(07-31-2018 09:00 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 08:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 08:48 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  While it is a diabolical plan on the SEC's part and would provide UTX with numerous positive benefits, I just don't see the Longhorn's entry being unconditional. I don't know who the huckleberry will be, but some Texas school will get wind of the SEC's offer and and expend every last ounce of political capital to either prevent the Longhorns from leaving the B12 or more likely, attach themselves like a lamprey to the 'Horns potential move.

Baylor and TCU would sue. Tech would try to politic their way into another coattail ride like how they got into the Big 12.

Rape U and TCU have no say in what Texas P5 schools do. The Texas lege won't stick their nose out for small private schools over a large public P5 school who resides in west Texas.

Besides, TCU might have a soft landing spot...



...better with Texas, but palatable even without (IMO).

(07-31-2018 09:00 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 08:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 08:48 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  While it is a diabolical plan on the SEC's part and would provide UTX with numerous positive benefits, I just don't see the Longhorn's entry being unconditional. I don't know who the huckleberry will be, but some Texas school will get wind of the SEC's offer and and expend every last ounce of political capital to either prevent the Longhorns from leaving the B12 or more likely, attach themselves like a lamprey to the 'Horns potential move.

Baylor and TCU would sue. Tech would try to politic their way into another coattail ride like how they got into the Big 12.

Rape U and TCU have no say in what Texas P5 schools do. The Texas lege won't stick their nose out for small private schools over a large public P5 school who resides in west Texas.

While I agree from a University system POV, the implications of a B12 collapse (and the Longhorns leaving absolutely kills the conference) would end up mobilizing whatever political connections the private schools have to affect UTX potential decision. Facing a future of SMU/Rice type relevance without the P5 umbrella, there is nothing to lose by suing, colluding and politicking for survival.

History already confirms what will happen.

Baylor tried to stall and sue to keep A&M in the B12. Can you imagine what they'd do if UT tried to leave which would likely collapse the conference?

Tech will try to play politics to save themselves and demand they be taken with UT yet again just like when the B12 formed. Unfortunately for them there's no Bob Bullock or any other high ranking Tech grads in the legislature to save them this time.

In the end UT has multiple albatrosses around its neck (lawsuits, a parasitic little brother and a Network nobody will allow in) which make any move they might want a difficult one

Tech needs to find an elite partner and pitch to the PAC.

(08-01-2018 12:37 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Tech needs to find an elite partner and pitch to the PAC.

The trouble would be finding an elite partner that gave a rip about what happens to Texas Tech.

I don't see anyone other than UT as a potential fit for that criteria.

This isn't 1992 Texas Tech we are talking about. We are a large University with improving academics and better students. Things will only get better when the Vet School and Dental School open in the future. Our future is bright not only in academics but athletics as well.

IRC, Texas Tech was only the Texas school to have the football team play in a bowl, the basketball team made the Elite 8 and the baseball team made the College World Series.

Edit: I've never knew a school the size of Texas Tech and the resources it has could be "a parasitic little brother".

We get that you don't want to admit that UT is your only hope of getting into another Power Conference if the B12 folds. Okie Lite doesn't like admitting that OU is THEIR only hope of getting into a Power Conference if the Big 12 folds. You're both the price for getting teams conferences actually might want just like schools often have to take a 2 Star recruit because he's the brother of a 5 star they really do want. But it's the truth whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Go ahead and apply without UT and prove me wrong!

But hey, don't feel too bad, even OU got rejected by the PAC who told them "not without UT" though IMHO that was a really dumb move by the PAC.

(08-01-2018 02:48 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  We get that you don't want to admit that UT is your only hope of getting into another Power Conference if the B12 folds. Okie Lite doesn't like admitting that OU is THEIR only hope of getting into a Power Conference if the Big 12 folds. You're both the price for getting teams conferences actually might want just like schools often have to take a 2 Star recruit because he's the brother of a 5 star they really do want. But it's the truth whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Go ahead and apply without UT and prove me wrong!

But hey, don't feel too bad, even OU got rejected by the PAC who told them "not without UT" though IMHO that was a really dumb move by the PAC.

The PAC has made a series of dumb moves.

