Somehow I just don't see Boren sitting down across from Larry Scott and intentionally mislead him about OUs intentions about joining the PAC to gain some unspecified leverage in the B12.

But hey....

(05-20-2014 08:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Somehow I just don't see Boren sitting down across from Larry Scott and intentionally mislead him about OUs intentions about joining the PAC to gain some unspecified leverage in the B12.

But hey....

You can't see anything with your head that far up your rectum. But hey...

Are you saying that is in fact what happened?

(05-20-2014 08:51 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Are you saying that is in fact what happened?

No, but you're definitely saying it didn't when you don't know. Just admit your version is a preference, and not anchored by any sort of evidence.

Sure, if you admit that your side is just as much a preference to save face

(05-20-2014 08:55 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Sure, if you admit that your side is just as much a preference to save face

No, I'm saying I don't know, and neither do you. I'm just being honest. I think you still harbor some ill will towards OU. Do you deny it?

Alright then

(05-20-2014 08:51 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Are you saying that is in fact what happened?

no you silly sheep humper what he is saying is the same thing I have said that is too long for someone with a degree from A&M to read or comprehend

the PAC 12 and Oklahoma had talks and at the end of the day they both decided on something else

they did not have to lie to each other, they did not have to reject one or the other and they did not have to each leave the table feeling as though one or the other had won or lost

this is not like a UT A&M relationship where UT says "ok take your ball and go away bye and A&M walks away turning around time and again to see if UT is sneaking a look only to see UT still walking away"

it is not like dating a sheep where you either get one and get some or it gets away and bleats at you mockingly while you regroup and form a new plan for that Friday night

here read the stories

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...to-expand/

*** And yes, in all likelihood the Pac-12 would take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State even if Texas were off the table, multiple sources said.

Sources said that at least five schools (Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA and Washington) have serious questions about admitting the Oklahoma schools, which are not members of the Association of American Universities.

But when I asked a source close to Stanford president John Hennessy, one of the league’s most influential CEOs, if the AAU issue would be a deal-breaker, the answer was: “Probably not.”

Said another source: “If Larry (Scott) thinks adding (Oklahoma and OSU) is the right thing, the CEOs will ultimately fall in line.”



http://newsok.com/breaking-removal-of-bi...aking_news

OU president David Boren said Monday the Sooners would decide soon between applying for Pac-12 membership or staying in the Big 12, and the source outlined the parameters for remaining in the Big 12.

Both Boren and athletic director Joe Castiglione have stated their desire to make the Big 12 work, as have OSU president Burns Hargis and athletic director Mike Holder.

“No one wants to give up on it,” an OSU source said of the Big 12. The problems have “nothing to do with finances. It has nothing to do with success. For the league to be falling apart, it's crazy.”

http://newsok.com/big-12-football-what-h...le/3773858

Neither side was crazy about a Pac-14. The scheduling would have been a mess. For OU and OSU, the travel would have been awful, with no other conference member even in its time zone. The divisional would have been a massive headache for Scott; he almost surely would have had to split every arch-rival (Oregon from Oregon State, USC from UCLA, Stanford from Cal, etc.), to maintain a balance, then would have the arch-rivals play annually every year anyway. But that’s a mess of a divisional split.

A 14-team conference is problematic. In the far-flung Pac, with distinct geographic issues, a 14-team conference is a mess.

Scott knew that and OU knew it. Neither was crazy about it, but both saw advantages to it. For Scott, it would have ensured a national-brand school (Oklahoma) and given the Pac one of its few options in case of further expansion. The Pac has no really good place to go, other than Oklahoma and Texas. For OU, the Pac would have been a stable conference. And for both, going to a Pac-14 would have put massive pressure on Texas to eventually come aboard, too.

That’s really what would have spurred both sides to make the Pac-14 plunge, the hope that Texas and Tech would come along, too. Eventually, both sides said they decided against it.

