(03-02-2014 03:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:41 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I disagree. Tulane is Oklahoma's Rice. Adding them would mean nothing to Texas, and Oklahoma can schedule them in OOC games any time they want.

You could say the same thing about every team you have listed. I don't think Tulane is the choice. I simply said Tulane is MORE LIKELY than Rice. I doubt either is very high on the list. Like I said, I think Cincy and ECU are the best available choices. I don't think the B12 goes beyond 12.

i like rice because they have

good facilities
history with the TX schools
elite academics

as much as everyone hates the idea of more tx expansion in the b12. it is more to the benefit of the tx schools who don't want to see their political power diluted down with more additions. so if the b12 does expand by more than 2 teams i think including a tx school to keep UT satisfied is a no brainer. they won't want anything to do with elevating another in-state land grant which leaves rice/smu as the most likely options. having more tx schools give all the other b12 schools more tx access as well. so it is beneficial to the conference as a whole. no offense to smu but i believe that rice provides more of what the b12 is looking for/needs.

That makes no sense. Texas doesn't need any other Texas programs to make them happy. Texas along with Texas A&M already have a majority of fan support in every media market in Texas. TCU got the nod because the were winning at the highest level (BCS Bowl), and located between UT and OU. Rice doesn't have the same situation, and SMU was beaten out by TCU for the spot. Their will be no more Texas teams in the BIG12 as long as Texas is in the conference, and they aren't going anywhere.

You are right about no large public universities. Neither Texas nor Oklahoma would let a Houston, UTEP, North Texas, or UTSA into the BIG12.

reading comprehension dude

you missed the whole "political power within the b12" aspect that i was getting at. the b12 schools have traditionally held 33% of the votes. right now they hold 40%. do you really think they would stand for that number to drop down to 28%????

They have no political power in the BIG12. Where are you from? Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU have almost zero say in what the BIG12 does. Plus, Richards and Bullock haven't run the state of Texas in a very long time. Texas Tech and Baylor are just lucky to be in the conference. They could have easily been left on the outside looking in, like Houston and SMU. TCU is just lucky they are located between UT and OU.

You should research how the SWC fell apart and how the Texas teams got into the BIG12. You also need to look at how the exit fees were distributed when Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri left. Texas and Oklahoma run the BIG12, everyone else settles for the scraps they are given.

(03-02-2014 03:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:32 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:41 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I disagree. Tulane is Oklahoma's Rice. Adding them would mean nothing to Texas, and Oklahoma can schedule them in OOC games any time they want.

You could say the same thing about every team you have listed. I don't think Tulane is the choice. I simply said Tulane is MORE LIKELY than Rice. I doubt either is very high on the list. Like I said, I think Cincy and ECU are the best available choices. I don't think the B12 goes beyond 12.

i like rice because they have

good facilities
history with the TX schools
elite academics

as much as everyone hates the idea of more tx expansion in the b12. it is more to the benefit of the tx schools who don't want to see their political power diluted down with more additions. so if the b12 does expand by more than 2 teams i think including a tx school to keep UT satisfied is a no brainer. they won't want anything to do with elevating another in-state land grant which leaves rice/smu as the most likely options. having more tx schools give all the other b12 schools more tx access as well. so it is beneficial to the conference as a whole. no offense to smu but i believe that rice provides more of what the b12 is looking for/needs.

John you and I have discussed the Big12 before. No disrespect intended, but I just don't see why you keep posting on something that you do not seem to have a great deal of insight.

For example you say Rice has good facilities. Have you seen their facilities ?

And this has nothing to do with SMU. SMU brings nothing to the table of the Big12, same as Rice.

rice has a 47k stadium that is expandable to 70k. from a stadium perspective rice is in a much better position than most g5 schools in the region looking for a b12 invite.

I like Rice and yes they have a large stadium that can be expanded back to 70K, but it is a very old stadium. They are renovating the place, but they are still in the same position as every other G5 Texas program. They have no chance at receiving an invitation to the BIG12.