(08-01-2018 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 02:48 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  We get that you don't want to admit that UT is your only hope of getting into another Power Conference if the B12 folds. Okie Lite doesn't like admitting that OU is THEIR only hope of getting into a Power Conference if the Big 12 folds. You're both the price for getting teams conferences actually might want just like schools often have to take a 2 Star recruit because he's the brother of a 5 star they really do want. But it's the truth whether you like it or not. Don't believe me? Go ahead and apply without UT and prove me wrong!

But hey, don't feel too bad, even OU got rejected by the PAC who told them "not without UT" though IMHO that was a really dumb move by the PAC.

The PAC has made a series of dumb moves.

Yes they have and they are paying the price for those dumb decisions. Had they taken OU and Oklahoma St, TV ratings might be better, conference payouts might be better and might have forced UT to make a decision.

I have no desire to play A&M and the feelings are obviously mutual but I would love to see my Red Raiders play in the SEC. Having Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St, Auburn and Alabama in Lubbock would be epic.

Not sure why 10th is so obsessed with Tech?

(08-01-2018 02:04 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  This isn't 1992 Texas Tech we are talking about. We are large University with improving academics, better students. Things will only get better when the Vet School and Dental School open in the future. Our future is bright not only in academics but athletics as well.

IRC, Texas Tech was only the Texas school to have the football team play in a bowl, the basketball team made the Elite 8 and the baseball team made the College World Series.

Edit: I've never knew a school the size of Texas Tech and the resources it has could be "a parasitic little brother".

10th's statement is predicated the TTU's ability to be a conference anchor or to get an invite to another P5 conference by itself. These are two things the Red Raiders can't do IMO and that is mostly a function of geography. It's not an indictment on the schools' academic merit.

Texas Tech three ways forward and with only one of them being an actual choice: Either find a way to be a rider to the Longhorns; Pray the Texas and OU remain committed to the B12; Or hope that conference dissolution hinges upon on placing all members within the new P4 structure.

(08-01-2018 05:08 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  Yes they have and they are paying the price for those dumb decisions. Had they taken OU and Oklahoma St, TV ratings might be better, conference payouts might be better and might have forced UT to make a decision.

I have no desire to play A&M and the feelings are obviously mutual but I would love to see my Red Raiders play in the SEC. Having Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St, Auburn and Alabama in Lubbock would be epic.

Not sure why 10th is so obsessed with Tech?

The PAC might not be getting the money they want, but they seem quite content with the collection of schools that make up their conference. That and the associated academic prestige (perception) is what they value more than cash, which is what can only be inferred by some of the questionable decisions the conference has made in the realignment era.

You're the one pretending we don't all know you're a sock of TodgeRodge here to troll again after your ban. JR can confirm it but YOUR odd obsession with John Sharp and constantly referencing him is what gives away your posting style (seriously, search "John Sharp" on this message board and you only get hits from one other poster before this guy)

Keep it in mind for your next sock.

William have to explain this later, but I don’t see Texas Tech or Texas making it into the SEC, because I see TAMU joining the UGA, UF, etc. pact (no in state P5 competitors allowed).

(08-01-2018 07:17 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  William have to explain this later, but I don’t see Texas Tech or Texas making it into the SEC, because I see TAMU joining the UGA, UF, etc. pact (no in state P5 competitors allowed).

There is no damn pact! There never was. It's all internet B.S. and we've explained it on this board too too many times. Slive asked for a gentlemen's agreement at that meeting of the presidents that requested no one nominate an in state rival for membership until the two new markets required in our renegotiation clause with ESPN were fulfilled. Afterward he said there would be no restrictions on nominations but that we wouldn't take a new member unless they added to our bottom line.

Why did Slive have to do that? Because Florida and South Carolina both wanted to nominate Florida State and Clemson because those are their money games for acquiring donations and because if realignment led to larger conferences both were afraid they might not be able to guarantee that those rivalry games would continue unless they were in conference.

Clay Travis was responsible for spreading the misinterpretation of that action and then internet posters have furthered the lie.

Texas would bring tremendous value and add to the bottom line significantly. Oklahoma adds a great deal as well. And now that the market subscription fee model is out of vogue everything that drives pay moving forward will be content driven and that means large brands with big followings.

If anything this diminishes the value of additions like Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke and increases the value of Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Florida State because holding those schools would give us monopolies over larger areas which means we would control the highest advertising rates to reach those states.

