CSNbbs

Duke has put the Kibosh on Oklahoma. Everyone knows that there is no reason for further discussion.

(05-08-2017 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Because when everything is over and the dust settles it will become apparent that "geography" more than any other factor will have determined the winners and losers in realignment.

Oklahoma and Texas can go together with friends to really just one conference, the PAC. How many friends go with them is debatable. Nobody else can offer that.

The SEC can offer some old rivals and if it gets greedy could offer some present friends as well. But not as many as the PAC might be able to offer. Enough and the geographical issues are overcome.

The Big 10 can only offer the brands and probably only the AAU brands. I just don't see them taking Oklahoma, especially without Texas and I don't see Texas heading up the Chisholm Trail to be slaughtered in the old Chicago stockyards.

The ACC is a geographical outlier to the Big 12. That's why it will not be a long term consideration. It won't be good for either. If the addition of Texas and Oklahoma together NET a conference a boost of 5 million per ACC or PAC school in payout (and that's a generous estimate not deducting for tag alongs) the PAC will still trail the SEC and Big 10 by almost 7-8 million a year in just TV Revenue. The only lure therefore that they have for Texa-homa would be not having to go to the Big 10 or SEC and for Texas that might be enough. For Oklahoma I'm not so sure.

All I know is that if the SEC ends up by extending its footprint by one state and adding a school that gives it a better % of DFW we will have done just fine. We don't need Texas or Oklahoma to accomplish that. If we got one of them it would be huge, but it wouldn't keep us from accomplishing our goals if we didn't.

What are the ACC's goals? You want a network and you are getting it. You wanted a brand in football and you may be getting one. You wanted a buffer against the Big 10 (you don't need one against the SEC because ESPN won't pay us to raid you because what they are paying for ACC product is a bargain for them) and you will likely get one.

North Carolina and Duke will always be your basketball national brands, at least to the casual viewer. Notre Dame if ever here in full will be your historic football brand and until now you really didn't have one. Clemson and F.S.U. are fantastic, but not historical brands. Another 50 years might change that. You will bet a bump in pay from the network that will help close the gap in revenue to what should be a workable distance. Texas doesn't really do it for you at 5 games a year when their program is down. You don't do it for Texas from a fan interest standpoint. Oklahoma and Texas would be alien corn in the ACC.

Personally I believe the best thing for college football would be for the pair to join the PAC. It helps the PAC without putting the Big 10 or SEC too far ahead of everyone else. It enables us to keep four competitive conferences. Should the Big 10 or SEC land one or both of those schools then the resultant instability in income will eventually lead us to 3 or even 2 conferences.

So Mark, that's a lot said to say there isn't a lot of desire for Oklahoma in the ACC for the same reason there shouldn't be a lot of desire for Texas in the ACC, because neither fit naturally into the ACC in any particular way. It would be a lot like talking about Michigan and Ohio State in the SEC, or Alabama and Auburn in the Big 10. So geography and geography being tied to branding, it just doesn't seem natural.

This is a well-thought out, yet old viewpoint of college football....geography is less of a factor than ever. It's practically a non-factor.

Texas and Oklahoma will be alien-corn in ANY of the other conferences....that's why they are still in the Big XII.

The PAC 12 offers nothing for no one....they are the weakest of the available conferences.

It's the B1G, SEC, or ACC. Oklahoma fits well in the SEC, but not Texas. Texas fits well in the B1G, but not the SEC. The ACC may be the ONLY conference to let Texas in with a ND type deal, and they are both ESPN properties.

Smart $$$ for Texas is to jump ship and go to the ACC. At this point, no one will care about "cultural differences", "alien corn", or geographical outliers. Texas gets to keep the LHN, and parks it's other sports in the ACC.

Smart $$$ then says Oklahoma can either follow Texas to the ACC, or knock on the SEC door, where they'll probably get in.

Kansas then either follows Oklahoma to the ACC or SEC, or knocks on the B1G door.

No one in their right mind would knock on the PAC 12 door, except maybe the B1G, saying "we want your Cali schools"

Texas has plainly stated they want no part in the SEC, academics is an issue. Texas does not want to be aligned with the SEC schools (it may be more football oriented than academics, but let them have their stance regardless of how the get to the stance).

Travel for any Big 12 team moving to another conference will be just as bad as it is now. Another 30 -60 minutes on a plane will not change anything. Flying to Washington and Oregon would be worse than Syracuse, BC and Pitt. The reality of teh tie zones also favors UT and OU looking north and east over west. UT and OU will be outliers in any conference but a southern plains oriented conference.

The PAC is not cultural fit for UT or OU. The B1G may be a better fit. Texas has stated they would be interested in the ACC if they leave the Big 12.