(03-02-2014 04:06 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:32 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You could say the same thing about every team you have listed. I don't think Tulane is the choice. I simply said Tulane is MORE LIKELY than Rice. I doubt either is very high on the list. Like I said, I think Cincy and ECU are the best available choices. I don't think the B12 goes beyond 12.

i like rice because they have

good facilities
history with the TX schools
elite academics

as much as everyone hates the idea of more tx expansion in the b12. it is more to the benefit of the tx schools who don't want to see their political power diluted down with more additions. so if the b12 does expand by more than 2 teams i think including a tx school to keep UT satisfied is a no brainer. they won't want anything to do with elevating another in-state land grant which leaves rice/smu as the most likely options. having more tx schools give all the other b12 schools more tx access as well. so it is beneficial to the conference as a whole. no offense to smu but i believe that rice provides more of what the b12 is looking for/needs.

John you and I have discussed the Big12 before. No disrespect intended, but I just don't see why you keep posting on something that you do not seem to have a great deal of insight.

For example you say Rice has good facilities. Have you seen their facilities ?

And this has nothing to do with SMU. SMU brings nothing to the table of the Big12, same as Rice.

rice has a 47k stadium that is expandable to 70k. from a stadium perspective rice is in a much better position than most g5 schools in the region looking for a b12 invite.

I like Rice and yes they have a large stadium that can be expanded back to 70K, but it is a very old stadium. They are renovating the place, but they are still in the same position as every other G5 Texas program. They have no chance at receiving an invitation to the BIG12.

point is they have a stadium. usually there is a minimum bar in terms of stadium capacity that a conference wants when looking at prospective members. rice clearly exceeds that bar and from an age perspective it is very easy to focus on fan experience upgrades than capacity upgrades. from a pure stadium perspective rice has a distinct advantage there.

(03-02-2014 03:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:32 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:41 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I disagree. Tulane is Oklahoma's Rice. Adding them would mean nothing to Texas, and Oklahoma can schedule them in OOC games any time they want.

You could say the same thing about every team you have listed. I don't think Tulane is the choice. I simply said Tulane is MORE LIKELY than Rice. I doubt either is very high on the list. Like I said, I think Cincy and ECU are the best available choices. I don't think the B12 goes beyond 12.

i like rice because they have

good facilities
history with the TX schools
elite academics

as much as everyone hates the idea of more tx expansion in the b12. it is more to the benefit of the tx schools who don't want to see their political power diluted down with more additions. so if the b12 does expand by more than 2 teams i think including a tx school to keep UT satisfied is a no brainer. they won't want anything to do with elevating another in-state land grant which leaves rice/smu as the most likely options. having more tx schools give all the other b12 schools more tx access as well. so it is beneficial to the conference as a whole. no offense to smu but i believe that rice provides more of what the b12 is looking for/needs.

John you and I have discussed the Big12 before. No disrespect intended, but I just don't see why you keep posting on something that you do not seem to have a great deal of insight.

For example you say Rice has good facilities. Have you seen their facilities ?

And this has nothing to do with SMU. SMU brings nothing to the table of the Big12, same as Rice.

rice has a 47k stadium that is expandable to 70k. from a stadium perspective rice is in a much better position than most g5 schools in the region looking for a b12 invite.

FYI the Rice stadium was built with a capacity of 72,000. You did not answer my question...Have you seen their facilities? Have you seen their gym and weight rooms etc??? I am sure you have not or you would answer the question.

As I said, your comments indicate you apparently have little insight on schools in this region of the country.

Regardless of what the B12 ends up doing the fact they added TCU and WVA when they did shows you how out of touch they were (are) with the reality of college athletics landscape. Those were knee jerk additions and you look at the B12 now and they still don't have a clue. WVA and TCU are great programs, not knocking them. I'm talking about how/when they were added. Had the B12 taken time, thought things through with some vision and then gotten proactive prior to the ACC moves and added WVA with say UofL, etc they would be in a better spot. Clearly the ACC leadership is superior to the B12 and it's not even close. So the B12 has been bleeding, losing teams, fumbling and bumbling and their current line up, geographic situation, limited market span is screaming for help. If they do implode one day they have nobody to blame but themselves.

(03-02-2014 04:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 04:06 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:32 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i like rice because they have

good facilities
history with the TX schools
elite academics

as much as everyone hates the idea of more tx expansion in the b12. it is more to the benefit of the tx schools who don't want to see their political power diluted down with more additions. so if the b12 does expand by more than 2 teams i think including a tx school to keep UT satisfied is a no brainer. they won't want anything to do with elevating another in-state land grant which leaves rice/smu as the most likely options. having more tx schools give all the other b12 schools more tx access as well. so it is beneficial to the conference as a whole. no offense to smu but i believe that rice provides more of what the b12 is looking for/needs.