I tend to believe David Boren that Scott indicated OU and OSU could get into the Pac-14. Boren is an operator, but he’s not going to make the mistake of embracing an offer that doesn’t exist. I can see Scott telling Boren that OU and OSU could be massaged into the conference, even without Texas and with the academic concerns of the Pac. Then I can see when it came time to decide, the Pac presidents pulling back and saying, let’s be prudent. And Scott having to tell Boren, uh, not sure I can get you now. And Boren feeling a little relief, because a Pac-14 is no place for OU anyway, and the Sooners then deciding to leverage their talks with the Pac to get concessions from Texas.

again COMPLEX negotiations are not always ended with a winner and a loser it is not like a sheep humping expedition where you either get yours or you get nothing but mocked by a sheep

and as you can read in the stories there were differing opinions across the board

Boone P. and OkState pretty much were 100% not really interested in going

Big Game Bob was excited at first, but came around the other way.......the OU Regents wanted in the PAC 12, but Joe C. runs the athletics department like he is hired to and that is to take a LONG TERM VIEW and he really wanted to stay in the Big 12, but he wanted some things to change before he was willing to tell Texas they could work together........Texas made those changes with no Texas HS football on the LHN.......Texas agreed to bring in The Chuckster as interim commissioner of the Big 12

once it was clear to the PAC 12 that Oklahoma was not just going to see them as their only option and that Texas was not backed into a corner it was clear that a PAC 14 with Oklahoma and OkState was going to suck for all involved

once OU saw that Texas really just cared about money and the LHN and not "running the conference" as so many fools accuse them of OU could deal with that and once it was clear that OU and OkState to the PAC 12 was not going to force Texas' hand and probably would have made Texas make other moves that OU would not have liked it was clear to OU that would be a mistake to try and force their hand

Texas was not going to be FORCED to take Texas Tech or anyone else anywhere.....Texas had told Texas Tech they would be up and front and honest with them and they were not looking to break away from them, but they were going to look out for Texas

OU is not run by fools with bow ties, they do not operate in a vacuum that centers around "stick it to Texas before all else" and they SURELY knew what a Big 12 with 10 teams could be worth and what it could be worth of there was an OU network and they were able to compare that to what the PAC 12 was offering

they had SURELY already been on the phone with The Chuckster to first see if he would be interested in running the Big 12 and also to ask him what he thought of everything that was going on and the Chuckster surely told OU that they and Texas and the rest could still do VERY WELL in a TV deal and that the PAC 12 was not going to leave them behind in TV money

OU and the PAC 12 were exploring options.....one of those options that was unattractive for all was a PAC 14 with OU and OkState as members and hoping that Texas would be forced into something

once it was clear to OU and OkState they did not need to take that dramatic decision then it became clear to the PAC 12 that their options for expansion were over

it was not a matter of rejection like your favorite sheep running away to another sheep ranch it was a matter of all involved making the decisions that worked best for them

I realize this might be hard for some to understand, but that does not change the reality of it

(05-20-2014 02:59 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 02:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If the Pac12 offers a deal to take Texas, OU and their respective tag-a-longs it will be a done deal.

What will be a shame is that OU will be a cultural outsider no matter what conference they go to.

Wrong.

That map is a little ambiguous ... you're saying that UTexas, Okie, LSU and Arkansas are all going to get raided by the ACC?

The only other P5 conference on the Arkansas / Louisiana side of Oklahoma and Texas is the SEC, and its not like UTexas is likely to ever join the SEC.

(05-20-2014 09:33 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 02:59 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 02:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If the Pac12 offers a deal to take Texas, OU and their respective tag-a-longs it will be a done deal.

What will be a shame is that OU will be a cultural outsider no matter what conference they go to.

Wrong.

That map is a little ambiguous ... you're saying that UTexas, Okie, LSU and Arkansas are all going to get raided by the ACC?

The only other P5 conference on the Arkansas / Louisiana side of Oklahoma and Texas is the SEC, and its not like UTexas is likely to ever join the SEC.