OU has been working on academics and they have a medical school. OU ranks on the same level as UNL, ahead of Louisville. Though OU would take an SEC invite if it was the only one, they want to gain in academic prestige and would prefer the ACC/PAC/B1G over the SEC, that and does anyone really want to join the SEC west right now? -- at least wait until the SEC east starts playing football again before joining.

UT and OU are historical brands any conference would be willing to take. The issue for each conference is whether they want to form a pod/division of they would join solely or as a pair.

The LHN is only a temporary issue. ESPN is losing money on the deal and will likely cease the agreement once it is over, unless they can get out of the the deal before then (SEC, ACC).

At the present, there is no need for UT to make any decision, they get enough TV money between the Big 12 deal and the LHN. OU, on the other hand, is falling behind. OU wants answers now and UT wants to sit back ponder their future.

Can a major conference be maintained in the plains? As it appears now, no, otherwise they would have expanded a few onths ago.

(05-11-2017 09:35 PM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]Texas has plainly stated they want no part in the SEC, academics is an issue. Texas does not want to be aligned with the SEC schools (it may be more football oriented than academics, but let them have their stance regardless of how the get to the stance).

Travel for any Big 12 team moving to another conference will be just as bad as it is now. Another 30 -60 minutes on a plane will not change anything. Flying to Washington and Oregon would be worse than Syracuse, BC and Pitt. The reality of teh tie zones also favors UT and OU looking north and east over west. UT and OU will be outliers in any conference but a southern plains oriented conference.

The PAC is not cultural fit for UT or OU. The B1G may be a better fit. Texas has stated they would be interested in the ACC if they leave the Big 12.

OU has been working on academics and they have a medical school. OU ranks on the same level as UNL, ahead of Louisville. Though OU would take an SEC invite if it was the only one, they want to gain in academic prestige and would prefer the ACC/PAC/B1G over the SEC, that and does anyone really want to join the SEC west right now? -- at least wait until the SEC east starts playing football again before joining.

UT and OU are historical brands any conference would be willing to take. The issue for each conference is whether they want to form a pod/division of they would join solely or as a pair.

The LHN is only a temporary issue. ESPN is losing money on the deal and will likely cease the agreement once it is over, unless they can get out of the the deal before then (SEC, ACC).

At the present, there is no need for UT to make any decision, they get enough TV money between the Big 12 deal and the LHN. OU, on the other hand, is falling behind. OU wants answers now and UT wants to sit back ponder their future.

Can a major conference be maintained in the plains? As it appears now, no, otherwise they would have expanded a few onths ago.

OU's academic standing places them right at the SEC MEAN. They are nowhere close to AAU standards. At least Nebraska had attained it. Where they rank closely together is in USNews & World Report which is more for undergraduate work.

As for Texas's academic preference, I cry hooey. They were forever in the SWC where they were only one of two AAU schools for most of the time. A&M finally made it to give them 3 (Rice being the other). The academics of the SWC were nowhere as nice as those of the Big 8. But when they became the Big 12 Texas found itself with Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa State which along with A&M accounted for the AAU schools in the Big 12. Texas didn't care enough about them to keep them around and instead alienated them. But when the stellar schools left Texas was content to back fill with academic giants like W.V.U.. Even T.C.U. doesn't meet muster for academic elitism. I respectfully submit that if Texas gave 1 fig about academics they would have been long gone. They cry academics to appeal to their own ego. But their actions since their inception tell quite another story. And that story is that Texas has always preferred a conference they could rule, and not one of academic peers. I give you my exhibit #2, the departed 4 AAU schools of the Big 12. If Texas had cared about their friendship they would not have had to leave to find an egalitarian atmosphere.

So color me unimpressed with what Texas says. It's what they do that tells their story. And what they do is to consistently act only in their self interest. So until they decide what it is that really suits them (a division of their old friends and rivals in the SEC), a true peer relationship in the either the PAC or Big 10, or Notre Dame like special privileges in the ACC, nobody has a clue of what they will actually do, especially the leadership at Texas.

Oklahoma just wants to land where they can still have access to Texas recruiting. So if Texas opts for the Big 10 then OU certainly might follow. If they don't I really can't see OU headed anywhere but the SEC where at least they would have A&M to schedule.

So it's not as cut and dried as many might think.

And as to Vodka's post, minor sports (non revenue sports) cost money to move around and our economy has its biggest issues before it. Geography will matter more than ever because fans want to travel but don't like to fly to regular season games. And everything else costs less the closer you play to home. Donations are driven by rivals. Those are the games people care about every year, and have cared about for generations. You don't alienate your clientele if you want to succeed, even if you are Texas. The rest is just so many words for a new age when expressing so many words means nothing, sounds good, and works for a 30 second sound byte or less.

