(06-15-2016 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 10:26 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 07:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ....... the Big 12 hasn't just been raided, so pressure to back-fill isn't there, making adding new teams of any kind less likely......

There are still good reasons for the Big 12 to add at least 2 schools soon:

(1) so the conference championship game will be worth $500 million and increase CFP chances by 14%
(2) to fill the ludicrous footprint gap toward WVU
(3) to add new media markets (neded for the next contract negotiations
(4) so the conference name will make sense
(5) to add rich new recruiting territories
(6) to add a buffer against raiding from rival conferences
(7) no "P5" schools is going to jump to the Big 12. "G5" additions will quickly develop into valuable assets (it's called investing in the future")

I hope you are correct and that USF gets the call up, but I don't think any of those reasons are compelling.

Texas doesn't want to expand, and none of those reasons really helps Texas. Their money is locked down. I don't see any G5 out there, even the favorites like Cincy and BYU, that Texas has any desire to affiliate with.

I'm not convinced that Texas is opposed to expansion. The Texas AD backtracked today, saying he was not opposed to expansion, he just didn't think that the Big 12 had to go to some arbitrary number, just to get there.

That is much different than his previous statements.

I found the quote on Twitter:

SXM College Sports @SiriusXMCollege
"I'm not opposed to expansion, but we don't need to do it just to have a certain number of teams in the league." @TexasSports AD Mike Perrin
12:25 PM - 15 Jun 2016

(06-15-2016 02:27 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I found the quote on Twitter:

SXM College Sports @SiriusXMCollege
"I'm not opposed to expansion, but we don't need to do it just to have a certain number of teams in the league." @TexasSports AD Mike Perrin
12:25 PM - 15 Jun 2016

Sounds to me like what he's saying is "I'll favor expansion if the right schools are available", which goes without saying and isn't anything different from what Texas has said before. I mean sure, if Notre Dame wants to join the Big 12, Texas has never been opposed to that.

But that's not what's on the table here.

(06-15-2016 03:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 02:27 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I found the quote on Twitter:

SXM College Sports @SiriusXMCollege
"I'm not opposed to expansion, but we don't need to do it just to have a certain number of teams in the league." @TexasSports AD Mike Perrin
12:25 PM - 15 Jun 2016

Sounds to me like what he's saying is "I'll favor expansion if the right schools are available", which goes without saying and isn't anything different from what Texas has said before. I mean sure, if Notre Dame wants to join the Big 12, Texas has never been opposed to that.

But that's not what's on the table here.

I didn't save the link to the previous quotes, but what he said week before last was he saw no reason to expand. This week he said he was not opposed to expansion. That is decidedly different.

(06-15-2016 10:47 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 03:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 02:27 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I found the quote on Twitter:

SXM College Sports @SiriusXMCollege
"I'm not opposed to expansion, but we don't need to do it just to have a certain number of teams in the league." @TexasSports AD Mike Perrin
12:25 PM - 15 Jun 2016

Sounds to me like what he's saying is "I'll favor expansion if the right schools are available", which goes without saying and isn't anything different from what Texas has said before. I mean sure, if Notre Dame wants to join the Big 12, Texas has never been opposed to that.

But that's not what's on the table here.

I didn't save the link to the previous quotes, but what he said week before last was he saw no reason to expand. This week he said he was not opposed to expansion. That is decidedly different.

Those are not contradictory.

(06-15-2016 11:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 10:47 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 03:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 02:27 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I found the quote on Twitter:

SXM College Sports @SiriusXMCollege
"I'm not opposed to expansion, but we don't need to do it just to have a certain number of teams in the league." @TexasSports AD Mike Perrin
12:25 PM - 15 Jun 2016

Sounds to me like what he's saying is "I'll favor expansion if the right schools are available", which goes without saying and isn't anything different from what Texas has said before. I mean sure, if Notre Dame wants to join the Big 12, Texas has never been opposed to that.

