(07-18-2013 02:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If this theory is true, I need to drive down to L.A. and flirt with Kaley Cuoco.

She just broke up with Superman.

(07-18-2013 02:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 02:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If this theory is true, I need to drive down to L.A. and flirt with Kaley Cuoco.

She just broke up with Superman.

They broke up already? Sweet. I'll leave in a few minutes.

(07-18-2013 02:05 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 08:21 AM)BaylorGuy314 Wrote:  The Big 12 did not flirt with TCU in 1996.

This!

They got dumped like a bad habit like the rest of us.

The difference is they manned up and fought their way back first.

I greatly admire TCU for how they responded.

Most intercollegiate leadership, especially noticeable in sports thinks 1 to 5 years at a time and presumes that only marginal changes to the status quo can take place.

They were like the voiceover for the Six Million Dollar Man, we can build it better than before.

They won more games from 2000 to 2012 than they did from 1967 to 1999.

(07-18-2013 02:03 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 10:39 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  SEC - flirted with Rice in 1990...

LOL..... That was UH (and A&M). Forgot the specific names but it was a combo of SEC officials and coaches angling for A&M in the early 90's and "considering" us as a partner for the Aggies.

The real play was for A&M by far. I won't try and spin it as we (UH) were the main focus of that expansion talk, and for the record I don't think you were going there either.

Loki is hoping some SEC official reads this and gets the idea planted in his head. And maybe in 2033, Rice gets invited to the SEC.

(07-17-2013 11:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 11:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 09:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  pac- flirted with cu in 1996
acc- flirted with syracuse in 2005
sec- flirted with aggie in 2010
b12- flirted with tcu in 1996

it sure seems like schools that a conference didnt add but almost did seems to be like planting a seed that sticks around. im wondering if these events mean that a conference already has its next expansion option in mind or if they do in fact have the "what if" thinking when they dont like where a particular conference realignment move went.

and im not saying it works one way (aggie is a perfect example of a school showing regret)

A&M and Texas first talked with the SEC in 1992, emphasis on "talked".

There were rumors around that time that Texas and Texas Tech would go to the Pac 10 and Texas A&M and Houston would go to the SEC.

What was the story on the PAC angle Bullet? I was familiar with the SEC interest in the Horns and Aggies but never heard anything pertaining to the Cougars. I would be interested to hear the story on that.

VT was added to the ACC in 2003, because Duke and UNC wanted to right a wrong that was done to VT in 1953. Duke and UNC could have blocked VT by letting UVa off the hook on the vote, instead UNC and Duke made UVa vote for VT on a motion that included VT and Miami at the same time.

VT was blackballed from the ACC in 1953 over the bowl ban - UNC tried to get them in the new conference but their voted died 4-4. West Va which had just been added to the Southern Confernece in 1950, was the swing vote on the bowl ban and when UNC made a motion to include WVa it died for lack of a second.

The ACC could have added Florida in the 1970's but MD was against the idea. MD was also against adding Penn State in the 1980's and against FSU in 1991. Anyone see a pattern?

I'm curious how many of these "flirtations" are truly accurate and not just speculation.

(07-18-2013 03:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 11:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 11:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 09:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  pac- flirted with cu in 1996
acc- flirted with syracuse in 2005
sec- flirted with aggie in 2010
b12- flirted with tcu in 1996

it sure seems like schools that a conference didnt add but almost did seems to be like planting a seed that sticks around. im wondering if these events mean that a conference already has its next expansion option in mind or if they do in fact have the "what if" thinking when they dont like where a particular conference realignment move went.

and im not saying it works one way (aggie is a perfect example of a school showing regret)

A&M and Texas first talked with the SEC in 1992, emphasis on "talked".

There were rumors around that time that Texas and Texas Tech would go to the Pac 10 and Texas A&M and Houston would go to the SEC.

What was the story on the PAC angle Bullet? I was familiar with the SEC interest in the Horns and Aggies but never heard anything pertaining to the Cougars. I would be interested to hear the story on that.

VT was added to the ACC in 2003, because Duke and UNC wanted to right a wrong that was done to VT in 1953. Duke and UNC could have blocked VT by letting UVa off the hook on the vote, instead UNC and Duke made UVa vote for VT on a motion that included VT and Miami at the same time.