What I say I am is the spin about my image. What others say I am based upon what they hear and not what they see is their judgment. What people see me do is the only reality in any of that. What Texas says has never lined up with what they do. The image they project means nothing. What they actually choose to do is who they really are.

(05-11-2017 09:35 PM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]The LHN is only a temporary issue. ESPN is losing money on the deal and will likely cease the agreement once it is over, unless they can get out of the the deal before then (SEC, ACC).

At the present, there is no need for UT to make any decision, they get enough TV money between the Big 12 deal and the LHN. OU, on the other hand, is falling behind. OU wants answers now and UT wants to sit back ponder their future.

This here really sums up the dilemma...

When is the LHN up? 2027? I can't imagine ESPN offering the same money, but I don't think they'll let Texas walk either....

I just see Texas to the ACC as a path of least resistance.

What does Oklahoma want to do? They could probably get in the SEC. Or wait and follow Texas.

Texas is going to have to decide what they're going to do sooner rather than later....they have a rival, a conference, and possibly a network waiting on them.

Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma to the ACC solves a lot of issues. And the meat of the Big XII gets to stay together.

(05-11-2017 10:00 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]As for Texas's academic preference, I cry hooey.

Texas will never be in the SEC, period. If they are going to fully join a conference, it's B1G or PAC12 most likely.

(05-12-2017 10:03 AM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2017 10:00 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]As for Texas's academic preference, I cry hooey.

Texas will never be in the SEC, period. If they are going to fully join a conference, it's B1G or PAC12 most likely.

You aren't hearing what I've said. I not saying they end up in the SEC, but I am saying that "academics" are something they just say, it's not what they have "done" in the past where relationships are concerned, and when they did have academic peers they ran them off. Texas will do whatever it is that they deem to be the best for their self interest. So until that is determined you can't rule anything out.

And for the record Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Notre Dame were a proposal in 2010 for the ACC. It's where the talk about N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC all got started. Allegedly ESPN was looking to craft two super conferences created to be rivals (SEC & ACC). The proposal was rejected.

(05-12-2017 10:01 AM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2017 09:35 PM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]The LHN is only a temporary issue. ESPN is losing money on the deal and will likely cease the agreement once it is over, unless they can get out of the the deal before then (SEC, ACC).

At the present, there is no need for UT to make any decision, they get enough TV money between the Big 12 deal and the LHN. OU, on the other hand, is falling behind. OU wants answers now and UT wants to sit back ponder their future.

This here really sums up the dilemma...

When is the LHN up? 2027? I can't imagine ESPN offering the same money, but I don't think they'll let Texas walk either....

I just see Texas to the ACC as a path of least resistance.

What does Oklahoma want to do? They could probably get in the SEC. Or wait and follow Texas.

Texas is going to have to decide what they're going to do sooner rather than later....they have a rival, a conference, and possibly a network waiting on them.

Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma to the ACC solves a lot of issues. And the meat of the Big XII gets to stay together.

Maybe for UT, KU and OU, but I'm not sure that solves many issues for the ACC. I'm not sure you could get the votes for the ACC to expand to 18.

Easier to get approved: S Carolina back to the ACC, plus WVU to get to 16, then add Texas + OU + Kansas to the SEC for 16 there also. (Notre Dame stays as-is).

Only problem: Big XII GoR.

(05-12-2017 11:48 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]Easier to get approved: S Carolina back to the ACC, plus WVU to get to 16, then add Texas + OU + Kansas to the SEC for 16 there also. (Notre Dame stays as-is).

Only problem: Big XII GoR.

Well, let's assume that South Carolina would request that move, because the SEC has never asked anyone to leave, ever. If that circumstance exists then you just wait for the end of the GOR. If something breaks sooner you make those three that offer. But personally speaking I don't think that would do it for Texas. I think the SEC would have to move to 18 to create something that Texas might agree to be a part of.

(05-12-2017 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-12-2017 11:48 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]Easier to get approved: S Carolina back to the ACC, plus WVU to get to 16, then add Texas + OU + Kansas to the SEC for 16 there also. (Notre Dame stays as-is).

Only problem: Big XII GoR.

Well, let's assume that South Carolina would request that move, because the SEC has never asked anyone to leave, ever. If that circumstance exists then you just wait for the end of the GOR. If something breaks sooner you make those three that offer. But personally speaking I don't think that would do it for Texas. I think the SEC would have to move to 18 to create something that Texas might agree to be a part of.

1)I did not put him up to it.
2) it is logical.
3) South Carolina has been the driving force to arrange the games in Charlotte against Carolina and NC State.

