(10-15-2015 06:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 12:47 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  A blog post from over 2 1/2 years ago outlining how ACC schools would line up to jump to The Big Ten based on Research Dollars....

Keep in mind it was written 4 to 5 months after The Big Ten batted its eyes and hiked it's skirt in front of half The ACC and thankfully (Thank you Maryland!) got one financially strapped institution to take the bait.

I can't fault the guy for trying to come up with some creative way for Delaney to get what he wanted two months before the Grant of Rights was signed.

Big Ten fans / bloggers simply do not understand the dynamics of The ACC. Most ACC schools would jump at an SEC invite. None want to be part of The Big Ten. ACC programs had their chance and they chose not to jump.

ACC schools had their chance to join the SEC, in fact UNC's released emails made it very clear that there was some booster support for them to go join the SEC and yet....

It's not just about ACC schools turning down The Big Ten. Trying to say otherwise is simply fictional writing.

There wasn't a chance in hell that any ACC schools were joining the SEC. When UNC held talks with the SEC it was about what to do if the ACC suffered more defections to the Big 10. ESPN wasn't going to pay the SEC to take any ACC schools, period, end of story. What the Mouse was prepared to do was to work Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and hopefully Notre Dame and if not another to be named into the ACC to move to 16 while the SEC added Missouri, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to to do the same. Chapel Hill rejected that but rejected the idea with ESPN not the SEC.

So you see the Big 10 was the only one rebuffed because the SEC had no chance due to its rights being held by the company that owned 100% of the ACC product. It's more like FOX took Maryland from ESPN than the Big 10 took them from the ACC. But you know that and are simply trying to be dramatic.

Those are facts.

(10-15-2015 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 06:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 12:47 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  A blog post from over 2 1/2 years ago outlining how ACC schools would line up to jump to The Big Ten based on Research Dollars....

Keep in mind it was written 4 to 5 months after The Big Ten batted its eyes and hiked it's skirt in front of half The ACC and thankfully (Thank you Maryland!) got one financially strapped institution to take the bait.

I can't fault the guy for trying to come up with some creative way for Delaney to get what he wanted two months before the Grant of Rights was signed.

Big Ten fans / bloggers simply do not understand the dynamics of The ACC. Most ACC schools would jump at an SEC invite. None want to be part of The Big Ten. ACC programs had their chance and they chose not to jump.

ACC schools had their chance to join the SEC, in fact UNC's released emails made it very clear that there was some booster support for them to go join the SEC and yet....

It's not just about ACC schools turning down The Big Ten. Trying to say otherwise is simply fictional writing.

There wasn't a chance in hell that any ACC schools were joining the SEC. When UNC held talks with the SEC it was about what to do if the ACC suffered more defections to the Big 10. ESPN wasn't going to pay the SEC to take any ACC schools, period, end of story. What the Mouse was prepared to do was to work Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and hopefully Notre Dame and if not another to be named into the ACC to move to 16 while the SEC added Missouri, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to to do the same. Chapel Hill rejected that but rejected the idea with ESPN not the SEC.

So you see the Big 10 was the only one rebuffed because the SEC had no chance due to its rights being held by the company that owned 100% of the ACC product. It's more like FOX took Maryland from ESPN than the Big 10 took them from the ACC. But you know that and are simply trying to be dramatic.

Those are facts.

Wouldn't accept Oklahoma.

(10-15-2015 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 06:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 12:47 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  A blog post from over 2 1/2 years ago outlining how ACC schools would line up to jump to The Big Ten based on Research Dollars....

Keep in mind it was written 4 to 5 months after The Big Ten batted its eyes and hiked it's skirt in front of half The ACC and thankfully (Thank you Maryland!) got one financially strapped institution to take the bait.

I can't fault the guy for trying to come up with some creative way for Delaney to get what he wanted two months before the Grant of Rights was signed.

Big Ten fans / bloggers simply do not understand the dynamics of The ACC. Most ACC schools would jump at an SEC invite. None want to be part of The Big Ten. ACC programs had their chance and they chose not to jump.