But that's not what's on the table here.

I didn't save the link to the previous quotes, but what he said week before last was he saw no reason to expand. This week he said he was not opposed to expansion. That is decidedly different.

Those are not contradictory.

Okay. We just have different opinions. But I didn't say it was contradictory. I said it was decidedly different from what he said 2 weeks ago. Which it is.

You could interpret them the same, if you want to believe they are against expansion, but the change in wording gives one an equal opportunity to feel there was a shift in position, to some degree.

Two weeks ago, he said he was opposed to expansion. Now he says he is NOT opposed to expansion, he just doesn't want to expand just to get to a certain number. I call the second statement a shift from his first position. You don't. We disagree.

(06-16-2016 01:14 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 11:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 10:47 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 03:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 02:27 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I found the quote on Twitter:

SXM College Sports @SiriusXMCollege
"I'm not opposed to expansion, but we don't need to do it just to have a certain number of teams in the league." @TexasSports AD Mike Perrin
12:25 PM - 15 Jun 2016

Sounds to me like what he's saying is "I'll favor expansion if the right schools are available", which goes without saying and isn't anything different from what Texas has said before. I mean sure, if Notre Dame wants to join the Big 12, Texas has never been opposed to that.

But that's not what's on the table here.

I didn't save the link to the previous quotes, but what he said week before last was he saw no reason to expand. This week he said he was not opposed to expansion. That is decidedly different.

Those are not contradictory.

Okay. We just have different opinions. But I didn't say it was contradictory. I said it was decidedly different from what he said 2 weeks ago. Which it is.

I don't think so. I think where you make an unwarranted leap is that you assume that "seeing no reason" = "opposition". I don't think it does. There's a difference between being opposed to something, which implies you've made up your mind about it and aren't amenable to persuasion, and seeing no reason for something, which merely means that nobody has yet presented a compelling argument in favor of it. If someone asks me "How do you feel about expanding?" and I say "I am opposed to it", that implies that issue is closed for me. But if I say "I see no reason to expand", that doesn't mean i am adamantly against it, it means that currently I don't see a reason to expand, but it also implies that I have an open mind about it, am open to persuasion based on new evidence.

Which to me is very consistent with the tweat you quoted: He's saying he's not opposed to expansion (just in case anyone misinterpreted his earlier comments about "seeing no reason" as = "opposition"), but needs a good reason to favor it, and in his view, reaching X number of teams is not a good reason.

So no, not decidedly different.

(06-15-2016 02:27 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I found the quote on Twitter:

SXM College Sports @SiriusXMCollege
"I'm not opposed to expansion, but we don't need to do it just to have a certain number of teams in the league." @TexasSports AD Mike Perrin
12:25 PM - 15 Jun 2016

Makes You wonder if They had to choose today from a G5 selection that included Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma State, along with the others currently in the mix, if Texas would also pass on those schools too.

(06-16-2016 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 01:14 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 11:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 10:47 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 03:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Sounds to me like what he's saying is "I'll favor expansion if the right schools are available", which goes without saying and isn't anything different from what Texas has said before. I mean sure, if Notre Dame wants to join the Big 12, Texas has never been opposed to that.

But that's not what's on the table here.

I didn't save the link to the previous quotes, but what he said week before last was he saw no reason to expand. This week he said he was not opposed to expansion. That is decidedly different.

Those are not contradictory.

Okay. We just have different opinions. But I didn't say it was contradictory. I said it was decidedly different from what he said 2 weeks ago. Which it is.

I don't think so. I think where you make an unwarranted leap is that you assume that "seeing no reason" = "opposition". I don't think it does. There's a difference between being opposed to something, which implies you've made up your mind about it and aren't amenable to persuasion, and seeing no reason for something, which merely means that nobody has yet presented a compelling argument in favor of it. If someone asks me "How do you feel about expanding?" and I say "I am opposed to it", that implies that issue is closed for me. But if I say "I see no reason to expand", that doesn't mean i am adamantly against it, it means that currently I don't see a reason to expand, but it also implies that I have an open mind about it, am open to persuasion based on new evidence.

