(06-22-2014 09:19 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 06:46 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 02:44 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 10:58 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  OU and OkState were not going to the PAC 12 without Texas unless Texas went independent or Texas went to a conference that would not let in OU and OkState

and the PAC 12 never voted on OU and OkState they voted to table discussions on expansion after OU let them know that Texas was staying in the Big 12 and OU and OkState were no longer interested in joining the PAC 12

and every school in the Big 10 and every school soon to be in the Big 10 is a "flagship" university except for Northwestern that is private

Who cut off discussions with whom between the Pac-12 and OU/OSU back in the Fall of 2011 is open for debate.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...c-12-snub/

But the impression was that OU/OSU were more surprised than they should have been, if it were all just a "ploy".

Cheers,
Neil

this article does not prove anything other than poor journalism that will use innuendo to try and make the point they want to make is alive and well in the USA

the article clearly states that no one from OU or OkState was surprised from their won words

and then if you do not believe them and you want to try and believe what the reporter is trying to make you believe the only "facts" you have to support that they were "surprised" is that the OkState BOR was notified that they should be ready to meet quickly if needed

but that hardly supports a conclusion that OU or OkState or anyone else was caught off guard or surprised by any outcome

here is a different article with a different take

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

it says clearly in the article that "their sources" say that the PAC 12 would take OU and OkState without Texas

That blog was written prior to A&M accepting the bid to be SEC #11.

The article I linked was afterward.

So speculation as to what the Pac might or might not do has less weight when we now know that they didn't invite OU and OSU without Texas.

Again, my post was to just point out that there is no definitive answer to things both sides of this tangent are trying to claim are definitive.

The rest of your post is dribble.

Cheers,
Neil

true, but your article was an "after the fact" just making stuff up by some reporter that wanted to write a story about OU being caught flat footed.....and he made a lot of wild speculations about that based on nothing more than an email that told OkState regents to be ready and available in case there was a BOR meeting called

that is hardly even remote proof that OkState was expecting a PAC 12 invite or that the PAC 12 turned down OU and OkState

and here

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...cepted-sec

son September 26, 2011 A&M was officially accepted into the SEC SEC SEC so it was CLEAR to all they were gone before that

http://www2.kusports.com/weblogs/tale-ta...ning-stea/

and here is an article written 12 days before that on the 14th where the writer specifically list out "odds" of which conference that UT will end up in

and he pretty much mentions ALL of then including for some reason the Big East (when ND was still there)

and he also mentions the link that I posted prior from the Mercury

the point being that Texas was in talks with MANY conferences and that writers from other conference schools besides OU that were covering this by the hour in come cases were covering it from the point of view that Texas was talking to numerous conferences about many different things and at least from the perspective of this writer the PAC 12 was the next to last place UT would end up

and he also mentioned that he talked to an "insider from OkState" and that OkState might be hesitant about going to the PAC 12 with just OU

and he also mentions that OU and Texas seem to be tired of each other and that OU is looking to go ahead and bolt

so again no matter what some say the reality is that Texas was talking to a lot of different conferences, Texas was talking to ND and Texas had a lot of options and OU finally realized that they needed to look out for OU because of Texas decided to move from the Big 12 without OU then OU did not want to be caught flat footed and looking really bad

and it is also clear that the PAC 12 was caught off guard that Texas was looking at MANY options and that the Big 10 and SEC were ready to make moves very quickly which could leave the PAC 12 without Texas for sure and possibly without OU and OkState as well

so it was not nearly as simple as just "well UT is not coming here PAC 12 ends thinking about expansion" and then "Well OK and OkState called and we said no"

it was more PAC 12 hopes and prays (well they don't pray in the PAC 12, but they burned incense) that Texas ends up and comes with their tail between their legs and if not the PAC 12 better have a backup plan for at least 2 more teams and those first two teams are OU and OkState to start because they are looking for a backup plan as well and if the PAC 12 does not at least get them and they watch others go past 14 they might really be screwed

and when it was decided that Texas was staying, OU would stay and the Big 12 would stay together Sooner Joe called Larry "I talk To The Press Too Much" Scott and told him they were not interested and the PAC 12 voted to table the expansion discussion

(06-22-2014 09:35 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 06:46 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  Texas always told Texas Tech that they would work with them the best they could, but the would make no promises that they would go anywhere together

Texas is not tied to Texas Tech the same way that OU seems to be tied to OkState........if the legislature in Texas was going to get involved they would have gotten involved with Texas and Texas a&M splitting up long before they concerned themselves with Texas and Texas Tech

1. Not true at all. Tech and Texas are partners working very well together. We had a spot in the PAC and ACC if Texas wanted to move on.
2. A&M caught the perfect political storm when they wanted to leave. Aggy Governor and the Tx Legislature out of session. Rick Perry wasn't about to call the legislature back into session over aggy leaving.

oh good God you embarrass yourself so often and Texas Tech in general

Texas and Texas Tech did work well together, but after Texas had decided they wanted to keep the LHN and that the PAC 12 was not going to allow that Texas was very clear in telling Texas Tech that they would try and work with them the best that they could, but that there was no guarantee

and Texas Tech never had a spot in the PAC 12 without Texas and Texas Tech was even less likely for the ACC with Texas and not even mentioned for the ACC without Texas as well

(06-22-2014 10:09 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 09:19 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 06:46 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 02:44 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 10:58 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  OU and OkState were not going to the PAC 12 without Texas unless Texas went independent or Texas went to a conference that would not let in OU and OkState

and the PAC 12 never voted on OU and OkState they voted to table discussions on expansion after OU let them know that Texas was staying in the Big 12 and OU and OkState were no longer interested in joining the PAC 12

and every school in the Big 10 and every school soon to be in the Big 10 is a "flagship" university except for Northwestern that is private

Who cut off discussions with whom between the Pac-12 and OU/OSU back in the Fall of 2011 is open for debate.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...c-12-snub/

But the impression was that OU/OSU were more surprised than they should have been, if it were all just a "ploy".

Cheers,
Neil

this article does not prove anything other than poor journalism that will use innuendo to try and make the point they want to make is alive and well in the USA

the article clearly states that no one from OU or OkState was surprised from their won words

and then if you do not believe them and you want to try and believe what the reporter is trying to make you believe the only "facts" you have to support that they were "surprised" is that the OkState BOR was notified that they should be ready to meet quickly if needed

but that hardly supports a conclusion that OU or OkState or anyone else was caught off guard or surprised by any outcome

here is a different article with a different take

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

it says clearly in the article that "their sources" say that the PAC 12 would take OU and OkState without Texas

That blog was written prior to A&M accepting the bid to be SEC #11.

The article I linked was afterward.

So speculation as to what the Pac might or might not do has less weight when we now know that they didn't invite OU and OSU without Texas.

Again, my post was to just point out that there is no definitive answer to things both sides of this tangent are trying to claim are definitive.

The rest of your post is dribble.