ACC schools had their chance to join the SEC, in fact UNC's released emails made it very clear that there was some booster support for them to go join the SEC and yet....

It's not just about ACC schools turning down The Big Ten. Trying to say otherwise is simply fictional writing.

There wasn't a chance in hell that any ACC schools were joining the SEC. When UNC held talks with the SEC it was about what to do if the ACC suffered more defections to the Big 10. ESPN wasn't going to pay the SEC to take any ACC schools, period, end of story. What the Mouse was prepared to do was to work Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and hopefully Notre Dame and if not another to be named into the ACC to move to 16 while the SEC added Missouri, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to to do the same. Chapel Hill rejected that but rejected the idea with ESPN not the SEC.

So you see the Big 10 was the only one rebuffed because the SEC had no chance due to its rights being held by the company that owned 100% of the ACC product. It's more like FOX took Maryland from ESPN than the Big 10 took them from the ACC. But you know that and are simply trying to be dramatic.

Those are facts.

Whatever you say Mr Creator of Facts.

(10-15-2015 09:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 06:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 12:47 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  A blog post from over 2 1/2 years ago outlining how ACC schools would line up to jump to The Big Ten based on Research Dollars....

Keep in mind it was written 4 to 5 months after The Big Ten batted its eyes and hiked it's skirt in front of half The ACC and thankfully (Thank you Maryland!) got one financially strapped institution to take the bait.

I can't fault the guy for trying to come up with some creative way for Delaney to get what he wanted two months before the Grant of Rights was signed.

Big Ten fans / bloggers simply do not understand the dynamics of The ACC. Most ACC schools would jump at an SEC invite. None want to be part of The Big Ten. ACC programs had their chance and they chose not to jump.

ACC schools had their chance to join the SEC, in fact UNC's released emails made it very clear that there was some booster support for them to go join the SEC and yet....

It's not just about ACC schools turning down The Big Ten. Trying to say otherwise is simply fictional writing.

There wasn't a chance in hell that any ACC schools were joining the SEC. When UNC held talks with the SEC it was about what to do if the ACC suffered more defections to the Big 10. ESPN wasn't going to pay the SEC to take any ACC schools, period, end of story. What the Mouse was prepared to do was to work Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and hopefully Notre Dame and if not another to be named into the ACC to move to 16 while the SEC added Missouri, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to to do the same. Chapel Hill rejected that but rejected the idea with ESPN not the SEC.

So you see the Big 10 was the only one rebuffed because the SEC had no chance due to its rights being held by the company that owned 100% of the ACC product. It's more like FOX took Maryland from ESPN than the Big 10 took them from the ACC. But you know that and are simply trying to be dramatic.

Those are facts.

Whatever you say Mr Creator of Facts.

I don't have to create ESPN's ownership of the ACC and their majority of rights to the SEC. I don't have to create a business scenario where they would prefer not to swap properties between their properties. You are the creative one who is always stirring the pot by skating on the edge of reality and then claiming those who view the reality rationally are somehow irrational haters of whatever you claim. And to quote Animal House, "I for one am not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!" Truly this schtick of yours is not just old, it's moldy.

(10-15-2015 09:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 09:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 06:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 12:47 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  A blog post from over 2 1/2 years ago outlining how ACC schools would line up to jump to The Big Ten based on Research Dollars....

Keep in mind it was written 4 to 5 months after The Big Ten batted its eyes and hiked it's skirt in front of half The ACC and thankfully (Thank you Maryland!) got one financially strapped institution to take the bait.

I can't fault the guy for trying to come up with some creative way for Delaney to get what he wanted two months before the Grant of Rights was signed.

Big Ten fans / bloggers simply do not understand the dynamics of The ACC. Most ACC schools would jump at an SEC invite. None want to be part of The Big Ten. ACC programs had their chance and they chose not to jump.

ACC schools had their chance to join the SEC, in fact UNC's released emails made it very clear that there was some booster support for them to go join the SEC and yet....

It's not just about ACC schools turning down The Big Ten. Trying to say otherwise is simply fictional writing.