I think he's implying that UT, OU, LSU & Arkansas(two SEC teams) are culturally and geographically similar. I don't agree or disagree. That's just what I took from it. I'm a born/raised Okie, and I know UT/OU/ & Arkie have long histories. Not so sure about LSU, but their geography matches up nicely.

(05-20-2014 09:40 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 09:33 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 02:59 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 02:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If the Pac12 offers a deal to take Texas, OU and their respective tag-a-longs it will be a done deal.

What will be a shame is that OU will be a cultural outsider no matter what conference they go to.

Wrong.

That map is a little ambiguous ... you're saying that UTexas, Okie, LSU and Arkansas are all going to get raided by the ACC?

The only other P5 conference on the Arkansas / Louisiana side of Oklahoma and Texas is the SEC, and its not like UTexas is likely to ever join the SEC.

I think he's implying that UT, OU, LSU & Arkansas(two SEC teams) are culturally and geographically similar. I don't agree or disagree. That's just what I took from it. I'm a born/raised Okie, and I know UT/OU/ & Arkie have long histories. Not so sure about LSU, but their geography matches up nicely.

Not only are Texas and Oklahoma tough cultural fits for other states, Texas alone has at least 3 distinctive cultures in it. However, you will find the same diversity within the "Old Guard" SEC, as well, if you live here a while. There are dramatic differences even in east and west Tennessee. Football, an opinion on BBQ, and Good Looking Women (or at least an appreciation for them) are all you need for SEC entry.

(05-20-2014 09:24 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 08:51 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Are you saying that is in fact what happened?

no you silly sheep humper what he is saying is the same thing I have said that is too long for someone with a degree from A&M to read or comprehend

the PAC 12 and Oklahoma had talks and at the end of the day they both decided on something else

they did not have to lie to each other, they did not have to reject one or the other and they did not have to each leave the table feeling as though one or the other had won or lost

this is not like a UT A&M relationship where UT says "ok take your ball and go away bye and A&M walks away turning around time and again to see if UT is sneaking a look only to see UT still walking away"

it is not like dating a sheep where you either get one and get some or it gets away and bleats at you mockingly while you regroup and form a new plan for that Friday night

here read the stories

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...to-expand/

*** And yes, in all likelihood the Pac-12 would take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State even if Texas were off the table, multiple sources said.

Sources said that at least five schools (Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA and Washington) have serious questions about admitting the Oklahoma schools, which are not members of the Association of American Universities.

But when I asked a source close to Stanford president John Hennessy, one of the league’s most influential CEOs, if the AAU issue would be a deal-breaker, the answer was: “Probably not.”

Said another source: “If Larry (Scott) thinks adding (Oklahoma and OSU) is the right thing, the CEOs will ultimately fall in line.”



http://newsok.com/breaking-removal-of-bi...aking_news

OU president David Boren said Monday the Sooners would decide soon between applying for Pac-12 membership or staying in the Big 12, and the source outlined the parameters for remaining in the Big 12.

Both Boren and athletic director Joe Castiglione have stated their desire to make the Big 12 work, as have OSU president Burns Hargis and athletic director Mike Holder.

“No one wants to give up on it,” an OSU source said of the Big 12. The problems have “nothing to do with finances. It has nothing to do with success. For the league to be falling apart, it's crazy.”

http://newsok.com/big-12-football-what-h...le/3773858

Neither side was crazy about a Pac-14. The scheduling would have been a mess. For OU and OSU, the travel would have been awful, with no other conference member even in its time zone. The divisional would have been a massive headache for Scott; he almost surely would have had to split every arch-rival (Oregon from Oregon State, USC from UCLA, Stanford from Cal, etc.), to maintain a balance, then would have the arch-rivals play annually every year anyway. But that’s a mess of a divisional split.

A 14-team conference is problematic. In the far-flung Pac, with distinct geographic issues, a 14-team conference is a mess.

Scott knew that and OU knew it. Neither was crazy about it, but both saw advantages to it. For Scott, it would have ensured a national-brand school (Oklahoma) and given the Pac one of its few options in case of further expansion. The Pac has no really good place to go, other than Oklahoma and Texas. For OU, the Pac would have been a stable conference. And for both, going to a Pac-14 would have put massive pressure on Texas to eventually come aboard, too.