Cheers,
Neil

true, but your article was an "after the fact" just making stuff up by some reporter that wanted to write a story about OU being caught flat footed.....and he made a lot of wild speculations about that based on nothing more than an email that told OkState regents to be ready and available in case there was a BOR meeting called

that is hardly even remote proof that OkState was expecting a PAC 12 invite or that the PAC 12 turned down OU and OkState

and here

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...cepted-sec

son September 26, 2011 A&M was officially accepted into the SEC SEC SEC so it was CLEAR to all they were gone before that

http://www2.kusports.com/weblogs/tale-ta...ning-stea/

and here is an article written 12 days before that on the 14th where the writer specifically list out "odds" of which conference that UT will end up in

and he pretty much mentions ALL of then including for some reason the Big East (when ND was still there)

and he also mentions the link that I posted prior from the Mercury

the point being that Texas was in talks with MANY conferences and that writers from other conference schools besides OU that were covering this by the hour in come cases were covering it from the point of view that Texas was talking to numerous conferences about many different things and at least from the perspective of this writer the PAC 12 was the next to last place UT would end up

and he also mentioned that he talked to an "insider from OkState" and that OkState might be hesitant about going to the PAC 12 with just OU

and he also mentions that OU and Texas seem to be tired of each other and that OU is looking to go ahead and bolt

so again no matter what some say the reality is that Texas was talking to a lot of different conferences, Texas was talking to ND and Texas had a lot of options and OU finally realized that they needed to look out for OU because of Texas decided to move from the Big 12 without OU then OU did not want to be caught flat footed and looking really bad

and it is also clear that the PAC 12 was caught off guard that Texas was looking at MANY options and that the Big 10 and SEC were ready to make moves very quickly which could leave the PAC 12 without Texas for sure and possibly without OU and OkState as well

so it was not nearly as simple as just "well UT is not coming here PAC 12 ends thinking about expansion" and then "Well OK and OkState called and we said no"

it was more PAC 12 hopes and prays (well they don't pray in the PAC 12, but they burned incense) that Texas ends up and comes with their tail between their legs and if not the PAC 12 better have a backup plan for at least 2 more teams and those first two teams are OU and OkState to start because they are looking for a backup plan as well and if the PAC 12 does not at least get them and they watch others go past 14 they might really be screwed

and when it was decided that Texas was staying, OU would stay and the Big 12 would stay together Sooner Joe called Larry "I talk To The Press Too Much" Scott and told him they were not interested and the PAC 12 voted to table the expansion discussion

You are living in your own fantasy realm. The discussion was not about what Texas' options were. Texas has, and still has, a gazillion of them.

The point of emphasis was about OU and OSU attempting to get into the Pac (ploy or not, believe what you want) and which side ended discussions first. Just as you claim OU and OSU were talking to the Pac-12 so as to get UT to stay with the Big 12 others can claim the Pac-12 was discussing conference affiliation with OU and OSU in order to get UT to choose them as their option.

Your notion that the Pac-12 truly, truly, truly wanted OU and OSU without Texas and it was OU and OSU that rebuffed them is not definitive. The news articles from that time just do not support your view as being definitive.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-22-2014 10:25 AM)omniorange Wrote:  You are living in your own fantasy realm. The discussion was not about what Texas' options were. Texas has, and still has, a gazillion of them.

The point of emphasis was about OU and OSU attempting to get into the Pac (ploy or not, believe what you want) and which side ended discussions first. Just as you claim OU and OSU were talking to the Pac-12 so as to get UT to stay with the Big 12 others can claim the Pac-12 was discussing conference affiliation with OU and OSU in order to get UT to choose them as their option.

Your notion that the Pac-12 truly, truly, truly wanted OU and OSU without Texas and it was OU and OSU that rebuffed them is not definitive. The news articles from that time just do not support your view as being definitive.

Cheers,
Neil

and you are trying to put things out there that I have not said so that you can "win" a discussion on the WWW

I never said that the PAC 12 truly truly truly wanted OU and OkState without Texas

what I said was that Larry talked way too much early on and Larry thought way too much of what the PAC 12 was offering and how irresistible it would be and he was caught flat footed when A&M said outright no not even open for discussion and he was caught flat footed again when the SEC SEC SEC was ready to move not just on A&M, but on MU too and he was caught flat footed for yet a 3rd time when he realized that UT was still not looking at the PAC 12 as their only option or even as their best option

and after that he panicked (like he did with the Utah add after his CU "get UT and the others" move failed) and he realized that if the PAC 12 wanted to expand to beyond 12 they were looking at the need to add OU and OkState at least or they might lose them as well and then they would be even worse off

so again I have made clear it was not the desired outcome for any of the three parties (PAC 12, OU and OkState) to end up together as just that group, but it became a very real possibility when the PAC 12 realized that UT was pretty much viewing them as a non-option and that the SEC SEC SEC was ready to move and moving and that the ACC and Big 10 were possibly ready to move as well

and I have never claimed that OU and OkState were attempting to talk with the PAC 12 to get UT to follow along because by the time OU and OkState were talking to the PAC 12 independently it was almost certain that barring the PAC 12 capitulating on the LHN Texas was not going to go there

and I have never claimed that the PAC 12 was talking to OU and OkState to try and get Texas to come to the PAC 12 because by the time OU and OkState were talking to the PAC 12 without Texas it was already clear to the PAC 12 that Texas was not looking at them as even their best option or their second best option or as their third best option

what I am saying is that OU and OkState saw the potential that UT might go to the Big 10, ACC or independent without them and even if they tried to go there they might not be able to so OU and OkState needed to explore all options

and what I am saying is that once the PAC 12 realized that UT was not coming to the PAC 12 99% for certain and that UT might well go to the Big 10, ACC or even independent or to the SEC the PAC 12 looked around and realized that they might be looking at a Big 10 with Texas and possibly ND and or others or an SEC with Texas, Texas A&M, MU and 1 other and the PAC 12 might also be looking at an SEC SEC SEC with Texas A&M, MU, OU and OkState and a Big 10 with Texas and ND and possibly others and thenn the PAC 12 might be really screwed

and so the PAC 12 and OU and OkState started talking about if they would be interested in each other

and once it was clear that Texas was not leaving the Big 12 there was no longer interest

and it was Sooner Joe from OU that called Larry "My Business Is Too Public" Scott to let him know that the Big 12 had a firm agreement in place for Texas and OU and OkState to say in the Big 12 and then the PAC 12 voted to table expansion

so that is dramatically different than what you are trying to say I said and it is dramatically different than winners and losers and who told who they wanted to break up or wanted to friend zone each other.......because the reality is the PAC 12 and OU and OkState never wanted to be together as just that group on either side, but the PAC 12 especially was caught off guard that once Larry "Blabber Mouth" Scott had started talking about the PAC 10 at 12 or 14 or 16 that other conferences like the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 especially were pretty much ready to make a move and get teams wrapped up before it even became public it was a done deal

and after Larry "Shut Up You Idiot And Keep It Quiet" Scott was caught flat footed he was in a real bind and was above his pay grade and he panicked and once OU and OkState realized that Texas had every option and Texas was going to explore every option even if that meant others were left standing around and wondering and being questioned about what they were doing Texas was going to do that and so OU and OkState decided they better start having something to let people know they were exploring

so again the "lure Texas" was long gone and that is why OU and OkState and the PAC 12 were even talking without Texas.....because there is a chance they all would have ended up in a place they did not want to be if the did not at least talk

(06-22-2014 10:09 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  oh good God you embarrass yourself so often and Texas Tech in general

Texas and Texas Tech did work well together, but after Texas had decided they wanted to keep the LHN and that the PAC 12 was not going to allow that Texas was very clear in telling Texas Tech that they would try and work with them the best that they could, but that there was no guarantee

and Texas Tech never had a spot in the PAC 12 without Texas and Texas Tech was even less likely for the ACC with Texas and not even mentioned for the ACC without Texas as well

Considering the source, I will take that as a compliment. I know some Texas Tech insiders who I trust very well and we will be OK no matter what happens. In fact, we will be more than OK. I certainly trust them more than some long winded internet poster.