We would essentially have monopoly on viewers of college football in South Carolina, Georgia (even without Tech because UGA controls 85% of the viewers in that state), Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. If we have Texas add that state too. The only state we wouldn't monopolize would be Kentucky. That means nobody advertises in our region on gameday without paying the top rate.

And that works to our advantage for streaming, cable, or any other delivery system out there.

(08-01-2018 05:27 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 05:08 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  Yes they have and they are paying the price for those dumb decisions. Had they taken OU and Oklahoma St, TV ratings might be better, conference payouts might be better and might have forced UT to make a decision.

I have no desire to play A&M and the feelings are obviously mutual but I would love to see my Red Raiders play in the SEC. Having Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St, Auburn and Alabama in Lubbock would be epic.

Not sure why 10th is so obsessed with Tech?

The PAC might not be getting the money they want, but they seem quite content with the collection of schools that make up their conference. That and the associated academic prestige (perception) is what they value more than cash, which is what can only be inferred by some of the questionable decisions the conference has made in the realignment era.

They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.

If it's not the perfect deal then they don't take it. I think their perspective is in part a direct result of their geographic isolation. Perhaps they would do things a little differently if they felt there was a chance of being raided.

(08-01-2018 09:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 05:27 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 05:08 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  Yes they have and they are paying the price for those dumb decisions. Had they taken OU and Oklahoma St, TV ratings might be better, conference payouts might be better and might have forced UT to make a decision.

I have no desire to play A&M and the feelings are obviously mutual but I would love to see my Red Raiders play in the SEC. Having Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St, Auburn and Alabama in Lubbock would be epic.

Not sure why 10th is so obsessed with Tech?

The PAC might not be getting the money they want, but they seem quite content with the collection of schools that make up their conference. That and the associated academic prestige (perception) is what they value more than cash, which is what can only be inferred by some of the questionable decisions the conference has made in the realignment era.

They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.

If it's not the perfect deal then they don't take it. I think their perspective is in part a direct result of their geographic isolation. Perhaps they would do things a little differently if they felt there was a chance of being raided.

Will nobody come out and say it? These are the people who want to secede from the U.S., fight the government on sanctuary cities, backed Ceasar Chavez, and gave us the Summer of Love. They are just plain nuts! And nothing as mundane as manly sports is going to enter into their safety zone and despoil their utopia. And to screw up this badly they all get rewarded so handsomely!

Guys, they're just not like the rest of us and never will be!

(08-01-2018 05:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You're the one pretending we don't all know you're a sock of TodgeRodge here to troll again after your ban. JR can confirm it but YOUR odd obsession with John Sharp and constantly referencing him is what gives away your posting style (seriously, search "John Sharp" on this message board and you only get hits from one other poster before this guy)

Keep it in mind for your next sock.

No clue who Todge is and don't care. I came here in hopes of discussing realignment with adults who graduated from the school they represent. Can you? Did you graduate from A&M?

John Sharp is personally responsible in his efforts to halt Texas Tech's desire to build a Vet School in west Texas. He lost and you need to get over it.

Just think what Texas Tech could do with a portion of the PUF that your older brother in Austin gives A&M. Don't talk about parasites when A&M collects money from west Texas.

Jr can look at the IP addresses and see I post from 2 spots in Austin.

(08-01-2018 09:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 09:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 05:27 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 05:08 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  Yes they have and they are paying the price for those dumb decisions. Had they taken OU and Oklahoma St, TV ratings might be better, conference payouts might be better and might have forced UT to make a decision.

I have no desire to play A&M and the feelings are obviously mutual but I would love to see my Red Raiders play in the SEC. Having Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St, Auburn and Alabama in Lubbock would be epic.

Not sure why 10th is so obsessed with Tech?

The PAC might not be getting the money they want, but they seem quite content with the collection of schools that make up their conference. That and the associated academic prestige (perception) is what they value more than cash, which is what can only be inferred by some of the questionable decisions the conference has made in the realignment era.

They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.

If it's not the perfect deal then they don't take it. I think their perspective is in part a direct result of their geographic isolation. Perhaps they would do things a little differently if they felt there was a chance of being raided.

Will nobody come out and say it? These are the people who want to secede from the U.S., fight the government on sanctuary cities, backed Ceasar Chavez, and gave us the Summer of Love. They are just plain nuts! And nothing as mundane as manly sports is going to enter into their safety zone and despoil their utopia. And to screw up this badly they all get rewarded so handsomely!