Which to me is very consistent with the tweat you quoted: He's saying he's not opposed to expansion (just in case anyone misinterpreted his earlier comments about "seeing no reason" as = "opposition"), but needs a good reason to favor it, and in his view, reaching X number of teams is not a good reason.

So no, not decidedly different.

Okay. They will still expand, lol.

(06-16-2016 08:39 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 01:14 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 11:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 10:47 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I didn't save the link to the previous quotes, but what he said week before last was he saw no reason to expand. This week he said he was not opposed to expansion. That is decidedly different.

Those are not contradictory.

Okay. We just have different opinions. But I didn't say it was contradictory. I said it was decidedly different from what he said 2 weeks ago. Which it is.

I don't think so. I think where you make an unwarranted leap is that you assume that "seeing no reason" = "opposition". I don't think it does. There's a difference between being opposed to something, which implies you've made up your mind about it and aren't amenable to persuasion, and seeing no reason for something, which merely means that nobody has yet presented a compelling argument in favor of it. If someone asks me "How do you feel about expanding?" and I say "I am opposed to it", that implies that issue is closed for me. But if I say "I see no reason to expand", that doesn't mean i am adamantly against it, it means that currently I don't see a reason to expand, but it also implies that I have an open mind about it, am open to persuasion based on new evidence.

Which to me is very consistent with the tweat you quoted: He's saying he's not opposed to expansion (just in case anyone misinterpreted his earlier comments about "seeing no reason" as = "opposition"), but needs a good reason to favor it, and in his view, reaching X number of teams is not a good reason.

So no, not decidedly different.

Okay. They will still expand, lol.

I hope you are right, fear you are wrong.

(06-16-2016 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 08:39 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 01:14 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 11:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Those are not contradictory.

Okay. We just have different opinions. But I didn't say it was contradictory. I said it was decidedly different from what he said 2 weeks ago. Which it is.

I don't think so. I think where you make an unwarranted leap is that you assume that "seeing no reason" = "opposition". I don't think it does. There's a difference between being opposed to something, which implies you've made up your mind about it and aren't amenable to persuasion, and seeing no reason for something, which merely means that nobody has yet presented a compelling argument in favor of it. If someone asks me "How do you feel about expanding?" and I say "I am opposed to it", that implies that issue is closed for me. But if I say "I see no reason to expand", that doesn't mean i am adamantly against it, it means that currently I don't see a reason to expand, but it also implies that I have an open mind about it, am open to persuasion based on new evidence.

Which to me is very consistent with the tweat you quoted: He's saying he's not opposed to expansion (just in case anyone misinterpreted his earlier comments about "seeing no reason" as = "opposition"), but needs a good reason to favor it, and in his view, reaching X number of teams is not a good reason.

So no, not decidedly different.

Okay. They will still expand, lol.

I hope you are right, fear you are wrong.

I'm pretty sure I'm right, but this is the Big 12, which makes the old Big East look highly functional.

(06-15-2016 07:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 03:40 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  So what exactly does TCU and WVU bring to the Big 12 that Cincinnati or Memphis would not?

1. TCU is in a market the Big 12 really already had.
2. TCU while good in football is by no means an "elite" program. They are very on and off.
3. TCU does not have an elite basketball program.
4. And by no means are they bad academically but they are not.

Yet another justification you are pulling out your behind.

Context. Five years ago, the Big 12 had just lost key football brands and were about to negotiate new TV deals. They needed to shore up their football credibility. At that time, TCU and WVU were the two hottest football properties not in the P5 conferences, both had recently won BCS bowl games. That need to bolster their football credibility overrode the other issues you mention. Plus, having just lost several schools, they needed to back-fill (not expand).