(06-22-2014 11:09 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 10:25 AM)omniorange Wrote:  You are living in your own fantasy realm. The discussion was not about what Texas' options were. Texas has, and still has, a gazillion of them.

The point of emphasis was about OU and OSU attempting to get into the Pac (ploy or not, believe what you want) and which side ended discussions first. Just as you claim OU and OSU were talking to the Pac-12 so as to get UT to stay with the Big 12 others can claim the Pac-12 was discussing conference affiliation with OU and OSU in order to get UT to choose them as their option.

Your notion that the Pac-12 truly, truly, truly wanted OU and OSU without Texas and it was OU and OSU that rebuffed them is not definitive. The news articles from that time just do not support your view as being definitive.

Cheers,
Neil

and you are trying to put things out there that I have not said so that you can "win" a discussion on the WWW

I never said that the PAC 12 truly truly truly wanted OU and OkState without Texas

what I said was that Larry talked way too much early on and Larry thought way too much of what the PAC 12 was offering and how irresistible it would be and he was caught flat footed when A&M said outright no not even open for discussion and he was caught flat footed again when the SEC SEC SEC was ready to move not just on A&M, but on MU too and he was caught flat footed for yet a 3rd time when he realized that UT was still not looking at the PAC 12 as their only option or even as their best option

and after that he panicked (like he did with the Utah add after his CU "get UT and the others" move failed) and he realized that if the PAC 12 wanted to expand to beyond 12 they were looking at the need to add OU and OkState at least or they might lose them as well and then they would be even worse off

so again I have made clear it was not the desired outcome for any of the three parties (PAC 12, OU and OkState) to end up together as just that group, but it became a very real possibility when the PAC 12 realized that UT was pretty much viewing them as a non-option and that the SEC SEC SEC was ready to move and moving and that the ACC and Big 10 were possibly ready to move as well

and I have never claimed that OU and OkState were attempting to talk with the PAC 12 to get UT to follow along because by the time OU and OkState were talking to the PAC 12 independently it was almost certain that barring the PAC 12 capitulating on the LHN Texas was not going to go there

and I have never claimed that the PAC 12 was talking to OU and OkState to try and get Texas to come to the PAC 12 because by the time OU and OkState were talking to the PAC 12 without Texas it was already clear to the PAC 12 that Texas was not looking at them as even their best option or their second best option or as their third best option

what I am saying is that OU and OkState saw the potential that UT might go to the Big 10, ACC or independent without them and even if they tried to go there they might not be able to so OU and OkState needed to explore all options

and what I am saying is that once the PAC 12 realized that UT was not coming to the PAC 12 99% for certain and that UT might well go to the Big 10, ACC or even independent or to the SEC the PAC 12 looked around and realized that they might be looking at a Big 10 with Texas and possibly ND and or others or an SEC with Texas, Texas A&M, MU and 1 other and the PAC 12 might also be looking at an SEC SEC SEC with Texas A&M, MU, OU and OkState and a Big 10 with Texas and ND and possibly others and thenn the PAC 12 might be really screwed

and so the PAC 12 and OU and OkState started talking about if they would be interested in each other

and once it was clear that Texas was not leaving the Big 12 there was no longer interest

and it was Sooner Joe from OU that called Larry "My Business Is Too Public" Scott to let him know that the Big 12 had a firm agreement in place for Texas and OU and OkState to say in the Big 12 and then the PAC 12 voted to table expansion

so that is dramatically different than what you are trying to say I said and it is dramatically different than winners and losers and who told who they wanted to break up or wanted to friend zone each other.......because the reality is the PAC 12 and OU and OkState never wanted to be together as just that group on either side, but the PAC 12 especially was caught off guard that once Larry "Blabber Mouth" Scott had started talking about the PAC 10 at 12 or 14 or 16 that other conferences like the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 especially were pretty much ready to make a move and get teams wrapped up before it even became public it was a done deal

and after Larry "Shut Up You Idiot And Keep It Quiet" Scott was caught flat footed he was in a real bind and was above his pay grade and he panicked and once OU and OkState realized that Texas had every option and Texas was going to explore every option even if that meant others were left standing around and wondering and being questioned about what they were doing Texas was going to do that and so OU and OkState decided they better start having something to let people know they were exploring

so again the "lure Texas" was long gone and that is why OU and OkState and the PAC 12 were even talking without Texas.....because there is a chance they all would have ended up in a place they did not want to be if the did not at least talk

The problem with long drawn out responses like this (and believe me, I know since I used to be as verbose) is that eventually you circle back on yourself. Reread this response again and see where you contradict yourself.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-22-2014 12:35 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 11:09 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 10:25 AM)omniorange Wrote:  You are living in your own fantasy realm. The discussion was not about what Texas' options were. Texas has, and still has, a gazillion of them.

The point of emphasis was about OU and OSU attempting to get into the Pac (ploy or not, believe what you want) and which side ended discussions first. Just as you claim OU and OSU were talking to the Pac-12 so as to get UT to stay with the Big 12 others can claim the Pac-12 was discussing conference affiliation with OU and OSU in order to get UT to choose them as their option.

Your notion that the Pac-12 truly, truly, truly wanted OU and OSU without Texas and it was OU and OSU that rebuffed them is not definitive. The news articles from that time just do not support your view as being definitive.

Cheers,
Neil

and you are trying to put things out there that I have not said so that you can "win" a discussion on the WWW

I never said that the PAC 12 truly truly truly wanted OU and OkState without Texas

what I said was that Larry talked way too much early on and Larry thought way too much of what the PAC 12 was offering and how irresistible it would be and he was caught flat footed when A&M said outright no not even open for discussion and he was caught flat footed again when the SEC SEC SEC was ready to move not just on A&M, but on MU too and he was caught flat footed for yet a 3rd time when he realized that UT was still not looking at the PAC 12 as their only option or even as their best option

and after that he panicked (like he did with the Utah add after his CU "get UT and the others" move failed) and he realized that if the PAC 12 wanted to expand to beyond 12 they were looking at the need to add OU and OkState at least or they might lose them as well and then they would be even worse off

so again I have made clear it was not the desired outcome for any of the three parties (PAC 12, OU and OkState) to end up together as just that group, but it became a very real possibility when the PAC 12 realized that UT was pretty much viewing them as a non-option and that the SEC SEC SEC was ready to move and moving and that the ACC and Big 10 were possibly ready to move as well

and I have never claimed that OU and OkState were attempting to talk with the PAC 12 to get UT to follow along because by the time OU and OkState were talking to the PAC 12 independently it was almost certain that barring the PAC 12 capitulating on the LHN Texas was not going to go there

and I have never claimed that the PAC 12 was talking to OU and OkState to try and get Texas to come to the PAC 12 because by the time OU and OkState were talking to the PAC 12 without Texas it was already clear to the PAC 12 that Texas was not looking at them as even their best option or their second best option or as their third best option

what I am saying is that OU and OkState saw the potential that UT might go to the Big 10, ACC or independent without them and even if they tried to go there they might not be able to so OU and OkState needed to explore all options

and what I am saying is that once the PAC 12 realized that UT was not coming to the PAC 12 99% for certain and that UT might well go to the Big 10, ACC or even independent or to the SEC the PAC 12 looked around and realized that they might be looking at a Big 10 with Texas and possibly ND and or others or an SEC with Texas, Texas A&M, MU and 1 other and the PAC 12 might also be looking at an SEC SEC SEC with Texas A&M, MU, OU and OkState and a Big 10 with Texas and ND and possibly others and thenn the PAC 12 might be really screwed