VT was blackballed from the ACC in 1953 over the bowl ban - UNC tried to get them in the new conference but their voted died 4-4. West Va which had just been added to the Southern Confernece in 1950, was the swing vote on the bowl ban and when UNC made a motion to include WVa it died for lack of a second.

The ACC could have added Florida in the 1970's but MD was against the idea. MD was also against adding Penn State in the 1980's and against FSU in 1991. Anyone see a pattern?

Really?

The story at the time was that they went into the meeting expecting the expansion vote for Miami, BC, Syracuse to pass 8-2 with UNC and Duke being the no votes. Virginia then announced the governor had put the squeeze on and they could not cast a yes vote on expansion unless it was for Va Tech which make the vote fail 7-3. The ACC then agreed to add Miami and VaTech on an 8-2 vote with neither Syracuse or BC getting the needed 8 at that meeting.

(07-18-2013 03:16 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  I'm curious how many of these "flirtations" are truly accurate and not just speculation.

these are all documented. including the texas to pac10/aggie/uh to sec

fsu to b12 was pure speculation

(07-18-2013 03:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 03:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 11:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 11:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A&M and Texas first talked with the SEC in 1992, emphasis on "talked".

There were rumors around that time that Texas and Texas Tech would go to the Pac 10 and Texas A&M and Houston would go to the SEC.

What was the story on the PAC angle Bullet? I was familiar with the SEC interest in the Horns and Aggies but never heard anything pertaining to the Cougars. I would be interested to hear the story on that.

VT was added to the ACC in 2003, because Duke and UNC wanted to right a wrong that was done to VT in 1953. Duke and UNC could have blocked VT by letting UVa off the hook on the vote, instead UNC and Duke made UVa vote for VT on a motion that included VT and Miami at the same time.

VT was blackballed from the ACC in 1953 over the bowl ban - UNC tried to get them in the new conference but their voted died 4-4. West Va which had just been added to the Southern Confernece in 1950, was the swing vote on the bowl ban and when UNC made a motion to include WVa it died for lack of a second.

The ACC could have added Florida in the 1970's but MD was against the idea. MD was also against adding Penn State in the 1980's and against FSU in 1991. Anyone see a pattern?

Really?

The story at the time was that they went into the meeting expecting the expansion vote for Miami, BC, Syracuse to pass 8-2 with UNC and Duke being the no votes. Virginia then announced the governor had put the squeeze on and they could not cast a yes vote on expansion unless it was for Va Tech which make the vote fail 7-3. The ACC then agreed to add Miami and VaTech on an 8-2 vote with neither Syracuse or BC getting the needed 8 at that meeting.

yeah thats how i heard it as well

(07-18-2013 04:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 03:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 03:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 11:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 11:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  There were rumors around that time that Texas and Texas Tech would go to the Pac 10 and Texas A&M and Houston would go to the SEC.

What was the story on the PAC angle Bullet? I was familiar with the SEC interest in the Horns and Aggies but never heard anything pertaining to the Cougars. I would be interested to hear the story on that.

VT was added to the ACC in 2003, because Duke and UNC wanted to right a wrong that was done to VT in 1953. Duke and UNC could have blocked VT by letting UVa off the hook on the vote, instead UNC and Duke made UVa vote for VT on a motion that included VT and Miami at the same time.

VT was blackballed from the ACC in 1953 over the bowl ban - UNC tried to get them in the new conference but their voted died 4-4. West Va which had just been added to the Southern Confernece in 1950, was the swing vote on the bowl ban and when UNC made a motion to include WVa it died for lack of a second.

The ACC could have added Florida in the 1970's but MD was against the idea. MD was also against adding Penn State in the 1980's and against FSU in 1991. Anyone see a pattern?

Really?