John you and I have discussed the Big12 before. No disrespect intended, but I just don't see why you keep posting on something that you do not seem to have a great deal of insight.

For example you say Rice has good facilities. Have you seen their facilities ?

And this has nothing to do with SMU. SMU brings nothing to the table of the Big12, same as Rice.

rice has a 47k stadium that is expandable to 70k. from a stadium perspective rice is in a much better position than most g5 schools in the region looking for a b12 invite.

I like Rice and yes they have a large stadium that can be expanded back to 70K, but it is a very old stadium. They are renovating the place, but they are still in the same position as every other G5 Texas program. They have no chance at receiving an invitation to the BIG12.

point is they have a stadium. usually there is a minimum bar in terms of stadium capacity that a conference wants when looking at prospective members. rice clearly exceeds that bar and from an age perspective it is very easy to focus on fan experience upgrades than capacity upgrades. from a pure stadium perspective rice has a distinct advantage there.

I've been to Rice stadium. It is big, but not nice, and certainly not an advantage. In fact the size only amplifies the lack of fans in the seats. Like I said, I like Rice, and I'm very glad to be in the same conference with them. I think the fact that not one Rice fans has come on here and backed your argument speaks for itself.

I just don't think any G5 Texas program has a chance at the BIG12.

(03-02-2014 04:18 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:32 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You could say the same thing about every team you have listed. I don't think Tulane is the choice. I simply said Tulane is MORE LIKELY than Rice. I doubt either is very high on the list. Like I said, I think Cincy and ECU are the best available choices. I don't think the B12 goes beyond 12.

i like rice because they have

good facilities
history with the TX schools
elite academics

as much as everyone hates the idea of more tx expansion in the b12. it is more to the benefit of the tx schools who don't want to see their political power diluted down with more additions. so if the b12 does expand by more than 2 teams i think including a tx school to keep UT satisfied is a no brainer. they won't want anything to do with elevating another in-state land grant which leaves rice/smu as the most likely options. having more tx schools give all the other b12 schools more tx access as well. so it is beneficial to the conference as a whole. no offense to smu but i believe that rice provides more of what the b12 is looking for/needs.

John you and I have discussed the Big12 before. No disrespect intended, but I just don't see why you keep posting on something that you do not seem to have a great deal of insight.

For example you say Rice has good facilities. Have you seen their facilities ?

And this has nothing to do with SMU. SMU brings nothing to the table of the Big12, same as Rice.

rice has a 47k stadium that is expandable to 70k. from a stadium perspective rice is in a much better position than most g5 schools in the region looking for a b12 invite.

FYI the Rice stadium was built with a capacity of 72,000. You did not answer my question...Have you seen their facilities? Have you seen their gym and weight rooms etc??? I am sure you have not or you would answer the question.

As I said, your comments indicate you apparently have little insight on schools in this region of the country.

sorry dude but in conference realignment the prospective conferences only care about one facility.......the football stadium. as far as the b12 goes the weight room of rice is not their concern and i haven't exactly seen any quotes from conference admins praising their new additions because of their weight rooms or gyms.

(03-02-2014 04:22 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 04:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 04:06 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:32 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  John you and I have discussed the Big12 before. No disrespect intended, but I just don't see why you keep posting on something that you do not seem to have a great deal of insight.

For example you say Rice has good facilities. Have you seen their facilities ?

And this has nothing to do with SMU. SMU brings nothing to the table of the Big12, same as Rice.

rice has a 47k stadium that is expandable to 70k. from a stadium perspective rice is in a much better position than most g5 schools in the region looking for a b12 invite.

I like Rice and yes they have a large stadium that can be expanded back to 70K, but it is a very old stadium. They are renovating the place, but they are still in the same position as every other G5 Texas program. They have no chance at receiving an invitation to the BIG12.

point is they have a stadium. usually there is a minimum bar in terms of stadium capacity that a conference wants when looking at prospective members. rice clearly exceeds that bar and from an age perspective it is very easy to focus on fan experience upgrades than capacity upgrades. from a pure stadium perspective rice has a distinct advantage there.

