(06-30-2015 05:51 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:37 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:13 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Houston is a no go. They already said no more Texas schools. The top 4 choices are Cincinnati, East Carolina, Memphis and UCF. Northern Illinois, Colorado State, USF and North Dakota State are ahead of Houston in the pecking order.

And David Boren's mouthpiece just said Houston tops the list.

That doesn't mean anything ON the list is good enough. That just means that Houston and Cincy are on top of that list. Wordplay.

Something else for you to learn, mouthpieces say anything their masters tell them to. That doesn't always mean it's the truth and as I just said, that doesn't mean what they say means what you want it to mean.

If everyone is getting turned down, shouldn't Houston be the closest one making it? If they only had a partner that made $ense!

Personally, I think Houston makes the most sense for the PAC or the SEC IF they were to get an invite. Look at what TCU's invite has done for them. They were already on the rise but big 12 membership gave them rocket boosters for that rise. Look at Houston now, their recruiting is getting stronger. If they got into the big 12, well I cant see either Texas or Oklahoma going for that.

Houston also presents a problem in regards to solving their division problem. Are you going to stick Houston in with the North? Are you going to ask Oklahoma State to go North? Houston causes more problems than they solve. The problem that they do solve, pretty much anyone on the list solves.

If it is true and Houston is the top choice for the Big 12, then Texas must be leaving, and that will be bad news for the Big 12. I don't think the Big 12 will add anyone. I think Houston might be on Boren's list, but that doesn't equate to being the top choice of the Big 12.

(06-30-2015 06:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:51 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:37 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:13 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Houston is a no go. They already said no more Texas schools. The top 4 choices are Cincinnati, East Carolina, Memphis and UCF. Northern Illinois, Colorado State, USF and North Dakota State are ahead of Houston in the pecking order.

And David Boren's mouthpiece just said Houston tops the list.

That doesn't mean anything ON the list is good enough. That just means that Houston and Cincy are on top of that list. Wordplay.

Something else for you to learn, mouthpieces say anything their masters tell them to. That doesn't always mean it's the truth and as I just said, that doesn't mean what they say means what you want it to mean.

If everyone is getting turned down, shouldn't Houston be the closest one making it? If they only had a partner that made $ense!

Personally, I think Houston makes the most sense for the PAC or the SEC IF they were to get an invite.

Houston isn't getting a SEC invite.

That said, they make a lot of sense for the PAC which needs a presence in Texas.

(06-30-2015 05:47 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Houston seems like an odd choice at first blush. However, I could see them being Texas's choice. In exchange for the league going to 12 teams, they get a little more control of the league but placate everyone else by adding two more schools.

IF Houston is their choice too, I believe is due to the sec circling the city of Houston comfortably and the big12 isn't taking it so well. Jmo

I don't think the PAC would take Houston, unless it was with Texas, OU, and either Texas Tech or OSU.

(06-30-2015 05:35 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 04:56 PM)Okielite Wrote:  Sounds like a realistic choice. At some point you have to think they said look we simply can't take on a directional school, a west coast bible school, or UConn. We need to focus on the schools willing to compete at this level that make some geographic sense. Schools who spend p-5 money on coaches. Schools who are upgrading facilities. Cinci is an obvious choice. Houston is a little rough around the edges but has many things going for it including existing Big 12 fans in the area to help attendance. If that's how it works out the real question is how do we do divisions or do we do away with that and have a couple of permanent games and rotate the rest so the top 2 can meet in a CCG.

Does it get any more directional than a school named after a city?

UCLA, Syracuse and Boston College all agree!

https://soundcloud.com/siriusxmcollege/c...een-1-year

TCU's AD Chris Del-Conte says to chill on expansion. Not happening

(06-30-2015 06:37 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:35 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 04:56 PM)Okielite Wrote:  Sounds like a realistic choice. At some point you have to think they said look we simply can't take on a directional school, a west coast bible school, or UConn. We need to focus on the schools willing to compete at this level that make some geographic sense. Schools who spend p-5 money on coaches. Schools who are upgrading facilities. Cinci is an obvious choice. Houston is a little rough around the edges but has many things going for it including existing Big 12 fans in the area to help attendance. If that's how it works out the real question is how do we do divisions or do we do away with that and have a couple of permanent games and rotate the rest so the top 2 can meet in a CCG.

Does it get any more directional than a school named after a city?

UCLA, Syracuse and Boston College all agree!

You do realize that Cuse and BC are the butt of many football jokes don't you?

(06-30-2015 06:43 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:37 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:35 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 04:56 PM)Okielite Wrote:  Sounds like a realistic choice. At some point you have to think they said look we simply can't take on a directional school, a west coast bible school, or UConn. We need to focus on the schools willing to compete at this level that make some geographic sense. Schools who spend p-5 money on coaches. Schools who are upgrading facilities. Cinci is an obvious choice. Houston is a little rough around the edges but has many things going for it including existing Big 12 fans in the area to help attendance. If that's how it works out the real question is how do we do divisions or do we do away with that and have a couple of permanent games and rotate the rest so the top 2 can meet in a CCG.

Does it get any more directional than a school named after a city?

UCLA, Syracuse and Boston College all agree!

You do realize that Cuse and BC are the butt of many football jokes don't you?

Sorry I forgot Football started in 2014

Those three schools all have something called Tradition...kinda carries a bit of weight around the P5.

Houston has a ton of tradition too, along with Cincy...the comment was ridiculous by the original commenter.

Houston was kicking ass in FB before UCF was even chartered...Cincy plays in a stadium built back in the early 20th century...not some slapped together erector set.

Hell maybe the best QB ever played at Louisville and the best RB ever played at Syracuse.