(05-12-2017 11:48 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]Easier to get approved: S Carolina back to the ACC, plus WVU to get to 16, then add Texas + OU + Kansas to the SEC for 16 there also. (Notre Dame stays as-is).

Only problem: Big XII GoR.

More likely: Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

If we could ND of the pot, I would love TX and ND to ACC and OU & OSU to SEC. Have have Red River Rivelry to the ACC. If ND says no, I be happy with OU and OSU. Let Texas and Ku to the B10

(05-11-2017 10:00 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2017 09:35 PM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]Texas has plainly stated they want no part in the SEC, academics is an issue. Texas does not want to be aligned with the SEC schools (it may be more football oriented than academics, but let them have their stance regardless of how the get to the stance).

Travel for any Big 12 team moving to another conference will be just as bad as it is now. Another 30 -60 minutes on a plane will not change anything. Flying to Washington and Oregon would be worse than Syracuse, BC and Pitt. The reality of teh tie zones also favors UT and OU looking north and east over west. UT and OU will be outliers in any conference but a southern plains oriented conference.

The PAC is not cultural fit for UT or OU. The B1G may be a better fit. Texas has stated they would be interested in the ACC if they leave the Big 12.

OU has been working on academics and they have a medical school. OU ranks on the same level as UNL, ahead of Louisville. Though OU would take an SEC invite if it was the only one, they want to gain in academic prestige and would prefer the ACC/PAC/B1G over the SEC, that and does anyone really want to join the SEC west right now? -- at least wait until the SEC east starts playing football again before joining.

UT and OU are historical brands any conference would be willing to take. The issue for each conference is whether they want to form a pod/division of they would join solely or as a pair.

The LHN is only a temporary issue. ESPN is losing money on the deal and will likely cease the agreement once it is over, unless they can get out of the the deal before then (SEC, ACC).

At the present, there is no need for UT to make any decision, they get enough TV money between the Big 12 deal and the LHN. OU, on the other hand, is falling behind. OU wants answers now and UT wants to sit back ponder their future.

Can a major conference be maintained in the plains? As it appears now, no, otherwise they would have expanded a few onths ago.

OU's academic standing places them right at the SEC MEAN. They are nowhere close to AAU standards. At least Nebraska had attained it. Where they rank closely together is in USNews & World Report which is more for undergraduate work.

As for Texas's academic preference, I cry hooey. They were forever in the SWC where they were only one of two AAU schools for most of the time. A&M finally made it to give them 3 (Rice being the other). The academics of the SWC were nowhere as nice as those of the Big 8. But when they became the Big 12 Texas found itself with Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa State which along with A&M accounted for the AAU schools in the Big 12. Texas didn't care enough about them to keep them around and instead alienated them. But when the stellar schools left Texas was content to back fill with academic giants like W.V.U.. Even T.C.U. doesn't meet muster for academic elitism. I respectfully submit that if Texas gave 1 fig about academics they would have been long gone. They cry academics to appeal to their own ego. But their actions since their inception tell quite another story. And that story is that Texas has always preferred a conference they could rule, and not one of academic peers. I give you my exhibit #2, the departed 4 AAU schools of the Big 12. If Texas had cared about their friendship they would not have had to leave to find an egalitarian atmosphere.

So color me unimpressed with what Texas says. It's what they do that tells their story. And what they do is to consistently act only in their self interest. So until they decide what it is that really suits them (a division of their old friends and rivals in the SEC), a true peer relationship in the either the PAC or Big 10, or Notre Dame like special privileges in the ACC, nobody has a clue of what they will actually do, especially the leadership at Texas.

Oklahoma just wants to land where they can still have access to Texas recruiting. So if Texas opts for the Big 10 then OU certainly might follow. If they don't I really can't see OU headed anywhere but the SEC where at least they would have A&M to schedule.

So it's not as cut and dried as many might think.

And as to Vodka's post, minor sports (non revenue sports) cost money to move around and our economy has its biggest issues before it. Geography will matter more than ever because fans want to travel but don't like to fly to regular season games. And everything else costs less the closer you play to home. Donations are driven by rivals. Those are the games people care about every year, and have cared about for generations. You don't alienate your clientele if you want to succeed, even if you are Texas. The rest is just so many words for a new age when expressing so many words means nothing, sounds good, and works for a 30 second sound byte or less.

What I say I am is the spin about my image. What others say I am based upon what they hear and not what they see is their judgment. What people see me do is the only reality in any of that. What Texas says has never lined up with what they do. The image they project means nothing. What they actually choose to do is who they really are.

Essentially, because Texas joined a conference many decades ago with teams that had no significant academic standing, they cannot now want to be affiliated with teams of academic standing. Not buying what you are selling.