I've been to Rice stadium. It is big, but not nice, and certainly not an advantage. In fact the size only amplifies the lack of fans in the seats. Like I said, I like Rice, and I'm very glad to be in the same conference with them. I think the fact that not one Rice fans has come on here and backed your argument speaks for itself.

I just don't think any G5 Texas program has a chance at the BIG12.

when is the last time you have seen a rice fan on the cr forum on a regular basis

and at the end of the day rice has advantages in a number of different area's besides their FB stadium

(03-02-2014 04:02 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You could say the same thing about every team you have listed. I don't think Tulane is the choice. I simply said Tulane is MORE LIKELY than Rice. I doubt either is very high on the list. Like I said, I think Cincy and ECU are the best available choices. I don't think the B12 goes beyond 12.

i like rice because they have

good facilities
history with the TX schools
elite academics

as much as everyone hates the idea of more tx expansion in the b12. it is more to the benefit of the tx schools who don't want to see their political power diluted down with more additions. so if the b12 does expand by more than 2 teams i think including a tx school to keep UT satisfied is a no brainer. they won't want anything to do with elevating another in-state land grant which leaves rice/smu as the most likely options. having more tx schools give all the other b12 schools more tx access as well. so it is beneficial to the conference as a whole. no offense to smu but i believe that rice provides more of what the b12 is looking for/needs.

That makes no sense. Texas doesn't need any other Texas programs to make them happy. Texas along with Texas A&M already have a majority of fan support in every media market in Texas. TCU got the nod because the were winning at the highest level (BCS Bowl), and located between UT and OU. Rice doesn't have the same situation, and SMU was beaten out by TCU for the spot. Their will be no more Texas teams in the BIG12 as long as Texas is in the conference, and they aren't going anywhere.

You are right about no large public universities. Neither Texas nor Oklahoma would let a Houston, UTEP, North Texas, or UTSA into the BIG12.

reading comprehension dude

you missed the whole "political power within the b12" aspect that i was getting at. the b12 schools have traditionally held 33% of the votes. right now they hold 40%. do you really think they would stand for that number to drop down to 28%????

They have no political power in the BIG12. Where are you from? Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU have almost zero say in what the BIG12 does. Plus, Richards and Bullock haven't run the state of Texas in a very long time. Texas Tech and Baylor are just lucky to be in the conference. They could have easily been left on the outside looking in, like Houston and SMU. TCU is just lucky they are located between UT and OU.

You should research how the SWC fell apart and how the Texas teams got into the BIG12. You also need to look at how the exit fees were distributed when Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri left. Texas and Oklahoma run the BIG12, everyone else settles for the scraps they are given.

please spare me the BS.

part of UTs success in dominating the b12 is that they have huge pull in swaying other members to vote in their favor.....not because they somehow have this magical lever that they pull and every school automatically does what they want.

having such a large % of members come from the state is clearly part of the reason UT dominated the conference for so long. and obviously UT wants to maintain this stranglehold on the conference because the TCU move has been viewed as doing just that.

TCU provided zero new markets, very weak non football sports, and nothing impressive on the academic end. one of the biggest reasons why they were added might have been because they were a non land grant texas school. <== that theory has been widely speculated on this board by a number of different posters in the past.

Memphis and UNLV are the two schools with the best mix of untapped market, population size, talent base, enrollment, etc and should be in the mix to move up but for their poor football performance. There's really *no reason* that both schools couldn't be as competitive in FB as they have been in BB.

*I think there are some cultural reasons. LV is a city of transplants with a bunch of unique entertainment distractions. Memphis is just a uniquely dysfunctional city that is too bound to its historical failures to move positively toward these kind of opportunities.*

(03-02-2014 04:33 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Memphis and UNLV are the two schools with the best mix of untapped market, population size, talent base, enrollment, etc and should be in the mix to move up but for their poor football performance. There's really *no reason* that both schools couldn't be as competitive in FB as they have been in BB.

*I think there are some cultural reasons. LV is a city of transplants with a bunch of unique entertainment distractions. Memphis is just a uniquely dysfunctional city that is too bound to its historical failures to move positively toward these kind of opportunities.*

there are already two sec teams in the state of Tenn. i wouldn't exactly call that "untapped"

(03-02-2014 03:19 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:23 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  as for the b12.......

ucf
usf
new mexico
rice

if i was the b12 commish that's who i would add

I don't think any of those options would ever get a serious look. When the BIG12 finally expands, the biggest factor in choosing programs will be if adding them benefits Texas and OU. TCU gave Texas and OU and easy road game between the two schools, in a talent rich region.