and so the PAC 12 and OU and OkState started talking about if they would be interested in each other

and once it was clear that Texas was not leaving the Big 12 there was no longer interest

and it was Sooner Joe from OU that called Larry "My Business Is Too Public" Scott to let him know that the Big 12 had a firm agreement in place for Texas and OU and OkState to say in the Big 12 and then the PAC 12 voted to table expansion

so that is dramatically different than what you are trying to say I said and it is dramatically different than winners and losers and who told who they wanted to break up or wanted to friend zone each other.......because the reality is the PAC 12 and OU and OkState never wanted to be together as just that group on either side, but the PAC 12 especially was caught off guard that once Larry "Blabber Mouth" Scott had started talking about the PAC 10 at 12 or 14 or 16 that other conferences like the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 especially were pretty much ready to make a move and get teams wrapped up before it even became public it was a done deal

and after Larry "Shut Up You Idiot And Keep It Quiet" Scott was caught flat footed he was in a real bind and was above his pay grade and he panicked and once OU and OkState realized that Texas had every option and Texas was going to explore every option even if that meant others were left standing around and wondering and being questioned about what they were doing Texas was going to do that and so OU and OkState decided they better start having something to let people know they were exploring

so again the "lure Texas" was long gone and that is why OU and OkState and the PAC 12 were even talking without Texas.....because there is a chance they all would have ended up in a place they did not want to be if the did not at least talk

The problem with long drawn out responses like this (and believe me, I know since I used to be as verbose) is that eventually you circle back on yourself. Reread this response again and see where you contradict yourself.

Cheers,
Neil

Agree Neil. IMO, the authors of such long tomes defeat their purpose as these posts become tedious to read and I suspect most don't bother to read through them. Not for nothing, but I also wonder if the author of such long responses might want to look at how he/she is spending their time. I mean, really, I can think of a whole lot more fun things to do then spend hours on end arguing with anonymous message board posters on subjects that the vast majority of people could care less about. But that's just me.

(06-22-2014 12:35 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 11:09 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 10:25 AM)omniorange Wrote:  You are living in your own fantasy realm. The discussion was not about what Texas' options were. Texas has, and still has, a gazillion of them.

The point of emphasis was about OU and OSU attempting to get into the Pac (ploy or not, believe what you want) and which side ended discussions first. Just as you claim OU and OSU were talking to the Pac-12 so as to get UT to stay with the Big 12 others can claim the Pac-12 was discussing conference affiliation with OU and OSU in order to get UT to choose them as their option.

Your notion that the Pac-12 truly, truly, truly wanted OU and OSU without Texas and it was OU and OSU that rebuffed them is not definitive. The news articles from that time just do not support your view as being definitive.

Cheers,
Neil

and you are trying to put things out there that I have not said so that you can "win" a discussion on the WWW

I never said that the PAC 12 truly truly truly wanted OU and OkState without Texas

what I said was that Larry talked way too much early on and Larry thought way too much of what the PAC 12 was offering and how irresistible it would be and he was caught flat footed when A&M said outright no not even open for discussion and he was caught flat footed again when the SEC SEC SEC was ready to move not just on A&M, but on MU too and he was caught flat footed for yet a 3rd time when he realized that UT was still not looking at the PAC 12 as their only option or even as their best option

and after that he panicked (like he did with the Utah add after his CU "get UT and the others" move failed) and he realized that if the PAC 12 wanted to expand to beyond 12 they were looking at the need to add OU and OkState at least or they might lose them as well and then they would be even worse off

so again I have made clear it was not the desired outcome for any of the three parties (PAC 12, OU and OkState) to end up together as just that group, but it became a very real possibility when the PAC 12 realized that UT was pretty much viewing them as a non-option and that the SEC SEC SEC was ready to move and moving and that the ACC and Big 10 were possibly ready to move as well

and I have never claimed that OU and OkState were attempting to talk with the PAC 12 to get UT to follow along because by the time OU and OkState were talking to the PAC 12 independently it was almost certain that barring the PAC 12 capitulating on the LHN Texas was not going to go there

and I have never claimed that the PAC 12 was talking to OU and OkState to try and get Texas to come to the PAC 12 because by the time OU and OkState were talking to the PAC 12 without Texas it was already clear to the PAC 12 that Texas was not looking at them as even their best option or their second best option or as their third best option

what I am saying is that OU and OkState saw the potential that UT might go to the Big 10, ACC or independent without them and even if they tried to go there they might not be able to so OU and OkState needed to explore all options

and what I am saying is that once the PAC 12 realized that UT was not coming to the PAC 12 99% for certain and that UT might well go to the Big 10, ACC or even independent or to the SEC the PAC 12 looked around and realized that they might be looking at a Big 10 with Texas and possibly ND and or others or an SEC with Texas, Texas A&M, MU and 1 other and the PAC 12 might also be looking at an SEC SEC SEC with Texas A&M, MU, OU and OkState and a Big 10 with Texas and ND and possibly others and thenn the PAC 12 might be really screwed

and so the PAC 12 and OU and OkState started talking about if they would be interested in each other

and once it was clear that Texas was not leaving the Big 12 there was no longer interest

and it was Sooner Joe from OU that called Larry "My Business Is Too Public" Scott to let him know that the Big 12 had a firm agreement in place for Texas and OU and OkState to say in the Big 12 and then the PAC 12 voted to table expansion

so that is dramatically different than what you are trying to say I said and it is dramatically different than winners and losers and who told who they wanted to break up or wanted to friend zone each other.......because the reality is the PAC 12 and OU and OkState never wanted to be together as just that group on either side, but the PAC 12 especially was caught off guard that once Larry "Blabber Mouth" Scott had started talking about the PAC 10 at 12 or 14 or 16 that other conferences like the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 especially were pretty much ready to make a move and get teams wrapped up before it even became public it was a done deal

and after Larry "Shut Up You Idiot And Keep It Quiet" Scott was caught flat footed he was in a real bind and was above his pay grade and he panicked and once OU and OkState realized that Texas had every option and Texas was going to explore every option even if that meant others were left standing around and wondering and being questioned about what they were doing Texas was going to do that and so OU and OkState decided they better start having something to let people know they were exploring

so again the "lure Texas" was long gone and that is why OU and OkState and the PAC 12 were even talking without Texas.....because there is a chance they all would have ended up in a place they did not want to be if the did not at least talk

The problem with long drawn out responses like this (and believe me, I know since I used to be as verbose) is that eventually you circle back on yourself. Reread this response again and see where you contradict yourself.

