a 60,454 capacity. That's larger than 7 current Pac 12 stadiums.

- Last year they averaged 57,108.

- And for hoops they just hired Billy Gillespie so I'm sure they will field some good teams in the future.

Their academics aren't great but the Pac does also have Washington State, Oregon State, Utah, and Arizona State so I'm sure they will be willing to over look that in order to get a stronger presence in the state of Texas and help them land UT.

(09-04-2011 11:15 AM)KnightTower Wrote: [ -> ]According to the new speculation, the Pac-16 is back on and going to take Texas, OU, OSU and...Texas Tech?

Is Texas Tech a deal breaker for Texas or something? Are they tied to them?

They're in the middle of nowhere. Their football is mediocre. Their bball is going downhill. Their academics are...anemic...at best.

I don't really get why the PAC would want them and not someone like Kansas or, hell, Missouri.

Someone help me out here.

I swear you just made this same post a couple if days ago...maybe it's political...maybe ou wants to be with 2 Texas schools for recruiting

(09-04-2011 11:51 AM)superdeluxe Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-04-2011 11:15 AM)KnightTower Wrote: [ -> ]According to the new speculation, the Pac-16 is back on and going to take Texas, OU, OSU and...Texas Tech?

Is Texas Tech a deal breaker for Texas or something? Are they tied to them?

They're in the middle of nowhere. Their football is mediocre. Their bball is going downhill. Their academics are...anemic...at best.

I don't really get why the PAC would want them and not someone like Kansas or, hell, Missouri.

Someone help me out here.

I swear you just made this same post a couple if days ago...maybe it's political...maybe ou wants to be with 2 Texas schools for recruiting

I haven't made a comment about Tech for...months? You might be confusing me for KnightSweat, or KnightLight, or...someone with a similar name.
EDIT: Looking back, I don't think I've EVER made a comment about Texas Tech, EVER. Until now.

Wasn't me.

I've heard several Texans comment on the state legislature's involvement in all this, especially regarding A&M. They said it was now a moot point because the legislature's not in session again until 2013. If this is the case, might it be possible that UT is going to be free to do what it wants without taking any other state schools into consideration? I sort of imagine that if UT doesn't feel it has to, it won't worry about whether or not it brings TT along. And certainly the Pac 12+ isn't really going to have any qualms about leaving a Texas school out in the cold (no more than they would about any other Big 12 team, anyway). So how possible is it that our assumption about TT being the 16th school might be wrong? Maybe the Pac would prefer Kansas, in order to get the AAU member & the whole new market (although not a very big market).

Sorry for bunching you in with another knight nickname

(09-04-2011 12:23 PM)SmallVoice Wrote: [ -> ]I've heard several Texans comment on the state legislature's involvement in all this, especially regarding A&M. They said it was now a moot point because the legislature's not in session again until 2013. If this is the case, might it be possible that UT is going to be free to do what it wants without taking any other state schools into consideration? I sort of imagine that if UT doesn't feel it has to, it won't worry about whether or not it brings TT along. And certainly the Pac 12+ isn't really going to have any qualms about leaving a Texas school out in the cold (no more than they would about any other Big 12 team, anyway). So how possible is it that our assumption about TT being the 16th school might be wrong? Maybe the Pac would prefer Kansas, in order to get the AAU member & the whole new market (although not a very big market).

The PAC does not appear to care so much about AAU status like the B-10 does so I don't think that will be a huge draw.

Tech provides more upswing football but less in basketball. I can see them being happy with \tech. I am also not sold on Kansas and Kansas State being separable despite what Kansas says. From what I understand they share the same regents and if they let them split like that then they should lose their jobs as that is a conflict of interest right there and if I was KSU I would raise bloody hell about it.

(09-04-2011 11:51 AM)superdeluxe Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-04-2011 11:15 AM)KnightTower Wrote: [ -> ]According to the new speculation, the Pac-16 is back on and going to take Texas, OU, OSU and...Texas Tech?

Is Texas Tech a deal breaker for Texas or something? Are they tied to them?

They're in the middle of nowhere. Their football is mediocre. Their bball is going downhill. Their academics are...anemic...at best.

I don't really get why the PAC would want them and not someone like Kansas or, hell, Missouri.

Someone help me out here.

I swear you just made this same post a couple if days ago...maybe it's political...maybe ou wants to be with 2 Texas schools for recruiting

it was me



My argument was that Texas Tech does not go to the Pac 12 without Texas based on those reasons posted above.

Crap... You aren't even a knight lol

(09-04-2011 11:15 AM)KnightTower Wrote: [ -> ]According to the new speculation, the Pac-16 is back on and going to take Texas, OU, OSU and...Texas Tech?

Is Texas Tech a deal breaker for Texas or something? Are they tied to them?

They're in the middle of nowhere. Their football is mediocre. Their bball is going downhill. Their academics are...anemic...at best.