There wasn't a chance in hell that any ACC schools were joining the SEC. When UNC held talks with the SEC it was about what to do if the ACC suffered more defections to the Big 10. ESPN wasn't going to pay the SEC to take any ACC schools, period, end of story. What the Mouse was prepared to do was to work Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and hopefully Notre Dame and if not another to be named into the ACC to move to 16 while the SEC added Missouri, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to to do the same. Chapel Hill rejected that but rejected the idea with ESPN not the SEC.

So you see the Big 10 was the only one rebuffed because the SEC had no chance due to its rights being held by the company that owned 100% of the ACC product. It's more like FOX took Maryland from ESPN than the Big 10 took them from the ACC. But you know that and are simply trying to be dramatic.

Those are facts.

Whatever you say Mr Creator of Facts.

I don't have to create ESPN's ownership of the ACC and their majority of rights to the SEC. I don't have to create a business scenario where they would prefer not to swap properties between their properties. You are the creative one who is always stirring the pot by skating on the edge of reality and then claiming those who view the reality rationally are somehow irrational haters of whatever you claim. And to quote Animal House, "I for one am not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!" Truly this schtick of yours is not just old, it's moldy.

If anyone here uses the "Shotgun Method of Creativity" around here it is you. You can keep on projecting that garbage upon me if you like but you have an SEC biased perspective and I have a different perspective.

You are a hypocrite for these words of yours, truly.

(10-15-2015 09:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 09:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 09:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 06:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  ACC schools had their chance to join the SEC, in fact UNC's released emails made it very clear that there was some booster support for them to go join the SEC and yet....

It's not just about ACC schools turning down The Big Ten. Trying to say otherwise is simply fictional writing.

There wasn't a chance in hell that any ACC schools were joining the SEC. When UNC held talks with the SEC it was about what to do if the ACC suffered more defections to the Big 10. ESPN wasn't going to pay the SEC to take any ACC schools, period, end of story. What the Mouse was prepared to do was to work Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and hopefully Notre Dame and if not another to be named into the ACC to move to 16 while the SEC added Missouri, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to to do the same. Chapel Hill rejected that but rejected the idea with ESPN not the SEC.

So you see the Big 10 was the only one rebuffed because the SEC had no chance due to its rights being held by the company that owned 100% of the ACC product. It's more like FOX took Maryland from ESPN than the Big 10 took them from the ACC. But you know that and are simply trying to be dramatic.

Those are facts.

Whatever you say Mr Creator of Facts.

I don't have to create ESPN's ownership of the ACC and their majority of rights to the SEC. I don't have to create a business scenario where they would prefer not to swap properties between their properties. You are the creative one who is always stirring the pot by skating on the edge of reality and then claiming those who view the reality rationally are somehow irrational haters of whatever you claim. And to quote Animal House, "I for one am not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!" Truly this schtick of yours is not just old, it's moldy.

If anyone here uses the "Shotgun Method of Creativity" around here it is you. You can keep on projecting that garbage upon me if you like but you have an SEC biased perspective and I have a different perspective.

You are a hypocrite for these words of yours, truly.

It is what it is and you can't yammer your way out of it. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting your conference and school. Dude you always project. You try to turn everyone's observations about your behavior back on them. It is in post after post for anyone to read.

Stick to realignment sources and finding interesting stuff before anyone else. That's how you made your rep and it was solid and fun and pretty much everyone enjoyed it. This constant ad hominem against anyone who disagrees with you is the schtick to which I refer. You're better than that. I don't care if you are a Big 10 first guy or not. We want the old H1 back. Get out of your negative funk. Then your jibes would be funny and in good spirit. We don't even care if what you think will happen turns out to be so. It is always creative enough to stir discussion and thought. But popping into threads you haven't completely read and then hammering at someone that you perceive has it in for something you think isn't fun. Neither is name calling. It's not life or death, it's entertainment and that's all it is unless your name is Stankey, or Delaney, or any commissioner of a conference.