1) UT will always be UT
2) UT was in the conference as several AU schools, the concept that UT chased them out as the sole purpose for the schools leaving is blown out of proportion and weak logic. - TAMU wanted to leave the SWAC with Arkansas and wanted in the SEC, that motivation never changed; UNL thought they would be in charge with OU having their back and they could not recruit Texas well enough to win consistently; Colorado had been looking west for a long time. Mizzou wanted the B1G for a long time, they took the SEC as tag-a-long with TAMU. All saw what was going down and they knew they were in the weakest of conferences due to location, population and realized they had an out, they took it. All the Big 12 schools have been looking at their options, most don't have real options.
3) Taking WVU and TCU was the best the conference could do.
4) I repeated the comment that UT wants to be academically associated with peer schools if they leave the Big 12, I also pointed out that SEC football may be intimidating to them, sarcastically.
5) UT may have enjoyed the academic association with the academic schools that left
6) Many UT boosters have stated they will not support a move to the SEC, several have stated they want a move to the SEC. To date, the position remains that UT does not want to be in the SEC, the same position they have held for decades - being that the SEC is the closest conference, the SEC would be the easiest to justify if geography is all that counts, it seems like a strong statement that UT does not want to go SEC if it can be avoided.
7) UT wants coverage to the east, that leaves three options: B1G, ACC and SEC. Staying in the Big 12 defeats this goal, as does going to the PAC.
8) I agree, no one knows what UT will do, they have several years left under the GOR. OU has options, Kansas likely has options, the rest are probably going to be stuck with whatever they can get.
9) UT will keep the real rivalry all UT fans want: OU. Whether they stay together or split, the Red River Rivalry will continue. The two were not in the same conference most of their history.

(05-12-2017 10:49 PM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2017 10:00 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2017 09:35 PM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]Texas has plainly stated they want no part in the SEC, academics is an issue. Texas does not want to be aligned with the SEC schools (it may be more football oriented than academics, but let them have their stance regardless of how the get to the stance).

Travel for any Big 12 team moving to another conference will be just as bad as it is now. Another 30 -60 minutes on a plane will not change anything. Flying to Washington and Oregon would be worse than Syracuse, BC and Pitt. The reality of teh tie zones also favors UT and OU looking north and east over west. UT and OU will be outliers in any conference but a southern plains oriented conference.

The PAC is not cultural fit for UT or OU. The B1G may be a better fit. Texas has stated they would be interested in the ACC if they leave the Big 12.

OU has been working on academics and they have a medical school. OU ranks on the same level as UNL, ahead of Louisville. Though OU would take an SEC invite if it was the only one, they want to gain in academic prestige and would prefer the ACC/PAC/B1G over the SEC, that and does anyone really want to join the SEC west right now? -- at least wait until the SEC east starts playing football again before joining.

UT and OU are historical brands any conference would be willing to take. The issue for each conference is whether they want to form a pod/division of they would join solely or as a pair.

The LHN is only a temporary issue. ESPN is losing money on the deal and will likely cease the agreement once it is over, unless they can get out of the the deal before then (SEC, ACC).

At the present, there is no need for UT to make any decision, they get enough TV money between the Big 12 deal and the LHN. OU, on the other hand, is falling behind. OU wants answers now and UT wants to sit back ponder their future.

Can a major conference be maintained in the plains? As it appears now, no, otherwise they would have expanded a few onths ago.

OU's academic standing places them right at the SEC MEAN. They are nowhere close to AAU standards. At least Nebraska had attained it. Where they rank closely together is in USNews & World Report which is more for undergraduate work.

As for Texas's academic preference, I cry hooey. They were forever in the SWC where they were only one of two AAU schools for most of the time. A&M finally made it to give them 3 (Rice being the other). The academics of the SWC were nowhere as nice as those of the Big 8. But when they became the Big 12 Texas found itself with Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa State which along with A&M accounted for the AAU schools in the Big 12. Texas didn't care enough about them to keep them around and instead alienated them. But when the stellar schools left Texas was content to back fill with academic giants like W.V.U.. Even T.C.U. doesn't meet muster for academic elitism. I respectfully submit that if Texas gave 1 fig about academics they would have been long gone. They cry academics to appeal to their own ego. But their actions since their inception tell quite another story. And that story is that Texas has always preferred a conference they could rule, and not one of academic peers. I give you my exhibit #2, the departed 4 AAU schools of the Big 12. If Texas had cared about their friendship they would not have had to leave to find an egalitarian atmosphere.

