(08-03-2016 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 12:06 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Texas LT governor Dan Patrick released a statement today calling for the Big 12 to add not just Houston but SMU as well!

https://www.ltgov.state.tx.us/2016/08/02...expansion/

So by the logic of many here on this board this means SMU is in and their announcement is but a formality as the same immense political pressure being applied to Bevo and friends to get UH in is now also being used to get SMU in too! After all the state of Texas owns and runs the Big 12 and it does as they say!

I mean it's definitely not just blowhard politicians doing a favor that costs them nothing for wealthy alumni who contributed to their election campaigns! No sir! Real and true back room deals that would make Bob Bullock himself blush are happening as we speak and it's a done deal!

Did the UT system chancellor, the UT president, the Texas Texh president, and the Governor all make similar tweets of support? Oh they didn't? Well, then that's not the exact same situation now is it? Carry on.

Mainly because SMU is a private university. I'm not saying that they don't support Houston, but I don't think ALL of them support Houston. They are just covering their bases.

(08-03-2016 09:23 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 12:35 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  this is all the more reason for Texas and especially non-Texas Big 12 members to say no to UH

what is next the Big 12 adds UH and SMU and then in a few years when it is thought that everyone is going to 16 or 18 or 24 (all worse than 14 by a million miles) the Big 12 will have to add Texas State, UTEP, UTSA, Rice and north Texas state (and Lamar or Sam Houston if David State gets his way)

all the more reason to push back and shut this stupidity down now and end it once and for all

I think its doubly bad for Texas because it would demonstrate the bringing in the Longhorns comes with all sorts of political entanglements. Everyone talks about UT to the B1G, but is that realistic if folks up and down the Univ. System of Texas are able to weigh in.

yea there is no chance that Texas is trading any favors related to anything academically for conference membership or athletics business

as it stands now the UT System and UT Austin do not need any approval from anyone for the UT-Houston deal because of the way it is structured and how they are planning to operate it

the ONLY thing that could actually stop it is if there is an actual piece of legislation passed to stop it specifically and that is not going to happen especially over a perceived lack of Texas backing any school for Big 12 membership

and Texas is not going to be pushed into a corner over anything especially when there could be major change again in 2024-25 and of course anyone that thought they had used Texas politics and Texas higher ed politics to push Texas around in the past would be trying to do the same again.....and as you stated the issue of that making it more difficult for Texas to move or for some other conference to want Texas

I do not think Texas is looking to move now at all and really I think they would be just as happy in the Big 12 well beyond 2024-25 if the Big 12 served their needs, but it is going to serve their needs a lot less if people think they were bullied into letting in some school they did not want and even worse having that school there in the Big 12 trying to bully Texas from leaving

not happening they are going to nip this nonsense in the bud now and do whatever is best for them

this is just another reason that boren the idiot and toilet bowlsby should have learned to keep Big 12 business private and another reason I feel some of the POSSIBLE candidates for Big 12 membership actually have a better chance because they are not out there making a fool of themselves.....even though I prefer the Big 12 not expand at all

I think all the Texas schools should leave the Big 12 and form a conference with all the other Texas D1 schools. Then nobody will complain as much on either side, lol.

(08-03-2016 10:25 AM)Tigeer Wrote:  All I have to say is politicians are slimy

Were you saying that when those WV Senators were making idiots of themselves in 2011?

Nice try.

This feels about 1/100th the magnitude of effort as the official releases (plural) that were exclusively in support of UH.


Those were serious. This is barely even half-hearted, and was probably just a bone thrown at SMU's rich boosters that care about football. Note that while Rice is considerably richer than SMU, it hasn't gotten the same love from TX gov and major univ system leaders. Perhaps because its rich donors are eggheads who don't care that much about football?

(08-03-2016 10:47 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I think all the Texas schools should leave the Big 12 and form a conference with all the other Texas D1 schools. Then nobody will complain as much on either side, lol.

All non-P5, FBS (or becoming FBS) ones should! The "New Southwest Conference" (nSWC).

The TEXAS 12

Baylor
Houston
North Texas
Rice
SMU
TCU
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas State
Texas Tech
UTEP
UTSA

TEX-XII

SMU could be a big time program but I just don't see the whole Big 12 going for it, Houston may be a stretch with-in itself but they have a presence in the Dallas/Ft. Worth market and Houston has been building steam to get into the Big 12. Right now I suspect that Cincinnati & Houston are going to get into the Big 12, it'll be interesting to see if they go to 14 which I think they should. The Big 12 doesn't owe ESPN or FOX anything and when their contracts come up you're telling me that CBS Sports & NBC Sports wouldn't be interested in the Big 12 inventory? Come on, man. Plus you have new outfits like beIN Sports, Twitter (streaming) and always rumored tech giants like Apple & Google looking to get into the game and quite possibly streaming giants Amazon Video, Hulu & Netflix possibly interested.