I don't really get why the PAC would want them and not someone like Kansas or, hell, Missouri.

Someone help me out here.

The entire reason that the P12 would go to 16 is to expand its Tv network to the nation's second biggest state - Texas. Having a second school actually in Texas is key. Looking at the various articles pumping UH posted on this board last week, I took away the impression that TTU had a very strong following in TX. Really delivered solid audience in the TV analysis. From a TV perspective, OSU is probably a bigger liability, but they of course are joined at the hip with OU.

Whether it's an outright political requirement or not, if UT has to move conferences, it doesn't necessarily want to be a lone Texas-based wolf in a 16-school West Coast conference when it just had control over an entire Texas-focused conference. UT president Bill Powers told alums last year in the middle of the realignment discussions that "We're not going anywhere without Tech." I think UT is tied to Tech because it wants to be tied to them at this point.

Exactly Frank. Oklahoma also made the same announcement as well about Oklahoma State, saying that Oklahoma State (as well as the Texas schools) are great geographical buffers. The only hang up is figuring out the LHN and absorbing it into the Pac-12/16 network, because apparently the Pac-12 network is a national network, but it also has small regional networks that has schools paired in a regional setup (example, Oregon/Oregon State share a regional package, the Washington schools share one, the Arizona schools share one, etc.) so they have to find a way to slip the LHN into the conference and then hook Tech up to it. Also of note, Thamel has updated his article and he expects (if it hasn't happened now) for the Big East to open up communications with Missouri and the Kansas schools

(09-04-2011 12:42 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote: [ -> ]I am also not sold on Kansas and Kansas State being separable despite what Kansas says.

Amen to that. The chancellor might say one thing, but the politicians might say another. To quote myself, I'll bet the chancellor at UVA had no idea that they and VPI were tied at the hip until the state legislature stepped in and dictated the way that UVA had to vote on ACC expansion.

(09-04-2011 03:32 PM)SmallVoice Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-04-2011 12:42 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote: [ -> ]I am also not sold on Kansas and Kansas State being separable despite what Kansas says.

Amen to that. The chancellor might say one thing, but the politicians might say another. To quote myself, I'll bet the chancellor at UVA had no idea that they and VPI were tied at the hip until the state legislature stepped in and dictated the way that UVA had to vote on ACC expansion.

agreed...its easy to say you don't mind being split but actually splitting would be a lot tougher to pass

(09-04-2011 11:15 AM)KnightTower Wrote: [ -> ].....I don't really get why the PAC would want them...Someone help me out here.

If you're gonna play in Texas, you gotta have a fiddle in the band.

(09-04-2011 01:10 PM)superdeluxe Wrote: [ -> ]Crap... You aren't even a knight lol

Yes I am

Sir Theodoresdaddy

Last year PAC members resisted taking OSU preferring KU in its place. Tech is the #3 all time football school in the Big 12 and we did it playing in the same division as OU and UT. We Also made Nebraska our special lady and handed NU its worst loss in program history. Tech made the mistake of allowing an aging AD stay in office too long, which caused athletic stagnation. Fortunately, he's gone and every sport is now on the upswing. Our T&F teams are top 10. In football, the 2012 recruiting class will be Tech's second consecutive top 15 recruiting class under Tuberville.

Academically, several years ago Tech Chancellor Kent Hance reached out to several west coast schools for help to create and implement a plan for Tech to achieve AAU status by 2020. Tech alumni have contributed nearly $1 billion to fund the plan. Our "mentors," for lack of a better word, are Stanford and Arizona.

During the current FY, Tech alumni and supporters will contribute >$200 million to Tech (donations stood at $180M on Aug 1), which should place Tech in the top 30 for fundraising among all universities. Coupled with significantly increased state funding (finally), Tech will soon be an academic asset to any conference. Tech's endowment recently surpassed the endowments of Syracuse, Tennessee, MSU, Oregon and LSU. As for financial strength, Tech may be the #3 flagship of Texas but the Texas' #3 is better off then the #1 flagship of most states.

Tech also draws amazing tv ratings, Tech coeds are easily the best looking girls in the Big 12, and Tech alumni are very popular because of our pleasant demeanor and smoldering sexuality.

Almost forgot, Tech's chess team just repeated as national champion and our meat judging team just won some sort of world collegiate meat championship in Australia...so take that all vegan universities with D1 football programs!

(09-04-2011 05:05 PM)FreshPrinceOfDarkness Wrote: [ -> ]Tech also draws amazing tv ratings, Tech coeds are easily the best looking girls in the Big 12 . . .

Related facts?

(09-04-2011 05:05 PM)FreshPrinceOfDarkness Wrote: [ -> ]Last year PAC members resisted taking OSU preferring KU in its place.

Wrong. KU was on the list, but as a replacement for A&M in case A&M went to the SEC instead. Scott would have added KU or Utah in A&M's place if the others were willing to move west.