Quote: Texas wouldn't cancel the Red River Rivalry like we did the Aggie game because OU is our real rival.

With the above statement you imply Texas fans have already lost games we care about. I assume you are referring to the Aggie game but we don't really care about that game or Aggies in general.

We look at the Aggies like they look at Tech and Baylor so most could care less that we will never play an Aggie team again that we dominated for 100 years.

We would all go nuts if the Red River Rivalry were to ever go away though. That is "the game" as far as I am concerned.

The Lady doth protest too much

(03-23-2012 07:08 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Every expansion move has been discussed in great detail in one blog or another, long before their move. The trick is winnowing out the chaff. A lot of that is done on message boards, like this one...

Of course it does... EVERY possible situation is thrown out, so ONE has to be right, doesn't mean they knew anything. These bloggers/columnist post stuff near daily, and they get it right once in awhile... look back at this Conference Realignment board to all the WRONG posts on such comments. Until their blogs or tweets actually make it into legitimate articles they write for a publication, all they are doing is trying to stir mud and look for information - that's how you start investigative reporting these days.

(03-23-2012 04:08 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 04:01 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 03:54 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  Red, you said UH draws well no matter the opponent and I proved that theory wrong. UH does well when they are undefeated with a Heisman hyped QB(2011) or they play a big Texas school( Tech in 2009).

"Well" is relative and depends on which network the game is shown on. If you can't understand that, then I can't help you.

You need to take the red colored glasses off and look at this realistically. UH drew 4.7 for the 2009 C-USA championship with East Carlina. UH drew 7.9 against Tech, a big Texas school on the same network. Houston residents tuned into see a possible BCS buster against Southern Miss in 2011. The rankings are what they are and they prove that Houston residents will watch UH when they are undefeated or play a big Texas school. Simple as that.

lol at all your post. And that's all I have to say about that.

I'm sure that by "Louisville" Tramel actually meant Notre Dame or Florida State or Clemson. He always seems to make that mistake. Hopefully Greg Swaim and "The Dude" can straighten him out.

(03-23-2012 09:43 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 07:08 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Every expansion move has been discussed in great detail in one blog or another, long before their move. The trick is winnowing out the chaff. A lot of that is done on message boards, like this one...

Of course it does... EVERY possible situation is thrown out, so ONE has to be right, doesn't mean they knew anything.

If the blogger posts the correct situation long before the fact, it could very well mean he knows everything too. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean there isn't any truth to it...

The WVU blogger from EER INSIDER that first predicted the Big XII move was exactly right, and it turns out he had some primo inside info, since that move was totally unexpected. Prior to that, any move involving WVU was expected to be to the ACC or SEC. But nobody believed him for a couple of weeks, because his was a new, obscure WVU blog. It was only after his info turned out to be correct that anyone really believed...

(03-23-2012 03:29 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 02:10 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 11:52 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  The home run options are gone. But another mouth to feed makes expansion more likely? Huh?

Regardless of the availability of home run options, additional inventory and the reestablishment of a CCG do add value. Look for instance at the P12's addition of CU and UU. Neither is a home run on its face, but bringing them in clearly helped the P12 get its massive TV deal. I obviously don't know how the math comes out for the B12, but it is clearly worth conferring with the TV partners on some scenarios to see whether bringing in two more schools would increase the revenue per school for the existing schools.

Umm....it had more to do with Utah and Colorado being huge markets and the Pac-10 was underpaid as it was. The Pac-12 has USC and even though people love to hate USC they are up there in the class with Notre Dame, Texas, and Alabama. If USC is a top ten team and it's on TV, the chances are everyone will watch.

I love watching USC play through the season and during the bowl season. I especially love watching them beating ND.

Enter Terry D..............

(03-23-2012 03:34 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 02:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 02:08 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Big 12 "South"
Texas (OU)
Tech (Ok State)
TCU (Houston)
Baylor (Iowa St)
WVa (Kansas St)
Louisville (Kansas)

Big 12 "North"
OU (Texas)
Ok State (Texas Tech)
Kansas (Louisville)
Kansas St (West Va)
Houston (TCU)
Iowa St (Baylor)

Not a bad proposal but it has an interesting side affect. What would that do to Big East expansion. If Houston backs out do any others? If any others back out then do any others back out because of the other or others that backed out due to Houston? Perhaps that is complicated, let me draw a scenario.