I can't see SMU or Rice getting any consideration so long as TCU and Houston are in the conference/being considered.

They only need one program in those two major markets.

(08-03-2016 12:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I can't see SMU or Rice getting any consideration so long as TCU and Houston are in the conference/being considered.

They only need one program in those two major markets.

While I mostly agree it was with TCU's help and Houston's partnership that SMU even got into the Big East.

(08-03-2016 10:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 10:25 AM)Tigeer Wrote:  All I have to say is politicians are slimy

Were you saying that when those WV Senators were making idiots of themselves in 2011?

Nope I am saying I would not believe a dang word coming out of any of their mouths

(08-03-2016 11:54 AM)Chappy Wrote:  The TEXAS 12

Baylor
Houston
North Texas
Rice
SMU
TCU
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas State
Texas Tech
UTEP
UTSA

Texas A&M will not leave the SEC.

Lamar, Sam Houston State, SFA, Houston Baptist, Abilene Christian, Incarnate Word, Texas Southern, Prairie View, West Texas A&M, Midwestern State, Angelo State, and some other could be the replacement.

My question is does anyone really understand what OU wants? I get the impression that Boren is at odds with the Athletic Department.

(08-03-2016 12:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  My question is does anyone really understand what OU wants? I get the impression that Boren is at odds with the Athletic Department.

to understand boren you have to know his background

he was a long term democratic senator

so basically he loves power, he likes to hear himself talk and he will tell you anything that he thinks you want to hear and that he thinks makes him important and if something changes he will say something different and pretend he never said what he said before

he is at odds with intelligence and the ability to not grandstand

I think Boren would love for OU to be a research powerhouse and affiliated with the Big Ten or PAC, to that end.

Too bad for him, that is far from reality. In the absence of the B12, then OU is a SEC school if there ever was one.

(08-03-2016 11:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Nice try.

This feels about 1/100th the magnitude of effort as the official releases (plural) that were exclusively in support of UH.


Those were serious. This is barely even half-hearted, and was probably just a bone thrown at SMU's rich boosters that care about football. Note that while Rice is considerably richer than SMU, it hasn't gotten the same love from TX gov and major univ system leaders. Perhaps because its rich donors are eggheads who don't care that much about football?

Don't ruin 10th's fun as he combs the fringes of the internet looking for any blurb or tweet he can that refutes UH to the Big 12. Being a A&M/TCU fan, he has a lot to lose in this, as all that his schools have left to hold over us is conference affiliation. Never mind the fact that UH has already surpassed A&M as a program.

With that said, back off and stop crowding our action, SMU.

(08-03-2016 12:49 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 12:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  My question is does anyone really understand what OU wants? I get the impression that Boren is at odds with the Athletic Department.

to understand boren you have to know his background

he was a long term democratic senator

so basically he loves power, he likes to hear himself talk and he will tell you anything that he thinks you want to hear and that he thinks makes him important and if something changes he will say something different and pretend he never said what he said before

he is at odds with intelligence and the ability to not grandstand

He might like to bloviate, but that doesn't tell me why he thinks expansion is a good idea if ultimately he wants OU to have the freedom to maneuver in 2025.

(08-03-2016 01:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I think Boren would love for OU to be a research powerhouse and affiliated with the Big Ten or PAC, to that end.

Too bad for him, that is far from reality. In the absence of the B12, then OU is a SEC school if there ever was one.

But you don't need PAC or B1G affiliation to become a research powerhouse. So who is supposed to be buying the line of BS he is selling? Is he willing to fundamentally harm to the Athletic Department just so a bunch of Ivy Tower types can proclaim OU is a CIC member?

Nor does PAC or B1G membership make you a research powerhouse. Ask Nebraska. Oklahoma would be more of the same, on that end.

In what sense are you claiming that moving to the Big Ten would harm OU's athletic dept?? Certainly not for money. Are you saying they'd become another Nebraska? In other words, they'd become the "Iowa Red South" of the Big Ten West?

Iowa = Iowa
Nebraska = Iowa Red
Oklahoma = Iowa Red South

(08-03-2016 02:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Nor does PAC or B1G membership make you a research powerhouse. Ask Nebraska. Oklahoma would be more of the same, on that end.

Concur

Quote: In what sense are you claiming that moving to the Big Ten would harm OU's athletic dept?? Certainly not for money. Are you saying they'd become another Nebraska? In other words, they'd become the "Iowa Red South" of the Big Ten West?

Iowa = Iowa
Nebraska = Iowa Red
Oklahoma = Iowa Red South

The bolded. At the end of the day, OU needs to fill up Memorial Stadium with games that matter. The claim is that the current B12 doesn't deliver that. I'm not sure how trading ISU for Iowa, KSU for Minny and KU for NW improves that situation. Then OU would have to figure out how to keep both OKST and Texas on the schedule.

While you and I might think the Sooners would be a great SEC addition, the majority of their fans seems to believe that they are a better fit in the PAC or B1G.