Cheers,
Neil

there is no contradiction

even though it was pretty clear that the Big 10 was not going to let in OU the PAC 12 did not know that for sure

and even though it was pretty clear that OU did not want in the SEC SEC SEC the PAC 12 did not know that OU would turn them down or that the SEC SEC SEC would not offer them

that is the difference between people like Sooner Joe that runs a top athletics department and Slive that runs a top conference and Delany that runs a top conference and someone like Larry "Air It Out In Public" Scott

Sooner Joe, Slive and Delany know how to keep their cards close to their vest and to negotiate with individuals as individuals instead of trying to play others off against themselves and by then Delany and Slive knew way better than to let Larry "Hey Let Me Tell You A Secret" Scott know what their actual intentions were and what they were thinking because Larry would have shouted it to the world

Sooner Joe was not on the phone with Larry "Can't Shut Up" Scott and telling him that "The Big 10 told us no you are our last hope" or "We already bad mouthed the SEC and do not want to crawl back to them"

Sooner Joe was saying things like "well things are still fluid here and we prefer to be with 3 other members of our current conference, but some of us might not like all the options to do so"

and by then there is a chance (a SLIGHT CHANCE) that Larry "Hey Here Are Our Plans" Scott was not telling Sooner Joe "well if we can't add you two we got nothing and we will be left with 12 teams while everyone else goes to 14 or 16"

and there was still a chance that if UT and ND had said "we will join the Big 10 with OU and someone else" that OU could have gotten in.......and I would actually imagine that Deloss Dodds was actually telling Sooner Joe some more information than either Sooner Joe or Deloss was letting on because Sooner Joe can be trusted and is not a blabber mouth idiot and Deloss knows that and because Texas was not at all trying to "get away from" OU or really anyone else Texas was actually just trying to make sure they were in the best long term situation for Texas and OU could have been a part of that and there was very little in any chance that OU could have made that not happen for UT no matter what UT decided was best for them

Larry "Going to 16!" Scott screwed it for himself and the PAC 12 and left himself being known as one to not tell anything to and from then on the only way anyone that was intelligent could deal with him was to either give him a firm answer or tell him they were not ready to give him a firm answer and they were not going to give him any information on why they were not ready to give a firm answer because he would have babbled it to anyone and everyone that would print it

so the PAC 12 had no idea what position they were in relative to what the Big 10 or the SEC were planning to do until it was either announced by them as a confirmed move or until it was announced that the Big 12 was staying together and that is why the PAC 12 was left hanging and why they were sitting around waiting to hear from OU.....because no one else would let them in on what they were considering because their blabber mouth commissioner could not shut up

(06-22-2014 01:28 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 12:35 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 11:09 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 10:25 AM)omniorange Wrote:  You are living in your own fantasy realm. The discussion was not about what Texas' options were. Texas has, and still has, a gazillion of them.

The point of emphasis was about OU and OSU attempting to get into the Pac (ploy or not, believe what you want) and which side ended discussions first. Just as you claim OU and OSU were talking to the Pac-12 so as to get UT to stay with the Big 12 others can claim the Pac-12 was discussing conference affiliation with OU and OSU in order to get UT to choose them as their option.

Your notion that the Pac-12 truly, truly, truly wanted OU and OSU without Texas and it was OU and OSU that rebuffed them is not definitive. The news articles from that time just do not support your view as being definitive.

Cheers,
Neil

and you are trying to put things out there that I have not said so that you can "win" a discussion on the WWW

I never said that the PAC 12 truly truly truly wanted OU and OkState without Texas

what I said was that Larry talked way too much early on and Larry thought way too much of what the PAC 12 was offering and how irresistible it would be and he was caught flat footed when A&M said outright no not even open for discussion and he was caught flat footed again when the SEC SEC SEC was ready to move not just on A&M, but on MU too and he was caught flat footed for yet a 3rd time when he realized that UT was still not looking at the PAC 12 as their only option or even as their best option

and after that he panicked (like he did with the Utah add after his CU "get UT and the others" move failed) and he realized that if the PAC 12 wanted to expand to beyond 12 they were looking at the need to add OU and OkState at least or they might lose them as well and then they would be even worse off

so again I have made clear it was not the desired outcome for any of the three parties (PAC 12, OU and OkState) to end up together as just that group, but it became a very real possibility when the PAC 12 realized that UT was pretty much viewing them as a non-option and that the SEC SEC SEC was ready to move and moving and that the ACC and Big 10 were possibly ready to move as well

and I have never claimed that OU and OkState were attempting to talk with the PAC 12 to get UT to follow along because by the time OU and OkState were talking to the PAC 12 independently it was almost certain that barring the PAC 12 capitulating on the LHN Texas was not going to go there

and I have never claimed that the PAC 12 was talking to OU and OkState to try and get Texas to come to the PAC 12 because by the time OU and OkState were talking to the PAC 12 without Texas it was already clear to the PAC 12 that Texas was not looking at them as even their best option or their second best option or as their third best option

what I am saying is that OU and OkState saw the potential that UT might go to the Big 10, ACC or independent without them and even if they tried to go there they might not be able to so OU and OkState needed to explore all options

and what I am saying is that once the PAC 12 realized that UT was not coming to the PAC 12 99% for certain and that UT might well go to the Big 10, ACC or even independent or to the SEC the PAC 12 looked around and realized that they might be looking at a Big 10 with Texas and possibly ND and or others or an SEC with Texas, Texas A&M, MU and 1 other and the PAC 12 might also be looking at an SEC SEC SEC with Texas A&M, MU, OU and OkState and a Big 10 with Texas and ND and possibly others and thenn the PAC 12 might be really screwed

and so the PAC 12 and OU and OkState started talking about if they would be interested in each other

and once it was clear that Texas was not leaving the Big 12 there was no longer interest

and it was Sooner Joe from OU that called Larry "My Business Is Too Public" Scott to let him know that the Big 12 had a firm agreement in place for Texas and OU and OkState to say in the Big 12 and then the PAC 12 voted to table expansion

so that is dramatically different than what you are trying to say I said and it is dramatically different than winners and losers and who told who they wanted to break up or wanted to friend zone each other.......because the reality is the PAC 12 and OU and OkState never wanted to be together as just that group on either side, but the PAC 12 especially was caught off guard that once Larry "Blabber Mouth" Scott had started talking about the PAC 10 at 12 or 14 or 16 that other conferences like the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 especially were pretty much ready to make a move and get teams wrapped up before it even became public it was a done deal

and after Larry "Shut Up You Idiot And Keep It Quiet" Scott was caught flat footed he was in a real bind and was above his pay grade and he panicked and once OU and OkState realized that Texas had every option and Texas was going to explore every option even if that meant others were left standing around and wondering and being questioned about what they were doing Texas was going to do that and so OU and OkState decided they better start having something to let people know they were exploring

so again the "lure Texas" was long gone and that is why OU and OkState and the PAC 12 were even talking without Texas.....because there is a chance they all would have ended up in a place they did not want to be if the did not at least talk

The problem with long drawn out responses like this (and believe me, I know since I used to be as verbose) is that eventually you circle back on yourself. Reread this response again and see where you contradict yourself.

Cheers,
Neil

there is no contradiction

even though it was pretty clear that the Big 10 was not going to let in OU the PAC 12 did not know that for sure

and even though it was pretty clear that OU did not want in the SEC SEC SEC the PAC 12 did not know that OU would turn them down or that the SEC SEC SEC would not offer them

that is the difference between people like Sooner Joe that runs a top athletics department and Slive that runs a top conference and Delany that runs a top conference and someone like Larry "Air It Out In Public" Scott

Sooner Joe, Slive and Delany know how to keep their cards close to their vest and to negotiate with individuals as individuals instead of trying to play others off against themselves and by then Delany and Slive knew way better than to let Larry "Hey Let Me Tell You A Secret" Scott know what their actual intentions were and what they were thinking because Larry would have shouted it to the world

Sooner Joe was not on the phone with Larry "Can't Shut Up" Scott and telling him that "The Big 10 told us no you are our last hope" or "We already bad mouthed the SEC and do not want to crawl back to them"