That’s really what would have spurred both sides to make the Pac-14 plunge, the hope that Texas and Tech would come along, too. Eventually, both sides said they decided against it.

I tend to believe David Boren that Scott indicated OU and OSU could get into the Pac-14. Boren is an operator, but he’s not going to make the mistake of embracing an offer that doesn’t exist. I can see Scott telling Boren that OU and OSU could be massaged into the conference, even without Texas and with the academic concerns of the Pac. Then I can see when it came time to decide, the Pac presidents pulling back and saying, let’s be prudent. And Scott having to tell Boren, uh, not sure I can get you now. And Boren feeling a little relief, because a Pac-14 is no place for OU anyway, and the Sooners then deciding to leverage their talks with the Pac to get concessions from Texas.

again COMPLEX negotiations are not always ended with a winner and a loser it is not like a sheep humping expedition where you either get yours or you get nothing but mocked by a sheep

and as you can read in the stories there were differing opinions across the board

Boone P. and OkState pretty much were 100% not really interested in going

Big Game Bob was excited at first, but came around the other way.......the OU Regents wanted in the PAC 12, but Joe C. runs the athletics department like he is hired to and that is to take a LONG TERM VIEW and he really wanted to stay in the Big 12, but he wanted some things to change before he was willing to tell Texas they could work together........Texas made those changes with no Texas HS football on the LHN.......Texas agreed to bring in The Chuckster as interim commissioner of the Big 12

once it was clear to the PAC 12 that Oklahoma was not just going to see them as their only option and that Texas was not backed into a corner it was clear that a PAC 14 with Oklahoma and OkState was going to suck for all involved

once OU saw that Texas really just cared about money and the LHN and not "running the conference" as so many fools accuse them of OU could deal with that and once it was clear that OU and OkState to the PAC 12 was not going to force Texas' hand and probably would have made Texas make other moves that OU would not have liked it was clear to OU that would be a mistake to try and force their hand

Texas was not going to be FORCED to take Texas Tech or anyone else anywhere.....Texas had told Texas Tech they would be up and front and honest with them and they were not looking to break away from them, but they were going to look out for Texas

OU is not run by fools with bow ties, they do not operate in a vacuum that centers around "stick it to Texas before all else" and they SURELY knew what a Big 12 with 10 teams could be worth and what it could be worth of there was an OU network and they were able to compare that to what the PAC 12 was offering

they had SURELY already been on the phone with The Chuckster to first see if he would be interested in running the Big 12 and also to ask him what he thought of everything that was going on and the Chuckster surely told OU that they and Texas and the rest could still do VERY WELL in a TV deal and that the PAC 12 was not going to leave them behind in TV money

OU and the PAC 12 were exploring options.....one of those options that was unattractive for all was a PAC 14 with OU and OkState as members and hoping that Texas would be forced into something

once it was clear to OU and OkState they did not need to take that dramatic decision then it became clear to the PAC 12 that their options for expansion were over

it was not a matter of rejection like your favorite sheep running away to another sheep ranch it was a matter of all involved making the decisions that worked best for them

I realize this might be hard for some to understand, but that does not change the reality of it

::

didn't actually read any of that but Im sure it was fascinating

which team do you root for again?

(05-20-2014 02:53 PM)john01992 Wrote:  personally I think both texas & oklahoma wanted into the pac12 a lot more than they let on publicly in the past.

They did, but that's because they thought that with the exit of Nebraska, Big 12 media money was going to drop precipitously in comparison with the other major conferences. They were watching the SEC and ACC sign ballyhooed contracts (contracts that actually were seriously low-ball) and thought the Big 12 would be left out.

Once FOX and ESPN waved dollars under their no-Nebraska noses that were bigger than ACC and even SEC dollars, the tune changed dramatically.