(10-14-2015 07:48 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  over 2 years old. the ACC will be fine. No one is leaving there anytime soon

The BIG took something like nineteen years to add Neb and benefit from having a CCG in football. It is in no hurry. It is truly plying chess. UVa & UNC are the next targets. The BIG will wait patiently for ND to cause the ACC to destabilize. In the mean time, if the B12 implodes and KU/OU fall into its lap, they will be happily taken as well.

(10-15-2015 06:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 12:47 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  A blog post from over 2 1/2 years ago outlining how ACC schools would line up to jump to The Big Ten based on Research Dollars....

Keep in mind it was written 4 to 5 months after The Big Ten batted its eyes and hiked it's skirt in front of half The ACC and thankfully (Thank you Maryland!) got one financially strapped institution to take the bait.

I can't fault the guy for trying to come up with some creative way for Delaney to get what he wanted two months before the Grant of Rights was signed.

Big Ten fans / bloggers simply do not understand the dynamics of The ACC. Most ACC schools would jump at an SEC invite. None want to be part of The Big Ten. ACC programs had their chance and they chose not to jump.

ACC schools had their chance to join the SEC, in fact UNC's released emails made it very clear that there was some booster support for them to go join the SEC and yet....

It's not just about ACC schools turning down The Big Ten. Trying to say otherwise is simply fictional writing.

Wow...
I doubt any ACC team had an invite in hand from The SEC and didn't take it. FSU, Clemson, Miami, Louisville and GaTech won't be seeing an invite anytime soon or until The SEC does away with this Gentlemen's agreement to not invite programs from states already in The SEC.

That leaves VaTech, UVa, UNC, Duke, Wake, NCState, Pitt and Syracuse.

VaTech: Do you really think the folks in Blacksburg would turn down an SEC invite? VaTech is probably the most SEC culturally of any program The ACC. Just don't see them turning down an SEC invite.

UVa: How's that imminent announcement of that jump to The Big Ten working for ya? They are the program whose move to The Big Ten was going to happen ever Tuesday according to newspaper reports.....

UNC / NCState: Pick one to The SEC, won't be both. From a point of simple influence can't see UNC jumping to The SEC. UNState, on the other hand, another SEC possibility.

Duke / Wake: Both would be the smallest schools in The SEC. Neither is a cultural fit for The SEC.

Pitt and Syracuse: Out of geographical foot print for SEC. If neither of these programs jumped to The Big Ten, no ACC program ever will.

Again to simply say ACC programs had to turn down The SEC because they turned down The Big Ten is over simplifying a more complex issue.
CJ

(10-16-2015 04:07 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 06:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  ACC schools had their chance to join the SEC, in fact UNC's released emails made it very clear that there was some booster support for them to go join the SEC and yet....

It's not just about ACC schools turning down The Big Ten. Trying to say otherwise is simply fictional writing.

... Again to simply say ACC programs had to turn down The SEC because they turned down The Big Ten is over simplifying a more complex issue.
CJ

Note that the comment that you are replying to did not say that.

Also note that Syracuse and Pitt not "making the jump to the Big Ten" would seem primarily be due to the Big Ten not inviting them and having no reason to invite them.

(10-14-2015 08:34 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  A loss of fsu by the ACC would be crippling beyond repair.

And hilarious.

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

The B1G doesn't always make moves that pan out like they want. Nebraska has been a big disappointment, they've been diminished by the league, haven't added much to it, and the jury is still out on the competitive impact of Rutgers and Maryland.

But they did get the One Big Thing, the money issue, right, and moreso than anyone else. Back in the crucial 2007-2010 years, Delany made the right decisions about a conference network that Swofford and Slive bungled, and that has put the B1G in clearly in the strongest position of any conference, so I wouldn't be really surprised by anything they do to expand their reach.

(10-16-2015 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The B1G doesn't always make moves that pan out like they want. Nebraska has been a big disappointment, they've been diminished by the league, haven't added much to it, and the jury is still out on the competitive impact of Rutgers and Maryland.

But they did get the One Big Thing, the money issue, right, and moreso than anyone else. Back in the crucial 2007-2010 years, Delany made the right decisions about a conference network that Swofford and Slive bungled, and that has put the B1G in clearly in the strongest position of any conference, so I wouldn't be really surprised by anything they do to expand their reach.