So color me unimpressed with what Texas says. It's what they do that tells their story. And what they do is to consistently act only in their self interest. So until they decide what it is that really suits them (a division of their old friends and rivals in the SEC), a true peer relationship in the either the PAC or Big 10, or Notre Dame like special privileges in the ACC, nobody has a clue of what they will actually do, especially the leadership at Texas.

Oklahoma just wants to land where they can still have access to Texas recruiting. So if Texas opts for the Big 10 then OU certainly might follow. If they don't I really can't see OU headed anywhere but the SEC where at least they would have A&M to schedule.

So it's not as cut and dried as many might think.

And as to Vodka's post, minor sports (non revenue sports) cost money to move around and our economy has its biggest issues before it. Geography will matter more than ever because fans want to travel but don't like to fly to regular season games. And everything else costs less the closer you play to home. Donations are driven by rivals. Those are the games people care about every year, and have cared about for generations. You don't alienate your clientele if you want to succeed, even if you are Texas. The rest is just so many words for a new age when expressing so many words means nothing, sounds good, and works for a 30 second sound byte or less.

What I say I am is the spin about my image. What others say I am based upon what they hear and not what they see is their judgment. What people see me do is the only reality in any of that. What Texas says has never lined up with what they do. The image they project means nothing. What they actually choose to do is who they really are.

Essentially, because Texas joined a conference many decades ago with teams that had no significant academic standing, they cannot now want to be affiliated with teams of academic standing. Not buying what you are selling.

1) UT will always be UT
2) UT was in the conference as several AU schools, the concept that UT chased them out as the sole purpose for the schools leaving is blown out of proportion and weak logic. - TAMU wanted to leave the SWAC with Arkansas and wanted in the SEC, that motivation never changed; UNL thought they would be in charge with OU having their back and they could not recruit Texas well enough to win consistently; Colorado had been looking west for a long time. Mizzou wanted the B1G for a long time, they took the SEC as tag-a-long with TAMU. All saw what was going down and they knew they were in the weakest of conferences due to location, population and realized they had an out, they took it. All the Big 12 schools have been looking at their options, most don't have real options.
3) Taking WVU and TCU was the best the conference could do.
4) I repeated the comment that UT wants to be academically associated with peer schools if they leave the Big 12, I also pointed out that SEC football may be intimidating to them, sarcastically.
5) UT may have enjoyed the academic association with the academic schools that left
6) Many UT boosters have stated they will not support a move to the SEC, several have stated they want a move to the SEC. To date, the position remains that UT does not want to be in the SEC, the same position they have held for decades - being that the SEC is the closest conference, the SEC would be the easiest to justify if geography is all that counts, it seems like a strong statement that UT does not want to go SEC if it can be avoided.
7) UT wants coverage to the east, that leaves three options: B1G, ACC and SEC. Staying in the Big 12 defeats this goal, as does going to the PAC.
8) I agree, no one knows what UT will do, they have several years left under the GOR. OU has options, Kansas likely has options, the rest are probably going to be stuck with whatever they can get.
9) UT will keep the real rivalry all UT fans want: OU. Whether they stay together or split, the Red River Rivalry will continue. The two were not in the same conference most of their history.

They didn't become part of the Big 12 that long ago. 4 AAU evacuations later they still pushed for Houston. They didn't chase the AAU schools out. They simply refused to participate in an egalitarian way and sought everything but a level playing field and used the Texas block and fear to out vote them. What's more they weren't concerned when they left. It's not that you aren't buying what I'm selling it's that you aren't listening to what I'm saying and looking at the evidence.

And listen, I'm retired, a geezer, and I know the history quite well, and have lived in Texas before, but it's been a while. I lived in San Antonio when Kennedy was murdered in Dallas. What you may not know is that for 40 years Texas has said they won't move to the SEC and in just the last 25 years they have held talks with us three times about that very subject. What Texas says and what they do are two different things. Always have been, and apparently always will be.

The biggest reason they aren't as interested in heading West is because the PAC has horrible ratings numbers. And because they kept changing the deal they were trying to nail down the last time around when the PAC finally called it quits. But since they could well do anything the points raised thus far by either of us are rather moot with the exception of discussing their behavior patterns which are fairly well documented.

They are Texas, and they rub other folks the wrong way.

(05-12-2017 02:02 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-12-2017 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-12-2017 11:48 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]Easier to get approved: S Carolina back to the ACC, plus WVU to get to 16, then add Texas + OU + Kansas to the SEC for 16 there also. (Notre Dame stays as-is).

Only problem: Big XII GoR.

Well, let's assume that South Carolina would request that move, because the SEC has never asked anyone to leave, ever. If that circumstance exists then you just wait for the end of the GOR. If something breaks sooner you make those three that offer. But personally speaking I don't think that would do it for Texas. I think the SEC would have to move to 18 to create something that Texas might agree to be a part of.