But now, the Big 12 doesn't have a football brand problem, and its media deals are secure for the next 10 years. Also, the Big 12 hasn't just been raided, so pressure to back-fill isn't there, making adding new teams of any kind less likely.

So different factors are in play now.

Quo,

Those are fine points and I agree with you. But I was also not talking to you, I was responding to Todge and his statement that the point of expansion is to bring things that other teams do not bring.

The last two teams were added because of TV dollars pure and simple. It's crazy that people are on here acting like if adding teams can bring you more money it's suddenly a bad idea.

(06-15-2016 07:19 AM)Johnny Incognito Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 03:40 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  So what exactly does TCU and WVU bring to the Big 12 that Cincinnati or Memphis would not?

1. TCU is in a market the Big 12 really already had.
2. TCU while good in football is by no means an "elite" program. They are very on and off.
3. TCU does not have an elite basketball program.
4. And by no means are they bad academically but they are not.

Yet another justification you are pulling out your behind.

Simple. Higher quality football programs.

Your football team is better but it's not that much better. If you guys were both in the Big 12 you would be much more close to Cincinnati than you would OU or Texas.

And Todge,

I'm not reading your crazy looking paragraph. But I saw you write TCU a few times so I'm guessing you were probably trying to justify TCU.

This is TCU

1. TCU is 626-531
2. Has zero national championships despite playing football longer than any human is alive.
3. Has a 45k Stadium
4. Has a 15-15 bowl record.
5. 17 all americans

This is Southern Cal

1. USC is 813-333
2. Has ELEVEN claimed national championships and six unclaimed national champions.
3. Has a 93k stadium
4. Has a 33-17 bowl record
5. 7 Heisman winners
6. 80 all Americans

And USC is not even the best overall college football program. So to say TCU has an elite football team is very laughable. It would even be a stretch to say West Virginia is elite when they have never won a national championship either. They at least look the part in terms of stadium size and win percentage.

(06-14-2016 03:40 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 03:29 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 11:58 AM)TripleA Wrote:  So Todd, check your math with Dennis Dodd, not me. He's the one who said $500M for 2 and $1B for 4, right after talking to Boren and Bowlsby.

I am not saying that his concept of $1 billion or $500 million is wrong

what I am saying is that you are off on the TV money and that denise dodds fails to understand (as many do) that the goal for a conference is not to add members to add gross revenues it would be to add members that bring something (besides money) to the conference and to do so in a way that all existing members do not make less and eventually new members make the same as existing members

that will not happen as I explained even with the $500 million or $1 billion that denise dodds mentions

what would happen is that any new members would have to be paid $14+ million less for the entire 8 years (without a buy in) and that does not help stabilize a conference even if any new members would accept that

So what exactly does TCU and WVU bring to the Big 12 that Cincinnati or Memphis would not?

1. TCU is in a market the Big 12 really already had.
2. TCU while good in football is by no means an "elite" program. They are very on and off.
3. TCU does not have an elite basketball program.
4. And by no means are they bad academically but they are not.

Yet another justification you are pulling out your behind.

You haven't been paying much attention to football over the BCS and playoff era if you don't think there is much difference between TCU and WVU vs. Cincinnati and Memphis.

(06-16-2016 02:20 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  And Todge,

I'm not reading your crazy looking paragraph. But I saw you write TCU a few times so I'm guessing you were probably trying to justify TCU.

This is TCU

1. TCU is 626-531
2. Has zero national championships despite playing football longer than any human is alive.
3. Has a 45k Stadium
4. Has a 15-15 bowl record.
5. 17 all americans

This is Southern Cal

1. USC is 813-333
2. Has ELEVEN claimed national championships and six unclaimed national champions.
3. Has a 93k stadium
4. Has a 33-17 bowl record
5. 7 Heisman winners
6. 80 all Americans

And USC is not even the best overall college football program. So to say TCU has an elite football team is very laughable. It would even be a stretch to say West Virginia is elite when they have never won a national championship either. They at least look the part in terms of stadium size and win percentage.