The Big Ten whiffed on its original and biggest targets in 2010, Texas and ND.

Jim Delany swung for the fences like Dave Kingman and struck out like Dave Kingman.

No blame here. Nice try, Jim.

Everything since then is "Plan B", although Delany has done well with the BTN money in his back pocket.


http://frankthetank.me/tag/notre-dame-to-the-big-ten/

https://kentsterling.wordpress.com/2010/...xt-target/

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry...2/21083956


http://www.sj-r.com/article/20100226/NEW...1/?Start=3

(10-15-2015 06:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 07:38 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  B1G is playing chess while everyone else is playing ckeckers. Why everyone was scratching their heads about the Rutgers and Mayland adds, now it all makes sense plus why they added John Hopkins lacrosse as an associate member. Once the Maryland suit is settled why it means big problems for the future survival of the ACC, now it all makes sense. Best analysis, I ever read on realignment. ESPN isn't running this train, B1G El Presidente's are. It's the R&D dollars and political power under the guise of sports alignment.


Link

No. B1G expansion was based on the following

1) Penn State's desire to kick out/ keep out the ACC from its prime recruiting grounds.
2) the current ability of B1G teams to make people in the NYC/DC metros pay outsized amounts to the B1G in order to receive any cable programming.


Political power has been shifting away from the Mid Atlantic and Industrial MW for decades. If that was the play, they likely blew it.

Tom, we all know how much you *hate* Rutgers getting into the B1G. That's fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion.


But your last sentence doesn't make much sense.

(10-16-2015 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The B1G doesn't always make moves that pan out like they want. Nebraska has been a big disappointment, they've been diminished by the league, haven't added much to it, and the jury is still out on the competitive impact of Rutgers and Maryland.

But they did get the One Big Thing, the money issue, right, and moreso than anyone else. Back in the crucial 2007-2010 years, Delany made the right decisions about a conference network that Swofford and Slive bungled, and that has put the B1G in clearly in the strongest position of any conference, so I wouldn't be really surprised by anything they do to expand their reach.

I don't think Nebraska is a disappointment. They've been in a bowl every year since joining the B1G, haven't they? They won the Legends division in 2012. They'll figure out it and win the West, soon enough.

Great stadium and lots of fan support.

Lots of improvement in men's basketball. New arena. And it could conceivably hold ice hockey teams, too.


Once they fold the U of NE Medical Center research under the Lincoln campus, like Kansas does with the U of KS Medical Center (in KC, Kansas), they'll be upgraded in research numbers and back in the AAU.

People sighting a blog from 2013 is ancient history. Therefore irrelevant. Isn't this 2015, or did I forget. 2.5 years later? OH MY!!! Really ancient history folks lets blow the dust off it! Give me a freaking break. What needs to be addressed and it has been done by some in this thread. What the man's purports, is it logical and well reasoned, I say it is. What he purports is very relevant today and it will be tomorrow, as it was yesterday. Do you think for a minute that these B1G leaders do not look at what's to be gained for their schools (R&D dollars and Politically of course they do, yes they are playing the long game) therefore, for the CIC, by expanding. Is this blogger's analysis spot on maybe yes maybe no, since he doesn't sit in the corridors of power in the B1G or maybe he does, I don't know ? But if you look at the facts he seems to be more spot on IMHO just look at the expansion history, the B1G has done so far. With them being in the midst of new TV contract negotiations, we'll find out even more, stay tuned.

BCP, your last post is a straw man. Sure, people have come out about how the times changed between then and now. However, the assumptions the blogger makes about how research dollars factor into athletic conference expansion are wrong. More logic has been used and points reasoned out as to why the CIC is a non sequitur, yet you willfully stick your fingers in your ears and prattle on about how the blogger is so wise... Wake up. You want the blogger's opinion to be true because it happens to put your school in a favorable light when it comes to expansion. Color me shocked... Actually, no. This entire thread is par for the course when realignment is discussed on this forum. I think I predicted more accurately and put forth more reasonable scenarios when I was clowning around on this forum...