I still think WVU was a bad addition. I doubt the BIG12 will make that mistake again, so the Florida schools don't seem to be real options. New Mexico offers nothing to Texas or Oklahoma. They don't have a market. They aren't in a recruiting hotbed. They don't get the fans of Texas or OU excited. I like Rice, but I can't see Texas adding them to the BIG12, when they can schedule them for a OOC game any time they want. Plus, Texas, along with A&M, already controls more of the Houston market then Rice, just like those two control more of every major market in Texas. I can't see Texas or Oklahoma letting another Texas team into the BIG12. It just wouldn't benefit them.

the b12 is not weak in athletics. their weakness is markets/academics and the wvu outlier.

lets take a moment to look at wvu. would they be better served adding a school in between them and the b12......a region that they don't normally recruit out of and have a small alumni presence........

or would they be better served with expansion in florida.....a state they recruit heavily out of and has nearly double the amount of registered wvu alumni than every b12 state combined.

seems like a valid question to me.....

the way i see it unless the b12 adds an entire eastern division wvu will always be an outlier. so any realignment proposal with cincy, ville, memphis etc. has the purpose of diminishing the problem but not solving the problem. to solve the problem a conference needs to go after regions that give wvu the best resources to succeed not the best way to cut travel time.

huge travel distances between conference members isn't a problem when every member has a alumni/student body/recruiting footprint that is mostly within the conference blueprint. that is why no one raises an issue with colorado in the pac12 being an outlier but colorado in the b12 was an outlier even though the distances were closer. or how BC, pitt, & SU can be perfectly happy playing fsu/miami (1500 miles) but wvu playing isu (860 miles) is a problem.

When West Virginia joined the Big12 they knew the distance problems. So I do not think the other Big12 schools are worried about having to do something to help out West Virginia.

I agree with this. The Big 12 handed us a fantastic lifeboat. The rest is gravy.

(03-02-2014 03:02 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:41 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:23 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I don't think any of those options would ever get a serious look. When the BIG12 finally expands, the biggest factor in choosing programs will be if adding them benefits Texas and OU. TCU gave Texas and OU and easy road game between the two schools, in a talent rich region.

I still think WVU was a bad addition. I doubt the BIG12 will make that mistake again, so the Florida schools don't seem to be real options. New Mexico offers nothing to Texas or Oklahoma. They don't have a market. They aren't in a recruiting hotbed. They don't get the fans of Texas or OU excited. I like Rice, but I can't see Texas adding them to the BIG12, when they can schedule them for a OOC game any time they want. Plus, Texas, along with A&M, already controls more of the Houston market then Rice, just like those two control more of every major market in Texas. I can't see Texas or Oklahoma letting another Texas team into the BIG12. It just wouldn't benefit them.

Yup. Tulane would be more likely than Rice.

I disagree. Tulane is Oklahoma's Rice. Adding them would mean nothing to Texas, and Oklahoma can schedule them in OOC games any time they want.

You could say the same thing about every team you have listed. I don't think Tulane is the choice. I simply said Tulane is MORE LIKELY than Rice. I doubt either is very high on the list. Like I said, I think Cincy and ECU are the best available choices. I don't think the B12 goes beyond 12.

I don't have any teams listed. I think all of these are bad options. When the BIG12 finally does expand, I think they will focus on new larger markets with solid football and basketball that border their current historic footprint. I don't believe the BIG12 will expand in Texas or Oklahoma. Like I stated in another post, I believe Louisville and Memphis will probably get the nod, but probably not until Memphis gets better at football.

I don't want to be rude: BUT THERE IS NO FRIGGIN WAY LOUISVILLE WOULD LEAVE THE ACC FOR THE B12.

Stop the fantasy...Louisville is an east coast leaning institution and if you look at a map they are within an 8 hour drive to the majority of the schools.

The B12 blew it, the ACC outplayed them...they should grab anywhere from 2-6 among: Cincy, Memphis, Tulane, Houston, BYU, UNLV, New Mexico, USF and UCF

One last point: You comment how UT and OU run the B12 and the rest get scraps...why would Louisville leave the ACC to be a pawn for UT/OU?