While without question USC has a ton more history than TCU, but TCU does have two national championships and a Heisman winner. They also have some iconic football players that went through their school like slinging Sammy which has a trophy named after him. He is believed to be one of the first QBs to use the forward pass and he was a great NFL player.

(06-16-2016 02:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 03:40 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 03:29 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 11:58 AM)TripleA Wrote:  So Todd, check your math with Dennis Dodd, not me. He's the one who said $500M for 2 and $1B for 4, right after talking to Boren and Bowlsby.

I am not saying that his concept of $1 billion or $500 million is wrong

what I am saying is that you are off on the TV money and that denise dodds fails to understand (as many do) that the goal for a conference is not to add members to add gross revenues it would be to add members that bring something (besides money) to the conference and to do so in a way that all existing members do not make less and eventually new members make the same as existing members

that will not happen as I explained even with the $500 million or $1 billion that denise dodds mentions

what would happen is that any new members would have to be paid $14+ million less for the entire 8 years (without a buy in) and that does not help stabilize a conference even if any new members would accept that

So what exactly does TCU and WVU bring to the Big 12 that Cincinnati or Memphis would not?

1. TCU is in a market the Big 12 really already had.
2. TCU while good in football is by no means an "elite" program. They are very on and off.
3. TCU does not have an elite basketball program.
4. And by no means are they bad academically but they are not.

Yet another justification you are pulling out your behind.

You haven't been paying much attention to football over the BCS and playoff era if you don't think there is much difference between TCU and WVU vs. Cincinnati and Memphis.

I know very well how good TCU has been in football recently. Going to a playoff is a good thing. Winning a major bowl game is a good thing.

TCU won a BCS bowl and so have Boise State, Houston, UCF, Utah, and lots of other teams....Having a few good seasons does not justify a program being elite. I posted above what a elite team like USC looks like compared to TCU and it makes them look like a joke.

And let's look at the other major sport, how good is TCU in college basketball? Memphis and Cincinnati arguably have elite programs in that sport.

And if you want to go by the BCS era Cincinnati and WVU have been very comparable in terms of performance in the Big East. While in the same conference UC was a regular favorite to win the conference and did often. So again, it's silly to act like WVU is that much better than UC.

(06-16-2016 02:53 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 02:20 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  And Todge,

I'm not reading your crazy looking paragraph. But I saw you write TCU a few times so I'm guessing you were probably trying to justify TCU.

This is TCU

1. TCU is 626-531
2. Has zero national championships despite playing football longer than any human is alive.
3. Has a 45k Stadium
4. Has a 15-15 bowl record.
5. 17 all americans

This is Southern Cal

1. USC is 813-333
2. Has ELEVEN claimed national championships and six unclaimed national champions.
3. Has a 93k stadium
4. Has a 33-17 bowl record
5. 7 Heisman winners
6. 80 all Americans

And USC is not even the best overall college football program. So to say TCU has an elite football team is very laughable. It would even be a stretch to say West Virginia is elite when they have never won a national championship either. They at least look the part in terms of stadium size and win percentage.

While without question USC has a ton more history than TCU, but TCU does have two national championships and a Heisman winner. They also have some iconic football players that went through their school like slinging Sammy which has a trophy named after him. He is believed to be one of the first QBs to use the forward pass and he was a great NFL player.

That's nice.

But TCU can't really claim those national championships. Literally four teams claimed 1935 & Tennessee who went undefeated and had one of the best teams in college football history also claims 1938.

And USC is only one of many elite programs such as Ohio State, Texas, Alabama, almost everyone in the SEC, Michigan, OU, FSU, and others. You put any of them next to TCU and it looks like a joke. But if you put TCU next to someone like Cincinnati or Boise St they only look a little bit better.

Sorry, but TCU is not an elite program. They are a good program which fits the same category as teams like Boise St and Cincinnati.