Sooner Joe was saying things like "well things are still fluid here and we prefer to be with 3 other members of our current conference, but some of us might not like all the options to do so"

and by then there is a chance (a SLIGHT CHANCE) that Larry "Hey Here Are Our Plans" Scott was not telling Sooner Joe "well if we can't add you two we got nothing and we will be left with 12 teams while everyone else goes to 14 or 16"

and there was still a chance that if UT and ND had said "we will join the Big 10 with OU and someone else" that OU could have gotten in.......and I would actually imagine that Deloss Dodds was actually telling Sooner Joe some more information than either Sooner Joe or Deloss was letting on because Sooner Joe can be trusted and is not a blabber mouth idiot and Deloss knows that and because Texas was not at all trying to "get away from" OU or really anyone else Texas was actually just trying to make sure they were in the best long term situation for Texas and OU could have been a part of that and there was very little in any chance that OU could have made that not happen for UT no matter what UT decided was best for them

Larry "Going to 16!" Scott screwed it for himself and the PAC 12 and left himself being known as one to not tell anything to and from then on the only way anyone that was intelligent could deal with him was to either give him a firm answer or tell him they were not ready to give him a firm answer and they were not going to give him any information on why they were not ready to give a firm answer because he would have babbled it to anyone and everyone that would print it

so the PAC 12 had no idea what position they were in relative to what the Big 10 or the SEC were planning to do until it was either announced by them as a confirmed move or until it was announced that the Big 12 was staying together and that is why the PAC 12 was left hanging and why they were sitting around waiting to hear from OU.....because no one else would let them in on what they were considering because their blabber mouth commissioner could not shut up

Which is why all of the early leaks about OU wanting out of the Big 12 came from the OU side? And please don't say that was about the SEC (or as you say SEC, SEC, SEC) since A&M had already been offered #11 and that Mizzou or VT were the leading candidates for #12.

And yes, you did contradict yourself in the previous post. You state that you never said the Pac-12 wanted OU and OSU without Texas, then you state that it was obvious that Texas was not going to choose the Pac-12.

So what other reason could the Pac-12 have had to speak with OU and OSU other than they wanted them without Texas? Which has been your contention all along which is why you think Larry Scott was the one who wound up with egg on his face and not OU. But that isn't how most see it. Rather, they see it as OU with the ones with egg on their face.

My position has been neutral in that a case can be made either way.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-21-2014 07:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 06:55 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 05:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 02:56 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 02:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  dude it is a pretty well documented story at this point. you are inject pure opinion as an excuse to make the b12s situation appear much better than it really was at the time.

dude yourselfie....If you read the stuff down here and heard the reports on radio and TV you would know it is not my opinion. It was well documented that Boren ran a bluff and it backfired. How am I trying to make the Big12 look better by saying the PAC will not take OU without Texas. Plus I did not say OU would not go without Texas, I said I was not sure they would. And where did I say academics does not matter?

no it's well documented that OU tried to join the pac and larry scott & co said no. "it was just a bluff" is an after the fact fan fiction that you choose to believe.

You are not making any sense. Which is uinderstandable because you are obviuously uninforned about the Big12.

i think we are arguing in favor of the same thing but don't realize it because you choose a horrible way to word your initial reply.

are you saying OU wouldn't leave for the PAC without texas (which I think you are arguing) or are you saying the PAC won't add OU without texas putting aside the hypothetical "if they had UT level academics" discussion we had earlier???

I said "I am not sure" OU would leave for the PAC without Texas UNLESS Texas bailed on the Big12". That is now.... not in the past when realignment was in fuill swing and schools were looking for any port in the storm. I do not think OU wants to be on an island in the PAC and Castiglione has indicated that OU and Texas need to stick together. Recruiting Texas is paramount to OU. However, I repeat....I am not sure about this. Now if OSU, Texas Tech, Kansas etc went wiih them....they might do that. I do not know. But by themselvers, I do not think so.

I am also saying the PAC has shown that they do not want OU without Texas....they want the Texas TV market

(06-22-2014 01:36 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 01:28 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 12:35 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 11:09 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 10:25 AM)omniorange Wrote:  You are living in your own fantasy realm. The discussion was not about what Texas' options were. Texas has, and still has, a gazillion of them.

The point of emphasis was about OU and OSU attempting to get into the Pac (ploy or not, believe what you want) and which side ended discussions first. Just as you claim OU and OSU were talking to the Pac-12 so as to get UT to stay with the Big 12 others can claim the Pac-12 was discussing conference affiliation with OU and OSU in order to get UT to choose them as their option.

Your notion that the Pac-12 truly, truly, truly wanted OU and OSU without Texas and it was OU and OSU that rebuffed them is not definitive. The news articles from that time just do not support your view as being definitive.

Cheers,
Neil

and you are trying to put things out there that I have not said so that you can "win" a discussion on the WWW

I never said that the PAC 12 truly truly truly wanted OU and OkState without Texas

what I said was that Larry talked way too much early on and Larry thought way too much of what the PAC 12 was offering and how irresistible it would be and he was caught flat footed when A&M said outright no not even open for discussion and he was caught flat footed again when the SEC SEC SEC was ready to move not just on A&M, but on MU too and he was caught flat footed for yet a 3rd time when he realized that UT was still not looking at the PAC 12 as their only option or even as their best option

and after that he panicked (like he did with the Utah add after his CU "get UT and the others" move failed) and he realized that if the PAC 12 wanted to expand to beyond 12 they were looking at the need to add OU and OkState at least or they might lose them as well and then they would be even worse off

so again I have made clear it was not the desired outcome for any of the three parties (PAC 12, OU and OkState) to end up together as just that group, but it became a very real possibility when the PAC 12 realized that UT was pretty much viewing them as a non-option and that the SEC SEC SEC was ready to move and moving and that the ACC and Big 10 were possibly ready to move as well

and I have never claimed that OU and OkState were attempting to talk with the PAC 12 to get UT to follow along because by the time OU and OkState were talking to the PAC 12 independently it was almost certain that barring the PAC 12 capitulating on the LHN Texas was not going to go there

and I have never claimed that the PAC 12 was talking to OU and OkState to try and get Texas to come to the PAC 12 because by the time OU and OkState were talking to the PAC 12 without Texas it was already clear to the PAC 12 that Texas was not looking at them as even their best option or their second best option or as their third best option

what I am saying is that OU and OkState saw the potential that UT might go to the Big 10, ACC or independent without them and even if they tried to go there they might not be able to so OU and OkState needed to explore all options

and what I am saying is that once the PAC 12 realized that UT was not coming to the PAC 12 99% for certain and that UT might well go to the Big 10, ACC or even independent or to the SEC the PAC 12 looked around and realized that they might be looking at a Big 10 with Texas and possibly ND and or others or an SEC with Texas, Texas A&M, MU and 1 other and the PAC 12 might also be looking at an SEC SEC SEC with Texas A&M, MU, OU and OkState and a Big 10 with Texas and ND and possibly others and thenn the PAC 12 might be really screwed

and so the PAC 12 and OU and OkState started talking about if they would be interested in each other

and once it was clear that Texas was not leaving the Big 12 there was no longer interest

and it was Sooner Joe from OU that called Larry "My Business Is Too Public" Scott to let him know that the Big 12 had a firm agreement in place for Texas and OU and OkState to say in the Big 12 and then the PAC 12 voted to table expansion

so that is dramatically different than what you are trying to say I said and it is dramatically different than winners and losers and who told who they wanted to break up or wanted to friend zone each other.......because the reality is the PAC 12 and OU and OkState never wanted to be together as just that group on either side, but the PAC 12 especially was caught off guard that once Larry "Blabber Mouth" Scott had started talking about the PAC 10 at 12 or 14 or 16 that other conferences like the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 especially were pretty much ready to make a move and get teams wrapped up before it even became public it was a done deal

and after Larry "Shut Up You Idiot And Keep It Quiet" Scott was caught flat footed he was in a real bind and was above his pay grade and he panicked and once OU and OkState realized that Texas had every option and Texas was going to explore every option even if that meant others were left standing around and wondering and being questioned about what they were doing Texas was going to do that and so OU and OkState decided they better start having something to let people know they were exploring

so again the "lure Texas" was long gone and that is why OU and OkState and the PAC 12 were even talking without Texas.....because there is a chance they all would have ended up in a place they did not want to be if the did not at least talk

The problem with long drawn out responses like this (and believe me, I know since I used to be as verbose) is that eventually you circle back on yourself. Reread this response again and see where you contradict yourself.