BTW, I do agree with you that Rice is a ridiculous add for the B12...John: Rice's stadium is crap.

(03-02-2014 04:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 04:02 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i like rice because they have

good facilities
history with the TX schools
elite academics

as much as everyone hates the idea of more tx expansion in the b12. it is more to the benefit of the tx schools who don't want to see their political power diluted down with more additions. so if the b12 does expand by more than 2 teams i think including a tx school to keep UT satisfied is a no brainer. they won't want anything to do with elevating another in-state land grant which leaves rice/smu as the most likely options. having more tx schools give all the other b12 schools more tx access as well. so it is beneficial to the conference as a whole. no offense to smu but i believe that rice provides more of what the b12 is looking for/needs.

That makes no sense. Texas doesn't need any other Texas programs to make them happy. Texas along with Texas A&M already have a majority of fan support in every media market in Texas. TCU got the nod because the were winning at the highest level (BCS Bowl), and located between UT and OU. Rice doesn't have the same situation, and SMU was beaten out by TCU for the spot. Their will be no more Texas teams in the BIG12 as long as Texas is in the conference, and they aren't going anywhere.

You are right about no large public universities. Neither Texas nor Oklahoma would let a Houston, UTEP, North Texas, or UTSA into the BIG12.

reading comprehension dude

you missed the whole "political power within the b12" aspect that i was getting at. the b12 schools have traditionally held 33% of the votes. right now they hold 40%. do you really think they would stand for that number to drop down to 28%????

They have no political power in the BIG12. Where are you from? Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU have almost zero say in what the BIG12 does. Plus, Richards and Bullock haven't run the state of Texas in a very long time. Texas Tech and Baylor are just lucky to be in the conference. They could have easily been left on the outside looking in, like Houston and SMU. TCU is just lucky they are located between UT and OU.

You should research how the SWC fell apart and how the Texas teams got into the BIG12. You also need to look at how the exit fees were distributed when Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri left. Texas and Oklahoma run the BIG12, everyone else settles for the scraps they are given.

please spare me the BS.

part of UTs success in dominating the b12 is that they have huge pull in swaying other members to vote in their favor.....not because they somehow have this magical lever that they pull and every school automatically does what they want.

having such a large % of members come from the state is clearly part of the reason UT dominated the conference for so long. and obviously UT wants to maintain this stranglehold on the conference because the TCU move has been viewed as doing just that.

TCU provided zero new markets, very weak non football sports, and nothing impressive on the academic end. one of the biggest reasons why they were added might have been because they were a non land grant texas school. <== that theory has been widely speculated on this board by a number of different posters in the past.

You really have no clue as to the dynamics of college football in Texas. Other fans from Texas programs are telling you you're wrong too. Rice has no advantage, and like all the other G5 Texas programs has no chance of getting a BIG 12 invitation.

(03-02-2014 04:44 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 04:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 04:02 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  That makes no sense. Texas doesn't need any other Texas programs to make them happy. Texas along with Texas A&M already have a majority of fan support in every media market in Texas. TCU got the nod because the were winning at the highest level (BCS Bowl), and located between UT and OU. Rice doesn't have the same situation, and SMU was beaten out by TCU for the spot. Their will be no more Texas teams in the BIG12 as long as Texas is in the conference, and they aren't going anywhere.

You are right about no large public universities. Neither Texas nor Oklahoma would let a Houston, UTEP, North Texas, or UTSA into the BIG12.

reading comprehension dude

you missed the whole "political power within the b12" aspect that i was getting at. the b12 schools have traditionally held 33% of the votes. right now they hold 40%. do you really think they would stand for that number to drop down to 28%????

They have no political power in the BIG12. Where are you from? Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU have almost zero say in what the BIG12 does. Plus, Richards and Bullock haven't run the state of Texas in a very long time. Texas Tech and Baylor are just lucky to be in the conference. They could have easily been left on the outside looking in, like Houston and SMU. TCU is just lucky they are located between UT and OU.