(06-16-2016 02:20 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  And Todge,

I'm not reading your crazy looking paragraph. But I saw you write TCU a few times so I'm guessing you were probably trying to justify TCU.

This is TCU

1. TCU is 626-531
2. Has zero national championships despite playing football longer than any human is alive.
3. Has a 45k Stadium
4. Has a 15-15 bowl record.
5. 17 all americans

This is Southern Cal

1. USC is 813-333
2. Has ELEVEN claimed national championships and six unclaimed national champions.
3. Has a 93k stadium
4. Has a 33-17 bowl record
5. 7 Heisman winners
6. 80 all Americans

And USC is not even the best overall college football program. So to say TCU has an elite football team is very laughable. It would even be a stretch to say West Virginia is elite when they have never won a national championship either. They at least look the part in terms of stadium size and win percentage.

I did not state that TCU was an "elite" program

I simply showed that over the past 16 seasons TCU has accomplished more than 7 of the teams that want in the Big 12 COMBINED have accomplished

you try and say "a few good seasons" and then talk about "all" that other teams have done, but you simply ignore that TCU in the last 16 seasons has accomplished more than SEVEN of the others COMBINED

so if you want to say that TCU has had a few good seasons the others have done NOTHING then because TCU did more than all of them COMBINED

and as I pointed out you try and talk about the HISTORY of TCU while being such a simpleton that you compare them to USC

well TCU has done more in the past 16 seasons as far as rankings ect than MANY of the teams wanting to get into the Big 12 have done IN THEIR HISTORY.....like teams that have NEVER been ranked or teams that have been ranked 2 times and only one time in the last several decades

then after I compared the last 16 seasons of TCU to the SEVEN teams wanting to get into the Big 12 and their last 16 seasons I even tossed in A&M and MU for good measure and even with those two programs added in the NINE combined schools have only BARELY done more in the last 16 seasons than TCU has

and after all of that your "reply" is to pretend you did not read what I said and then try and compare TCU to USC

as if the Big 12 had a program like USC available to add and as if the NINE programs I compared to TCU would stack up compared to USC as a group than TCU does

yea we can go back to the ONE national championship that A&M has from the 1930s and their ONE Heisman winner and the ZERO national championships the other 8 have

you really know how to make a persuasive argument you should be a debate coach or something

PS and you are not even intelligent enough to understand that adding new teams does not bring more money to EXISTING TEAMS

again the goal is not to add gross revenues to the Big 12 and then have programs in the Big 12 that make a great deal less money than the others for the remainder of the contract and pretend that is "stability"

the goal is to make MORE MONEY for EXISTING TEAMS and I have already shown THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE......but some people are such simpletons they will say "I am not reading all of that" (even though they read all of it) and then they will start to look up facts about USC which has NOTHING to do with the Big 12, TCU or any of the other teams that want to get into the Big 12 unless the goal is to make the most silly and simplistic comparison possible or to answer the question of "who is not coming to the Big 12" and "who makes the NINE teams that want in the Big 12 or that left the Big 12 look even crappier than TCU does"

if you want to discuss something and to pretend you have a clue about it then be prepared to actually have a clue and or be prepared to get a clue instead of making the most stupid comparisons on earth after you have been shown that your claims are just silly and without merit

(06-16-2016 02:05 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 07:19 AM)Johnny Incognito Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 03:40 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  So what exactly does TCU and WVU bring to the Big 12 that Cincinnati or Memphis would not?

1. TCU is in a market the Big 12 really already had.
2. TCU while good in football is by no means an "elite" program. They are very on and off.
3. TCU does not have an elite basketball program.
4. And by no means are they bad academically but they are not.

Yet another justification you are pulling out your behind.

Simple. Higher quality football programs.

Your football team is better but it's not that much better. If you guys were both in the Big 12 you would be much more close to Cincinnati than you would OU or Texas.

They did beat us twice in the seven years we were conference mates, so I guess that makes us about the same.