The key is Boise. If the Big East loses Houston and Louisville, then Boise State might well back out and join the Alliance because it's Western Division has gone to crap. If they do, so will SDSU. The Big East football would be stuck looking like this (until the ACC comes for UConn and/or Rutgers):

UConn
Rutgers
Cincy
USF
UCF
Memphis
Temple
SMU
Navy

Bye bye any chance at a BCS bowl tie.

Houston is not backing out. Neither are the other schools. L'ville maybe the next one plucked if / when the B-12 expands again. Question is who enters the B-12 with them. First choice is probably BYU. After that who knows even Rutgers has been rumored to be on that list along with Cinn at times. With the new TV contract the B-12 has plenty of time to see how the next BCS contract shakes out before making another move. The next move won't be a rushed move where the B-12 will be involved in potential lawsuits either like the WV move. The team that is taken will have plenty of time to play out their contractual obligations or plenty of time to negotiate an early leave without the threat of lawsuits involved.

(03-24-2012 08:44 AM)panite Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 03:34 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 02:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 02:08 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Big 12 "South"
Texas (OU)
Tech (Ok State)
TCU (Houston)
Baylor (Iowa St)
WVa (Kansas St)
Louisville (Kansas)

Big 12 "North"
OU (Texas)
Ok State (Texas Tech)
Kansas (Louisville)
Kansas St (West Va)
Houston (TCU)
Iowa St (Baylor)

Not a bad proposal but it has an interesting side affect. What would that do to Big East expansion. If Houston backs out do any others? If any others back out then do any others back out because of the other or others that backed out due to Houston? Perhaps that is complicated, let me draw a scenario.

The key is Boise. If the Big East loses Houston and Louisville, then Boise State might well back out and join the Alliance because it's Western Division has gone to crap. If they do, so will SDSU. The Big East football would be stuck looking like this (until the ACC comes for UConn and/or Rutgers):

UConn
Rutgers
Cincy
USF
UCF
Memphis
Temple
SMU
Navy

Bye bye any chance at a BCS bowl tie.

Houston is not backing out. Neither are the other schools. L'ville maybe the next one plucked if / when the B-12 expands again. Question is who enters the B-12 with them. First choice is probably BYU. After that who knows even Rutgers has been rumored to be on that list along with Cinn at times. With the new TV contract the B-12 has plenty of time to see how the next BCS contract shakes out before making another move. The next move won't be a rushed move where the B-12 will be involved in potential lawsuits either like the WV move. The team that is taken will have plenty of time to play out their contractual obligations or plenty of time to negotiate an early leave without the threat of lawsuits involved.

My preference has always been the Big East over the XII for a number of reasons and here hoping Houston remains commited to the Big East for a long long time. That said, with so much $$$ been thrown around anything or everything is possible even Houston to the Big12. JMO

(03-24-2012 07:26 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If the blogger posts the correct situation long before the fact, it could very well mean he knows everything too. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean there isn't any truth to it...

Most of the bloggers quoted are media though, and if it were truth and they could source it, it'd make their papers - and it doesn't - and 95% of the junk thrown around on here is people's pipe dreams and having a team right and the rest of the situation wrong, doesn't make a blog right.

I agree that 95% or better is BS. But there's always that small percentage that isn't, and over time the roster of that % changes...

(03-23-2012 11:50 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(03-23-2012 11:45 AM)ringmaster Wrote:  http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2012/...um=twitter

"As we’ve said repeatedly, the home run options for the Big 12 are gone. If the Big 12 wants to expand — for financial reasons, or geographic reasons, or political reasons — then Louisville clearly is the No. 1 option.

I’ve been told by some that the new Big 12 contract with ABC, which extends through 2025, makes expansion more likely, not less likely. I haven’t confirmed that, so who knows. But at a minimum, some in the Big 12 still prefer expansion, and Louisville clearly is next on the list."

I predict this thread to 8 pages by tonight.

About time guys!