(10-16-2015 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The B1G doesn't always make moves that pan out like they want. Nebraska has been a big disappointment, they've been diminished by the league, haven't added much to it, and the jury is still out on the competitive impact of Rutgers and Maryland.

But they did get the One Big Thing, the money issue, right, and moreso than anyone else. Back in the crucial 2007-2010 years, Delany made the right decisions about a conference network that Swofford and Slive bungled, and that has put the B1G in clearly in the strongest position of any conference, so I wouldn't be really surprised by anything they do to expand their reach.

You are talking about the sports side, while the OP is citing the academic/research side. Neb may not be lighting it up in the B10 and it has lost its AAU status. However, it gave the B10 a football CCG and all the money associated with having one, has been respectable on the field, pulls decent TV numbers AND is still a huge research institution in areas not emphasized by the AAU. The jury isn't out on RU and Md from that same perspective. Both are huge institutions bringing in very large amounts of public and private research dollars AND huge numbers of TV sets.

(10-16-2015 11:12 AM)miko33 Wrote:  BCP, your last post is a straw man. Sure, people have come out about how the times changed between then and now. However, the assumptions the blogger makes about how research dollars factor into athletic conference expansion are wrong. More logic has been used and points reasoned out as to why the CIC is a non sequitur, yet you willfully stick your fingers in your ears and prattle on about how the blogger is so wise... Wake up. You want the blogger's opinion to be true because it happens to put your school in a favorable light when it comes to expansion. Color me shocked... Actually, no. This entire thread is par for the course when realignment is discussed on this forum. I think I predicted more accurately and put forth more reasonable scenarios when I was clowning around on this forum...

Actually never considered my alma mater in the equation. Thought it was a well thought out, well reasoned piece and attempt at insight on the possible forces pushing B1G to expand their footprint, since they are the ones who started this newest latest round of it (after the formation of the B12 from the death of the SWC over 20 years ago) with the addition of Nebraska. Since you mention it about my alma mater. I'm sure the state of Texas could be plan B if they can't break away some of those ACC schools like GTech, UNC, etc. Now if the B1G wants and can snag OU/KU that will put them on the border of Texas. What they will do after that, who knows I like to think UH could be in play (that's with rose colored glasses on) let me take them off, it would would be a very very long shot IMO. UH/UT to the B1G that would shake things up a bit NOW, wouldn't it...hahahahaha!!!!

(10-14-2015 07:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Careful, the ACC Mob is going to come in and get a third thread closed today due to your blatant attacks on The ACC.

Come on man, is that necessary?

(10-16-2015 11:35 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 11:12 AM)miko33 Wrote:  BCP, your last post is a straw man. Sure, people have come out about how the times changed between then and now. However, the assumptions the blogger makes about how research dollars factor into athletic conference expansion are wrong. More logic has been used and points reasoned out as to why the CIC is a non sequitur, yet you willfully stick your fingers in your ears and prattle on about how the blogger is so wise... Wake up. You want the blogger's opinion to be true because it happens to put your school in a favorable light when it comes to expansion. Color me shocked... Actually, no. This entire thread is par for the course when realignment is discussed on this forum. I think I predicted more accurately and put forth more reasonable scenarios when I was clowning around on this forum...

Actually never considered my alma mater in the equation. Thought it was a well thought out, well reasoned piece and attempt at insight on the possible forces pushing B1G to expand their footprint, since they are the ones who started this newest latest round of it (after the formation of the B12 from the death of the SWC over 20 years ago) with the addition of Nebraska. Since you mention it about my alma mater. I'm sure the state of Texas could be plan B if they can't break away some of those ACC schools like GTech, UNC, etc. Now if the B1G wants and can snag OU/KU that put them on the border of Texas. What they will do after that, who knows I like to think UH could be in play (that's with rose colored glasses on) let me take them off, it would would be a very very long shot IMO. UH/UT to the B1G that would shake things up, wouldn't it...hahahahaha!!!!

KU is reasonable.

OU, even with putting the OU Health Sciences Center under Norman in the research numbers, doesn't meet the standard.