Cheers,
Neil

there is no contradiction

even though it was pretty clear that the Big 10 was not going to let in OU the PAC 12 did not know that for sure

and even though it was pretty clear that OU did not want in the SEC SEC SEC the PAC 12 did not know that OU would turn them down or that the SEC SEC SEC would not offer them

that is the difference between people like Sooner Joe that runs a top athletics department and Slive that runs a top conference and Delany that runs a top conference and someone like Larry "Air It Out In Public" Scott

Sooner Joe, Slive and Delany know how to keep their cards close to their vest and to negotiate with individuals as individuals instead of trying to play others off against themselves and by then Delany and Slive knew way better than to let Larry "Hey Let Me Tell You A Secret" Scott know what their actual intentions were and what they were thinking because Larry would have shouted it to the world

Sooner Joe was not on the phone with Larry "Can't Shut Up" Scott and telling him that "The Big 10 told us no you are our last hope" or "We already bad mouthed the SEC and do not want to crawl back to them"

Sooner Joe was saying things like "well things are still fluid here and we prefer to be with 3 other members of our current conference, but some of us might not like all the options to do so"

and by then there is a chance (a SLIGHT CHANCE) that Larry "Hey Here Are Our Plans" Scott was not telling Sooner Joe "well if we can't add you two we got nothing and we will be left with 12 teams while everyone else goes to 14 or 16"

and there was still a chance that if UT and ND had said "we will join the Big 10 with OU and someone else" that OU could have gotten in.......and I would actually imagine that Deloss Dodds was actually telling Sooner Joe some more information than either Sooner Joe or Deloss was letting on because Sooner Joe can be trusted and is not a blabber mouth idiot and Deloss knows that and because Texas was not at all trying to "get away from" OU or really anyone else Texas was actually just trying to make sure they were in the best long term situation for Texas and OU could have been a part of that and there was very little in any chance that OU could have made that not happen for UT no matter what UT decided was best for them

Larry "Going to 16!" Scott screwed it for himself and the PAC 12 and left himself being known as one to not tell anything to and from then on the only way anyone that was intelligent could deal with him was to either give him a firm answer or tell him they were not ready to give him a firm answer and they were not going to give him any information on why they were not ready to give a firm answer because he would have babbled it to anyone and everyone that would print it

so the PAC 12 had no idea what position they were in relative to what the Big 10 or the SEC were planning to do until it was either announced by them as a confirmed move or until it was announced that the Big 12 was staying together and that is why the PAC 12 was left hanging and why they were sitting around waiting to hear from OU.....because no one else would let them in on what they were considering because their blabber mouth commissioner could not shut up

Which is why all of the early leaks about OU wanting out of the Big 12 came from the OU side? And please don't say that was about the SEC (or as you say SEC, SEC, SEC) since A&M had already been offered #11 and that Mizzou or VT were the leading candidates for #12.

And yes, you did contradict yourself in the previous post. You state that you never said the Pac-12 wanted OU and OSU without Texas, then you state that it was obvious that Texas was not going to choose the Pac-12 so what other reason could the Pac-12 have had to speak with OU and OSU other than they wanted them without Texas?

Cheers,
Neil

WANTING something and realizing that something you have left yourself with is your only bad option and wanting to go ahead and go with that are two different things

just as the mercury news article states once it was clear to the PAC 12 that Texas was 99% a no the PAC 12 wanted the Big 12 to stay together because they did not want OU and OkState without Texas

but once the genie was out of the bottle and things started happening and the PAC 12 realized they might get left with a choice of MWC schools, BYU or Big 12 leftovers not named OU and OkState well suddenly they decided what they might not want and what they have to settle for might be the same thing....OU and OkState without Texas

you WANT Plan A which is Texas and OU and two others to be named later

if you can't get that you have plan B which is stick with 12, have the Big 12 stay together and hope for another shot at Texas and whoever down the road after your massive successfully PAC 12 network actually starts to deliver a profit

when it looks like you are not getting plan A and plan B might not be an option and that is out of your control well you then move to wanting plan C which is OU and OkState......because if you can't work that you might have plan D which is the PAC 12 at 12 and the Big 10 and SEC and possibly the ACC happily at 16 and the PAC 12 left with MWC, BYU and Big 12 leftovers not named OU and OkState to choose from if they want to go to 16

so when plan A failed and plan B looked like it was failing well "wanting OU and OkState" was an option unless plan B cam to pass because Plan C and D sucked for the PAC 12

so again no contradictions unless one continues to not understand that things were very fluid for all involved and only Larry "Here Is All My Plans" Scott was actually letting everyone know what he was wanting to do and hoping to do and trying to do while everyone else was just trying not to have to tell him anything and OU and OkState were wanting the Big 12 to stay together

Having read all this it made me think, what a day of reckoning there would be for Texas if OU and Kansas were to find new homes. Texas could easily find itself with just the bottom feeders if the Big12 and nobody is interested in watching that, in time not even Texas fans.

(06-22-2014 01:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Having read all this it made me think, what a day of reckoning there would be for Texas if OU and Kansas were to find new homes. Texas could easily find itself with just the bottom feeders if the Big12 and nobody is interested in watching that, in time not even Texas fans.

Then they would snap their fingers and go to literally any conference of their choosing.

(06-22-2014 02:01 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 01:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Having read all this it made me think, what a day of reckoning there would be for Texas if OU and Kansas were to find new homes. Texas could easily find itself with just the bottom feeders if the Big12 and nobody is interested in watching that, in time not even Texas fans.

Then they would snap their fingers and go to literally any conference of their choosing.

They don't want to be in a cobfernce they can't control. They can't be the King of any other conference.

Or, they go Indipendant and in 30 years they are ND.

(06-22-2014 02:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 02:01 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 01:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Having read all this it made me think, what a day of reckoning there would be for Texas if OU and Kansas were to find new homes. Texas could easily find itself with just the bottom feeders if the Big12 and nobody is interested in watching that, in time not even Texas fans.

Then they would snap their fingers and go to literally any conference of their choosing.

They don't want to be in a cobfernce they can't control. They can't be the King of any other conference.

Or, they go Indipendant and in 30 years they are ND.

That would be great. The ACC could offer them the same partial deal.

(06-22-2014 01:42 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 07:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 06:55 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 05:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 02:56 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  dude yourselfie....If you read the stuff down here and heard the reports on radio and TV you would know it is not my opinion. It was well documented that Boren ran a bluff and it backfired. How am I trying to make the Big12 look better by saying the PAC will not take OU without Texas. Plus I did not say OU would not go without Texas, I said I was not sure they would. And where did I say academics does not matter?

no it's well documented that OU tried to join the pac and larry scott & co said no. "it was just a bluff" is an after the fact fan fiction that you choose to believe.