The story at the time was that they went into the meeting expecting the expansion vote for Miami, BC, Syracuse to pass 8-2 with UNC and Duke being the no votes. Virginia then announced the governor had put the squeeze on and they could not cast a yes vote on expansion unless it was for Va Tech which make the vote fail 7-3. The ACC then agreed to add Miami and VaTech on an 8-2 vote with neither Syracuse or BC getting the needed 8 at that meeting.

yeah thats how i heard it as well

I think you are missing the points. 1. Duke and UNC knew exactly what was happening in Blacksburg, Charlottesville, and Richmond none of that was a suprise - it was all known in the conference and covered in the media.
2. Duke and UNC both knew that unless one of them voted in favor of the Miami, Syracuse, BC combination, that VT would get into the league because UVa was being held to the fire by Va Governor and General Assembly.
3. This is how Duke and UNC helped orchestrate VT into the ACC instead of Syracuse. Duke did not want Syracuse at the time. UVa was made to look like the culprit, when the decision rested in Durham and Chapel Hill.
4. One of the reasons Duke and UNC wanted VT back with the group was to help fill seats in their football stadiums.

I think it is more likely that Duke and UNC felt it was to their advantage to continue to receive 1/9th of the tickets to the ACC Tournament rather than 1/12th causing a number of their donors to no longer feel compelled to donate at a high level in order to maintain access to ACC Tournament tickets since they could no longer afford the level of donation required to get tickets.

The ACC began flirting with Syracuse all the way back in '91 when they added Florida State.

(07-18-2013 06:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Good thread. I think it's more that the factors that led to discussions in the first round lead to a move in the second round.

In 2003, Syracuse was the strongest available football/basketball school in the Northeast, who claimed penetration in New York City. 2011, same story.

Not as familiar with the Colorado story, but all the factors that led the PAC to talk to Colorado in 1996 were factors that made Colorado an attractive #11 in 2012. (Not sure who the #12 would have been in 1996.)

College football means nothing to NYC. The NFL is 100x stronger. The only college sports teams that move the needle in NYC are UConn & Syracuse BB.

So texas and OU to the pac 12 in what year?

(07-19-2013 08:33 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 06:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Good thread. I think it's more that the factors that led to discussions in the first round lead to a move in the second round.

In 2003, Syracuse was the strongest available football/basketball school in the Northeast, who claimed penetration in New York City. 2011, same story.

Not as familiar with the Colorado story, but all the factors that led the PAC to talk to Colorado in 1996 were factors that made Colorado an attractive #11 in 2012. (Not sure who the #12 would have been in 1996.)

College football means nothing to NYC. The NFL is 100x stronger. The only college sports teams that move the needle in NYC are UConn & Syracuse BB.

Doesn't stop Syracuse or Rutgers from making the claim.

While they have some support neither UConn or Syracuse are nyc's team.most people not associated with these schools don't care about them. Unless of course it involves some national story like a championship game.

(07-19-2013 08:33 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 06:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Good thread. I think it's more that the factors that led to discussions in the first round lead to a move in the second round.

In 2003, Syracuse was the strongest available football/basketball school in the Northeast, who claimed penetration in New York City. 2011, same story.

Not as familiar with the Colorado story, but all the factors that led the PAC to talk to Colorado in 1996 were factors that made Colorado an attractive #11 in 2012. (Not sure who the #12 would have been in 1996.)

College football means nothing to NYC. The NFL is 100x stronger. The only college sports teams that move the needle in NYC are UConn & Syracuse BB.

In the 5 boroughs maybe. In NJ, Rutgers "moves the needle". If NJ were its own market it'd be the 4th largest DMA in the nation. Not a bad place to be starting to grow the interest in the brands of Rutgers Athletics and yes the Big Ten.

(07-19-2013 09:02 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  While they have some support neither UConn or Syracuse are nyc's team.most people not associated with these schools don't care about them. Unless of course it involves some national story like a championship game.

while its hard to deny that those schools dont have a good stamp on that region. the only way a conference can claim part of that region is by having multiple teams with large fanbases in that area. both the acc & the b10 can say that

b10
rutgers
psu

acc
syracuse
notre dame

(07-17-2013 11:00 PM)TerryD Wrote:  The Big Ten flirted with ND in 1999, 2003 and 2010.

That hasn't worked out so well for that conference regarding that school since then.

I'd characterize the B1G's obsession with bagging ND as stalking rather than flirting.

how much does regret play a factor in conference realignment?

None, Nada, Not at all, Not one bit.