Guys, they're just not like the rest of us and never will be!

Texas Tech is republican in so many ways and fits the southern lifestyle.

(08-01-2018 09:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 09:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 05:27 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 05:08 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  Yes they have and they are paying the price for those dumb decisions. Had they taken OU and Oklahoma St, TV ratings might be better, conference payouts might be better and might have forced UT to make a decision.

I have no desire to play A&M and the feelings are obviously mutual but I would love to see my Red Raiders play in the SEC. Having Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St, Auburn and Alabama in Lubbock would be epic.

Not sure why 10th is so obsessed with Tech?

The PAC might not be getting the money they want, but they seem quite content with the collection of schools that make up their conference. That and the associated academic prestige (perception) is what they value more than cash, which is what can only be inferred by some of the questionable decisions the conference has made in the realignment era.

They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.

If it's not the perfect deal then they don't take it. I think their perspective is in part a direct result of their geographic isolation. Perhaps they would do things a little differently if they felt there was a chance of being raided.

Will nobody come out and say it? These are the people who want to secede from the U.S., fight the government on sanctuary cities, backed Ceasar Chavez, and gave us the Summer of Love. They are just plain nuts! And nothing as mundane as manly sports is going to enter into their safety zone and despoil their utopia. And to screw up this badly they all get rewarded so handsomely!

Guys, they're just not like the rest of us and never will be!

Well, I thought about saying these are same type of people who run the state of California. It doesn't matter how many times it blows up in their face, they don't learn from mistakes.

You know what I really want to see though? A straw manufacturer come forth and offer a sponsorship deal...

(08-01-2018 09:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 09:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 09:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 05:27 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 05:08 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  Yes they have and they are paying the price for those dumb decisions. Had they taken OU and Oklahoma St, TV ratings might be better, conference payouts might be better and might have forced UT to make a decision.

I have no desire to play A&M and the feelings are obviously mutual but I would love to see my Red Raiders play in the SEC. Having Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St, Auburn and Alabama in Lubbock would be epic.

Not sure why 10th is so obsessed with Tech?

The PAC might not be getting the money they want, but they seem quite content with the collection of schools that make up their conference. That and the associated academic prestige (perception) is what they value more than cash, which is what can only be inferred by some of the questionable decisions the conference has made in the realignment era.

They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.

If it's not the perfect deal then they don't take it. I think their perspective is in part a direct result of their geographic isolation. Perhaps they would do things a little differently if they felt there was a chance of being raided.

Will nobody come out and say it? These are the people who want to secede from the U.S., fight the government on sanctuary cities, backed Ceasar Chavez, and gave us the Summer of Love. They are just plain nuts! And nothing as mundane as manly sports is going to enter into their safety zone and despoil their utopia. And to screw up this badly they all get rewarded so handsomely!

Guys, they're just not like the rest of us and never will be!

Well, I thought about saying these are same type of people who run the state of California. It doesn't matter how many times it blows up in their face, they don't learn from mistakes.

You know what I really want to see though? A straw manufacturer come forth and offer a sponsorship deal...

The PAC is the 4th best paid conference and if the ACCN is moderately successful they will be the 5th. On any given year they are either next to last or last in viewership. Their attendance is only 1000 average out of last place. Their vision of their conference doesn't include other large state schools with differing political views or Stanford would have said yes to Texas.

They don't even like the Big 10's more moderate liberalism (and then that is certainly not representative of all Big 10 schools as some are moderately conservative).

The PAC is the cheese that stands alone and I don't think that will change. It won't change for money. It won't change for sports. And it won't change for the networks' help, at least not yet.

So if the Big 12 decides to not resign the GOR those schools are likely headed to the Big 10, the SEC, and perhaps even the ACC. Why? The PAC doesn't pay enough, they won't jibe with Texas, Oklahoma is far too red, and they won't touch the little brothers.

if you know of something that would make me think about that assessment then I'm all ears.

It's going to boil down to this. If the Big 12 truly values one another they'll resign the GOR. If just a couple of them only care about themselves then by 2023-4 they will already have their bags packed for their new destinations. If their state legislatures care about the other State schools involved it will affect where it is the larger schools can go. If so, then maybe 4 to 6 of them find homes, maybe. If not it could be as few as 2.