You should research how the SWC fell apart and how the Texas teams got into the BIG12. You also need to look at how the exit fees were distributed when Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri left. Texas and Oklahoma run the BIG12, everyone else settles for the scraps they are given.

please spare me the BS.

part of UTs success in dominating the b12 is that they have huge pull in swaying other members to vote in their favor.....not because they somehow have this magical lever that they pull and every school automatically does what they want.

having such a large % of members come from the state is clearly part of the reason UT dominated the conference for so long. and obviously UT wants to maintain this stranglehold on the conference because the TCU move has been viewed as doing just that.

TCU provided zero new markets, very weak non football sports, and nothing impressive on the academic end. one of the biggest reasons why they were added might have been because they were a non land grant texas school. <== that theory has been widely speculated on this board by a number of different posters in the past.

You really have no clue as to the dynamics of college football in Texas. Other fans from Texas programs are telling you you're wrong too. Rice has no advantage, and like all the other G5 Texas programs has no chance of getting a BIG 12 invitation.

dude you act like there is this magical voting block within the b12 when ut/ou get outnumbered 2-8 or 4-12 in the b12 voting and yet somehow get what they want......

a lot may disagree with me on the rice issue (and i don't blame em) but i am sticking with it and from what i have seen you are flat out wrong on the texas voting block issue.

(03-02-2014 04:40 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:02 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:41 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Yup. Tulane would be more likely than Rice.

I disagree. Tulane is Oklahoma's Rice. Adding them would mean nothing to Texas, and Oklahoma can schedule them in OOC games any time they want.

You could say the same thing about every team you have listed. I don't think Tulane is the choice. I simply said Tulane is MORE LIKELY than Rice. I doubt either is very high on the list. Like I said, I think Cincy and ECU are the best available choices. I don't think the B12 goes beyond 12.

I don't have any teams listed. I think all of these are bad options. When the BIG12 finally does expand, I think they will focus on new larger markets with solid football and basketball that border their current historic footprint. I don't believe the BIG12 will expand in Texas or Oklahoma. Like I stated in another post, I believe Louisville and Memphis will probably get the nod, but probably not until Memphis gets better at football.

I don't want to be rude: BUT THERE IS NO FRIGGIN WAY LOUISVILLE WOULD LEAVE THE ACC FOR THE B12.

Stop the fantasy...Louisville is an east coast leaning institution and if you look at a map they are within an 8 hour drive to the majority of the schools.

The B12 blew it...they should grab anywhere from 2-6 among: Cincy, Memphis, Tulane, Houston, BYU, New Mexico, USF and UCF

Yeah, you are right. I keep forgetting Louisville is in the ACC now. There is no reason for them to leave for the BIG12. The ACC is a better situation for them. The BIG12 would have to come up with a much better revenue distribution agreement before they could even consider poaching a team from another P5 conference. I guess Memphis and Cincinnati are the two best candidates.

(03-02-2014 04:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 04:44 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 04:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 04:02 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  reading comprehension dude

you missed the whole "political power within the b12" aspect that i was getting at. the b12 schools have traditionally held 33% of the votes. right now they hold 40%. do you really think they would stand for that number to drop down to 28%????

They have no political power in the BIG12. Where are you from? Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU have almost zero say in what the BIG12 does. Plus, Richards and Bullock haven't run the state of Texas in a very long time. Texas Tech and Baylor are just lucky to be in the conference. They could have easily been left on the outside looking in, like Houston and SMU. TCU is just lucky they are located between UT and OU.

You should research how the SWC fell apart and how the Texas teams got into the BIG12. You also need to look at how the exit fees were distributed when Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri left. Texas and Oklahoma run the BIG12, everyone else settles for the scraps they are given.

please spare me the BS.

part of UTs success in dominating the b12 is that they have huge pull in swaying other members to vote in their favor.....not because they somehow have this magical lever that they pull and every school automatically does what they want.

having such a large % of members come from the state is clearly part of the reason UT dominated the conference for so long. and obviously UT wants to maintain this stranglehold on the conference because the TCU move has been viewed as doing just that.

TCU provided zero new markets, very weak non football sports, and nothing impressive on the academic end. one of the biggest reasons why they were added might have been because they were a non land grant texas school. <== that theory has been widely speculated on this board by a number of different posters in the past.