1)I did not put him up to it.
2) it is logical.
3) South Carolina has been the driving force to arrange the games in Charlotte against Carolina and NC State.

Because they need recruiting exposure in NC and it's winnable games.

Y'all start winning a couple of those games and they'll start playing ECU, App State, and Charlotte. Until then y'all are just tender white meat.

(05-12-2017 11:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-12-2017 10:49 PM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2017 10:00 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-11-2017 09:35 PM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]Texas has plainly stated they want no part in the SEC, academics is an issue. Texas does not want to be aligned with the SEC schools (it may be more football oriented than academics, but let them have their stance regardless of how the get to the stance).

Travel for any Big 12 team moving to another conference will be just as bad as it is now. Another 30 -60 minutes on a plane will not change anything. Flying to Washington and Oregon would be worse than Syracuse, BC and Pitt. The reality of teh tie zones also favors UT and OU looking north and east over west. UT and OU will be outliers in any conference but a southern plains oriented conference.

The PAC is not cultural fit for UT or OU. The B1G may be a better fit. Texas has stated they would be interested in the ACC if they leave the Big 12.

OU has been working on academics and they have a medical school. OU ranks on the same level as UNL, ahead of Louisville. Though OU would take an SEC invite if it was the only one, they want to gain in academic prestige and would prefer the ACC/PAC/B1G over the SEC, that and does anyone really want to join the SEC west right now? -- at least wait until the SEC east starts playing football again before joining.

UT and OU are historical brands any conference would be willing to take. The issue for each conference is whether they want to form a pod/division of they would join solely or as a pair.

The LHN is only a temporary issue. ESPN is losing money on the deal and will likely cease the agreement once it is over, unless they can get out of the the deal before then (SEC, ACC).

At the present, there is no need for UT to make any decision, they get enough TV money between the Big 12 deal and the LHN. OU, on the other hand, is falling behind. OU wants answers now and UT wants to sit back ponder their future.

Can a major conference be maintained in the plains? As it appears now, no, otherwise they would have expanded a few onths ago.

OU's academic standing places them right at the SEC MEAN. They are nowhere close to AAU standards. At least Nebraska had attained it. Where they rank closely together is in USNews & World Report which is more for undergraduate work.

As for Texas's academic preference, I cry hooey. They were forever in the SWC where they were only one of two AAU schools for most of the time. A&M finally made it to give them 3 (Rice being the other). The academics of the SWC were nowhere as nice as those of the Big 8. But when they became the Big 12 Texas found itself with Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa State which along with A&M accounted for the AAU schools in the Big 12. Texas didn't care enough about them to keep them around and instead alienated them. But when the stellar schools left Texas was content to back fill with academic giants like W.V.U.. Even T.C.U. doesn't meet muster for academic elitism. I respectfully submit that if Texas gave 1 fig about academics they would have been long gone. They cry academics to appeal to their own ego. But their actions since their inception tell quite another story. And that story is that Texas has always preferred a conference they could rule, and not one of academic peers. I give you my exhibit #2, the departed 4 AAU schools of the Big 12. If Texas had cared about their friendship they would not have had to leave to find an egalitarian atmosphere.

So color me unimpressed with what Texas says. It's what they do that tells their story. And what they do is to consistently act only in their self interest. So until they decide what it is that really suits them (a division of their old friends and rivals in the SEC), a true peer relationship in the either the PAC or Big 10, or Notre Dame like special privileges in the ACC, nobody has a clue of what they will actually do, especially the leadership at Texas.

Oklahoma just wants to land where they can still have access to Texas recruiting. So if Texas opts for the Big 10 then OU certainly might follow. If they don't I really can't see OU headed anywhere but the SEC where at least they would have A&M to schedule.

So it's not as cut and dried as many might think.

And as to Vodka's post, minor sports (non revenue sports) cost money to move around and our economy has its biggest issues before it. Geography will matter more than ever because fans want to travel but don't like to fly to regular season games. And everything else costs less the closer you play to home. Donations are driven by rivals. Those are the games people care about every year, and have cared about for generations. You don't alienate your clientele if you want to succeed, even if you are Texas. The rest is just so many words for a new age when expressing so many words means nothing, sounds good, and works for a 30 second sound byte or less.

What I say I am is the spin about my image. What others say I am based upon what they hear and not what they see is their judgment. What people see me do is the only reality in any of that. What Texas says has never lined up with what they do. The image they project means nothing. What they actually choose to do is who they really are.

Essentially, because Texas joined a conference many decades ago with teams that had no significant academic standing, they cannot now want to be affiliated with teams of academic standing. Not buying what you are selling.