Moral: Just about every school in any P5 conference, no matter how deep their roots, would abandon that conference if they thought the conference had no future, as measured by revenues. E.g., if ACC media dollars suddenly soared to $50 million per school per year and SEC dollars plunged to $10 million, you'd see schools like Alabama and Florida applying for ACC membership real quick.

The fallacy of many is that they are stuck 3-4 years ago in regards to the Big 12, or just have some strange dislike of the conference and refuse to understand that what was then is not what is now.

ESPN and FOX have given the conference a significant revenue increase for tv rights. Schools have signed very high dollar tier 3 television deals. The playoffs are about to start, and each conference in the P5 gets an enormous amount of revenue from that--but the Big 12 distributes that between 10 rather than 12 or 14 members. The Big 12 gained ownership of the Sugar Bowl, along with an agreement with the SEC that pays the conference $40 mil per year to be distributed among 10 members. The Big 12 gained ownership of the Alamo bowl as well. The ownership agreements pay league members any profits after expenses for the bowls. There are new bowl agreements in place. The Big 12 will have a higher distribution from NCAA revenues for the next distribution period than all other conferences. Many, many things have changed including new members, a new commissioner, tv deals with two major networks, etc. etc.

Thinking that what occurred in the past is relevant today is not thinking clearly.

OK so now I have 2 questions for you and Todge:

Which Big 12 team do you root for and how much does the B12 pay you to go around the internet being B12 Iraqi Information Minister?

(05-21-2014 08:00 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  OK so now I have 2 questions for you and Todge:

Which Big 12 team do you root for and how much does the B12 pay you to go around the internet being B12 Iraqi Information Minister?

I don't root for specific teams myself. I like college football in general and just like a conversation to be from a point of facts rather than a bunch of rumors, innuendo and statements from people with an agenda.

Question for you--how much is the SEC paying you to negatively spin the Big 12 conference continually?

(05-20-2014 10:17 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 09:40 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 09:33 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 02:59 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 02:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If the Pac12 offers a deal to take Texas, OU and their respective tag-a-longs it will be a done deal.

What will be a shame is that OU will be a cultural outsider no matter what conference they go to.

Wrong.

That map is a little ambiguous ... you're saying that UTexas, Okie, LSU and Arkansas are all going to get raided by the ACC?

The only other P5 conference on the Arkansas / Louisiana side of Oklahoma and Texas is the SEC, and its not like UTexas is likely to ever join the SEC.

I think he's implying that UT, OU, LSU & Arkansas(two SEC teams) are culturally and geographically similar. I don't agree or disagree. That's just what I took from it. I'm a born/raised Okie, and I know UT/OU/ & Arkie have long histories. Not so sure about LSU, but their geography matches up nicely.

Not only are Texas and Oklahoma tough cultural fits for other states, Texas alone has at least 3 distinctive cultures in it. However, you will find the same diversity within the "Old Guard" SEC, as well, if you live here a while. There are dramatic differences even in east and west Tennessee. Football, an opinion on BBQ, and Good Looking Women (or at least an appreciation for them) are all you need for SEC entry.

Same can be said for Kentucky, Eastern KY, Western KY amd Jefferson County-Louisville.

"I love all of college sports but have an overwhelming interest in one particular conference and portraying them in a positive light but am not actually a fan of any of their schools"

Yep, sounds legit.

(05-21-2014 08:21 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  "I love all of college sports but have an overwhelming interest in one particular conference and portraying them in a positive light but am not actually a fan of any of their schools"

Yep, sounds legit.

I am an unbiased poster with no agenda whatsoever but spend my days bashing a particular conference with misinformation and distortions continually---yeah sounds legit yourself.

No, see I show the all the world that I am biased to A&M and the SEC in my "I root for" column and never claimed otherwise.

On the other hand person who claims to be an unbiased fan of all college sports with no ties to anyone but then continually defends a certain conference to the death above all others....now that IS suspect

I may disagree with Sammy and Bullet a lot but I respect them as posters because they are honest about who they root for and what their motivations are.