You are not making any sense. Which is uinderstandable because you are obviuously uninforned about the Big12.

i think we are arguing in favor of the same thing but don't realize it because you choose a horrible way to word your initial reply.

are you saying OU wouldn't leave for the PAC without texas (which I think you are arguing) or are you saying the PAC won't add OU without texas putting aside the hypothetical "if they had UT level academics" discussion we had earlier???

I said "I am not sure" OU would leave for the PAC without Texas UNLESS Texas bailed on the Big12". That is now.... not in the past when realignment was in fuill swing and schools were looking for any port in the storm. I do not think OU wants to be on an island in the PAC and Castiglione has indicated that OU and Texas need to stick together. Recruiting Texas is paramount to OU. However, I repeat....I am not sure about this. Now if OSU, Texas Tech, Kansas etc went wiih them....they might do that. I do not know. But by themselvers, I do not think so.

I am also saying the PAC has shown that they do not want OU without Texas....they want the Texas TV market

As for the bluff being an after fact imagination of mine. When all realignment heck was breaking loose. Boren seemed to indicaate that OU and OSU had invites to the PAC.... I do not know if anyone knows what happened, maybe Scott had invited OU and OSU, but was overruled....... However, it appeared Boren was bluffing trying to force Texas hand into joing them in going to the PAC. Deloss Dodd was not buying and said Texas was looking at the ACC. That is not a figment of my imagination...that was well documented.

well next time check you homerism at the door. ou/osu being a bluff is just a b12apologist talking point

(06-22-2014 02:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 01:42 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 07:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 06:55 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 05:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  no it's well documented that OU tried to join the pac and larry scott & co said no. "it was just a bluff" is an after the fact fan fiction that you choose to believe.

You are not making any sense. Which is uinderstandable because you are obviuously uninforned about the Big12.

i think we are arguing in favor of the same thing but don't realize it because you choose a horrible way to word your initial reply.

are you saying OU wouldn't leave for the PAC without texas (which I think you are arguing) or are you saying the PAC won't add OU without texas putting aside the hypothetical "if they had UT level academics" discussion we had earlier???

I said "I am not sure" OU would leave for the PAC without Texas UNLESS Texas bailed on the Big12". That is now.... not in the past when realignment was in fuill swing and schools were looking for any port in the storm. I do not think OU wants to be on an island in the PAC and Castiglione has indicated that OU and Texas need to stick together. Recruiting Texas is paramount to OU. However, I repeat....I am not sure about this. Now if OSU, Texas Tech, Kansas etc went wiih them....they might do that. I do not know. But by themselvers, I do not think so.

I am also saying the PAC has shown that they do not want OU without Texas....they want the Texas TV market

As for the bluff being an after fact imagination of mine. When all realignment heck was breaking loose. Boren seemed to indicaate that OU and OSU had invites to the PAC.... I do not know if anyone knows what happened, maybe Scott had invited OU and OSU, but was overruled....... However, it appeared Boren was bluffing trying to force Texas hand into joing them in going to the PAC. Deloss Dodd was not buying and said Texas was looking at the ACC. That is not a figment of my imagination...that was well documented.

well next time check you homerism at the door. ou/osu being a bluff is just a b12apologist talking point

What is that suppose to mean? Please try to be coherent.

(06-22-2014 01:54 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  WANTING something and realizing that something you have left yourself with is your only bad option and wanting to go ahead and go with that are two different things

just as the mercury news article states once it was clear to the PAC 12 that Texas was 99% a no the PAC 12 wanted the Big 12 to stay together because they did not want OU and OkState without Texas

Actually, the mercury blog (by Jon Wilner, one of the better Pac-12 reporters) doesn't really state that at all.

It says that the Pac-12 wants A&M to the SEC to blow-up and hopes the Big 12 stays in tact. But IF the SEC goes to 13 and then 14, the BiG will go to 14 as well and then they have to consider expansion to keep up. In other words if A&M went to the SEC the Pac saw that as setting super-conferences in motion.

Well the SEC basically went to 13 when it voted to accept A&M into the league on September 8th, a couple of days after this blog by Wilner (although the Baylor lawsuit held up the final acceptance until September 26th, which was still prior to the the Pac-12 announcing that they would not be seeking to expand at that time in early October - despite OSU calling for a Board of Regents meeting a couple of days prior to that early October Pac-12 announcement.

It also says the destabilization (re:instability) of the Big 12 wasn't so much the prospect of A&M going to the SEC but rather the disintegrating relationship between Texas and Oklahoma. And "sources" were saying that OU and OSU wanted into the Pac regardless of what Texas does or does not do. But that "the Big Ten is not an option for the Longhorns because the B10 doesn’t want Texas Tech — and TTU would be a package deal with UT." This meant that if the Big 12 did blow-up that left only the Pac-12 or independence as an option according to those "sources".

So basically, at the time of this blog, written right after the Labor Day Weekend, on September 5th, the Pac obviously did think it was in good position to get Texas.

Not sure why you keep referring to that blog as proof that Texas was 99% sure not going to the Pac. They obviously felt otherwise.

But the blog also says: "And yes, in all likelihood the Pac-12 would take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State even if Texas were off the table, multiple sources said."

So what happened between September 5th and October 2nd?

Were the sources that said a month earlier that the Pac-12 would take OU and OSU wrong, or lying? We may never know. But the very fact that there is this confusion leads me to say that there is a basis for both sides of the debate regarding who pulled out first - the Pac or OU.

And I stand by that. Anyway, I'm done.

Cheers,
Neil

UConn lacks the necessities for B1G membership. What necessities you ask? Academic status, fan base enthusiasm and on-campus seating.

(06-20-2014 05:47 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 05:10 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 05:02 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Please don't feed the troll. It only fuels his (the OPer) hatred of all things UCONN.

I don't like to feed trolls but how is this trolling? Seems like it really does put the kibosh on Uconn hopes for the Big 10.

Not to give false hope, but when someone like Delany testifies, he is testifying about the past and the present, not the future.

And maybe not even the present.

Bottom line: he will do whatever he wants to do at that moment in time. The only external criteria is whether he can get away with it.

(06-22-2014 05:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 05:47 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 05:10 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 05:02 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Please don't feed the troll. It only fuels his (the OPer) hatred of all things UCONN.

I don't like to feed trolls but how is this trolling? Seems like it really does put the kibosh on Uconn hopes for the Big 10.

Not to give false hope, but when someone like Delany testifies, he is testifying about the past and the present, not the future.

And maybe not even the present.

Bottom line: he will do whatever he wants to do at that moment in time. The only external criteria is whether he can get away with it.

FWIW, I am not sure that is true. Being cute with words at a press conference is one thing. Doing it while testifying under oath at a high profile legal proceeding is another matter altogether, IMO.

Look, he chose his words carefully. He said AAU membership upon admission was required to cover what happened with Nebraska. He could also have just as easily said that AUU membership upon admission is "highly preferred" or an "important consideration", or something like that. However, he did not do that. Instead, he was very specific. Of course, I agree that he could change the direction in the future. However, IMO, it does not appear that at this point the BiG has any intention of changing this requirement or he would have simply given himself some wiggle room with a differently worded statement.

These are very sophisticated people. IMO, he was clearly sending a message with this statement - and I think it was partially intended for those in the blogosphere who are constantly roiling the CR waters with one scenario after another.

Just my 2 cents.