1) UT will always be UT
2) UT was in the conference as several AU schools, the concept that UT chased them out as the sole purpose for the schools leaving is blown out of proportion and weak logic. - TAMU wanted to leave the SWAC with Arkansas and wanted in the SEC, that motivation never changed; UNL thought they would be in charge with OU having their back and they could not recruit Texas well enough to win consistently; Colorado had been looking west for a long time. Mizzou wanted the B1G for a long time, they took the SEC as tag-a-long with TAMU. All saw what was going down and they knew they were in the weakest of conferences due to location, population and realized they had an out, they took it. All the Big 12 schools have been looking at their options, most don't have real options.
3) Taking WVU and TCU was the best the conference could do.
4) I repeated the comment that UT wants to be academically associated with peer schools if they leave the Big 12, I also pointed out that SEC football may be intimidating to them, sarcastically.
5) UT may have enjoyed the academic association with the academic schools that left
6) Many UT boosters have stated they will not support a move to the SEC, several have stated they want a move to the SEC. To date, the position remains that UT does not want to be in the SEC, the same position they have held for decades - being that the SEC is the closest conference, the SEC would be the easiest to justify if geography is all that counts, it seems like a strong statement that UT does not want to go SEC if it can be avoided.
7) UT wants coverage to the east, that leaves three options: B1G, ACC and SEC. Staying in the Big 12 defeats this goal, as does going to the PAC.
8) I agree, no one knows what UT will do, they have several years left under the GOR. OU has options, Kansas likely has options, the rest are probably going to be stuck with whatever they can get.
9) UT will keep the real rivalry all UT fans want: OU. Whether they stay together or split, the Red River Rivalry will continue. The two were not in the same conference most of their history.

They didn't become part of the Big 12 that long ago. 4 AAU evacuations later they still pushed for Houston. They didn't chase the AAU schools out. They simply refused to participate in an egalitarian way and sought everything but a level playing field and used the Texas block and fear to out vote them. What's more they weren't concerned when they left. It's not that you aren't buying what I'm selling it's that you aren't listening to what I'm saying and looking at the evidence.

And listen, I'm retired, a geezer, and I know the history quite well, and have lived in Texas before, but it's been a while. I lived in San Antonio when Kennedy was murdered in Dallas. What you may not know is that for 40 years Texas has said they won't move to the SEC and in just the last 25 years they have held talks with us three times about that very subject. What Texas says and what they do are two different things. Always have been, and apparently always will be.

The biggest reason they aren't as interested in heading West is because the PAC has horrible ratings numbers. And because they kept changing the deal they were trying to nail down the last time around when the PAC finally called it quits. But since they could well do anything the points raised thus far by either of us are rather moot with the exception of discussing their behavior patterns which are fairly well documented.

They are Texas, and they rub other folks the wrong way.

I have read what you stated. You gloss over facts that ruin your narrative. UT has been in conferences for decades, as noted in my last post. You focused only on the Big 12, ignored the SWAC, and deny any positive effect of being united with other similar minded universities. Whether true or not, UT has stated that is what they want, their big donors have said the same.

I plainly stated that UT is UT and will do what they want to do. With the LHN, they have at least until the GOR is up to play the waiting game. As you note, UT does not want a level playing field, one more point against the SEC - too many schools recruiting the same territory and too any schools with football success.

To your point on UT having talks with the SEC, they have done the same with each major conference. Not a surprise, they will continue to do such until they make a move or the Big 12 is secured (highly unlikely based on current info). As you said, UT rubs people the wrong way, this is likely to continue while the quietly talk with each conference, angling for the best deal for UT.

(05-12-2017 11:48 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]Easier to get approved: S Carolina back to the ACC, plus WVU to get to 16, then add Texas + OU + Kansas to the SEC for 16 there also. (Notre Dame stays as-is).

Only problem: Big XII GoR.

South Carolina brings back some historic rivalries and helps Clemson with scheduling but do they add enough to the bottom line? WVU brings a state with a population smaller than Charlotte metro.

I don't like the idea of 17-5/8 schools any more than I like 15-5/8 schools.

Let's not forget that Oklahoma, Kansas, and possibly others, have tier-3 network deals. They don't pay as much as the LHN but they are still factors.

(05-18-2017 02:07 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Let's not forget that Oklahoma, Kansas, and possibly others, have tier-3 network deals. They don't pay as much as the LHN but they are still factors.

They aren't factors at all. Every school in the ACC has their own "tier 3" rights deals. It's things that companies like IMG usually are contracted to manage. The LHN is not really "tier 3", more like shared "tier 2" if you have to employ "tier" terminology.