You really have no clue as to the dynamics of college football in Texas. Other fans from Texas programs are telling you you're wrong too. Rice has no advantage, and like all the other G5 Texas programs has no chance of getting a BIG 12 invitation.

dude you act like there is this magical voting block within the b12 when ut/ou get outnumbered 2-8 or 4-12 in the b12 voting and yet somehow get what they want......

a lot may disagree with me on the rice issue (and i don't blame em) but i am sticking with it and from what i have seen you are flat out wrong on the texas voting block issue.

Really? When have Texas and Oklahoma not gotten their way? Who walked away with Nebraska's, Missouri's, and Colorado's exit fees?

(03-02-2014 04:53 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 04:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 04:44 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 04:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 04:02 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  They have no political power in the BIG12. Where are you from? Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU have almost zero say in what the BIG12 does. Plus, Richards and Bullock haven't run the state of Texas in a very long time. Texas Tech and Baylor are just lucky to be in the conference. They could have easily been left on the outside looking in, like Houston and SMU. TCU is just lucky they are located between UT and OU.

You should research how the SWC fell apart and how the Texas teams got into the BIG12. You also need to look at how the exit fees were distributed when Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri left. Texas and Oklahoma run the BIG12, everyone else settles for the scraps they are given.

please spare me the BS.

part of UTs success in dominating the b12 is that they have huge pull in swaying other members to vote in their favor.....not because they somehow have this magical lever that they pull and every school automatically does what they want.

having such a large % of members come from the state is clearly part of the reason UT dominated the conference for so long. and obviously UT wants to maintain this stranglehold on the conference because the TCU move has been viewed as doing just that.

TCU provided zero new markets, very weak non football sports, and nothing impressive on the academic end. one of the biggest reasons why they were added might have been because they were a non land grant texas school. <== that theory has been widely speculated on this board by a number of different posters in the past.

You really have no clue as to the dynamics of college football in Texas. Other fans from Texas programs are telling you you're wrong too. Rice has no advantage, and like all the other G5 Texas programs has no chance of getting a BIG 12 invitation.

dude you act like there is this magical voting block within the b12 when ut/ou get outnumbered 2-8 or 4-12 in the b12 voting and yet somehow get what they want......

a lot may disagree with me on the rice issue (and i don't blame em) but i am sticking with it and from what i have seen you are flat out wrong on the texas voting block issue.

Really? When have Texas and Oklahoma not gotten their way? Who walked away with Nebraska's, Missouri's, and Colorado's exit fees?

you continue to miss this point.

ut & ou consistently get what they want because schools like tcu, osu, tech & baylor help them. with conferences we have seen with the acc, p12, & yours truly.....the b12 that regional schools often act as a voting block among the conferences

(03-02-2014 04:02 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  They have no political power in the BIG12. Where are you from? Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU have almost zero say in what the BIG12 does. Plus, Richards and Bullock haven't run the state of Texas in a very long time. Texas Tech and Baylor are just lucky to be in the conference. They could have easily been left on the outside looking in, like Houston and SMU. TCU is just lucky they are located between UT and OU.

You should research how the SWC fell apart and how the Texas teams got into the BIG12. You also need to look at how the exit fees were distributed when Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri left. Texas and Oklahoma run the BIG12, everyone else settles for the scraps they are given.

At the end of the day, IIRC, that money was distributed equally. No one settles for scraps in the Big 12.

July 1, 2014:
Florida and Vanderbilt join Big East for women's lacrosse for Spring 2015

July 1, 2015:
Missouri State to MAC for football only
James Madison to Sun Belt
NJIT, Delaware, Towson to America East
America East starts sponsoring football (Delaware, Towson, Maine, New Hampshire, Stony Brook, Albany plus affiliates Villanova, Rhode Island, and Monmouth)
CAA takes in eastern NorPac members (App State, Davidson, Liberty, Longwood) for Field Hockey
MAAC takes in two remaining CAA Men's Lacrosse members (Drexel and Hofstra)
CAA takes in Delaware State and Old Dominion for women's lacrosse
Richmond, Elon, William & Mary to Big South for football only
Fairfield to CAA (as a full member, MAAC stays at 10)

July 1, 2016:
Northern Kentucky to Horizon
Bellarmine to Atlantic Sun
Alaska-Anchorage to the WAC
Francis Marion (SC) to AAC for Women's Soccer only

July 1, 2018:
Alaska-Fairbanks to WAC
Georgia Regents to Atlantic Sun