(06-30-2015 06:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:51 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:37 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:13 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Houston is a no go. They already said no more Texas schools. The top 4 choices are Cincinnati, East Carolina, Memphis and UCF. Northern Illinois, Colorado State, USF and North Dakota State are ahead of Houston in the pecking order.

And David Boren's mouthpiece just said Houston tops the list.

That doesn't mean anything ON the list is good enough. That just means that Houston and Cincy are on top of that list. Wordplay.

Something else for you to learn, mouthpieces say anything their masters tell them to. That doesn't always mean it's the truth and as I just said, that doesn't mean what they say means what you want it to mean.

If everyone is getting turned down, shouldn't Houston be the closest one making it? If they only had a partner that made $ense!

Personally, I think Houston makes the most sense for the PAC or the SEC IF they were to get an invite. Look at what TCU's invite has done for them. They were already on the rise but big 12 membership gave them rocket boosters for that rise. Look at Houston now, their recruiting is getting stronger. If they got into the big 12, well I cant see either Texas or Oklahoma going for that.

Houston also presents a problem in regards to solving their division problem. Are you going to stick Houston in with the North? Are you going to ask Oklahoma State to go North? Houston causes more problems than they solve. The problem that they do solve, pretty much anyone on the list solves.

(06-30-2015 06:23 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I don't think the PAC would take Houston, unless it was with Texas, OU, and either Texas Tech or OSU.

Tech, OU and OSU will leave in the near future. Does UT want to play footsie in SWC 2.0 or move on to bigger and better conferences?

I have no problem with UH joining us in the PAC or SEC if UT dreams of keeping the LHN.

(06-30-2015 06:43 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:37 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:35 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 04:56 PM)Okielite Wrote:  Sounds like a realistic choice. At some point you have to think they said look we simply can't take on a directional school, a west coast bible school, or UConn. We need to focus on the schools willing to compete at this level that make some geographic sense. Schools who spend p-5 money on coaches. Schools who are upgrading facilities. Cinci is an obvious choice. Houston is a little rough around the edges but has many things going for it including existing Big 12 fans in the area to help attendance. If that's how it works out the real question is how do we do divisions or do we do away with that and have a couple of permanent games and rotate the rest so the top 2 can meet in a CCG.

Does it get any more directional than a school named after a city?

UCLA, Syracuse and Boston College all agree!

You do realize that Cuse and BC are the butt of many football jokes don't you?

Once you mention a "city name" it becomes a destination, not a direction.

(06-30-2015 06:48 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:43 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:37 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:35 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 04:56 PM)Okielite Wrote:  Sounds like a realistic choice. At some point you have to think they said look we simply can't take on a directional school, a west coast bible school, or UConn. We need to focus on the schools willing to compete at this level that make some geographic sense. Schools who spend p-5 money on coaches. Schools who are upgrading facilities. Cinci is an obvious choice. Houston is a little rough around the edges but has many things going for it including existing Big 12 fans in the area to help attendance. If that's how it works out the real question is how do we do divisions or do we do away with that and have a couple of permanent games and rotate the rest so the top 2 can meet in a CCG.

Does it get any more directional than a school named after a city?

UCLA, Syracuse and Boston College all agree!

You do realize that Cuse and BC are the butt of many football jokes don't you?

Once you mention a "city name" it becomes a destination, not a direction.

Too me "directional" is a state of mind...I know it when I see it.

(06-30-2015 06:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:51 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:37 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:13 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Houston is a no go. They already said no more Texas schools. The top 4 choices are Cincinnati, East Carolina, Memphis and UCF. Northern Illinois, Colorado State, USF and North Dakota State are ahead of Houston in the pecking order.

And David Boren's mouthpiece just said Houston tops the list.

That doesn't mean anything ON the list is good enough. That just means that Houston and Cincy are on top of that list. Wordplay.

Something else for you to learn, mouthpieces say anything their masters tell them to. That doesn't always mean it's the truth and as I just said, that doesn't mean what they say means what you want it to mean.

If everyone is getting turned down, shouldn't Houston be the closest one making it? If they only had a partner that made $ense!

Personally, I think Houston makes the most sense for the PAC or the SEC IF they were to get an invite. Look at what TCU's invite has done for them. They were already on the rise but big 12 membership gave them rocket boosters for that rise. Look at Houston now, their recruiting is getting stronger. If they got into the big 12, well I cant see either Texas or Oklahoma going for that.

Houston also presents a problem in regards to solving their division problem. Are you going to stick Houston in with the North? Are you going to ask Oklahoma State to go North? Houston causes more problems than they solve. The problem that they do solve, pretty much anyone on the list solves.

Pretty certain we will go wherever they want us to. I could easily see us in the North division (Kansas, Kansas St etc) would be just fine with regular trips to the rich Houston recruiting grounds.

(06-30-2015 06:47 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:51 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:37 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  And David Boren's mouthpiece just said Houston tops the list.

That doesn't mean anything ON the list is good enough. That just means that Houston and Cincy are on top of that list. Wordplay.

Something else for you to learn, mouthpieces say anything their masters tell them to. That doesn't always mean it's the truth and as I just said, that doesn't mean what they say means what you want it to mean.

If everyone is getting turned down, shouldn't Houston be the closest one making it? If they only had a partner that made $ense!

Personally, I think Houston makes the most sense for the PAC or the SEC IF they were to get an invite. Look at what TCU's invite has done for them. They were already on the rise but big 12 membership gave them rocket boosters for that rise. Look at Houston now, their recruiting is getting stronger. If they got into the big 12, well I cant see either Texas or Oklahoma going for that.

Houston also presents a problem in regards to solving their division problem. Are you going to stick Houston in with the North? Are you going to ask Oklahoma State to go North? Houston causes more problems than they solve. The problem that they do solve, pretty much anyone on the list solves.

I shall clarify for the peanuts gallery. Houston makes more sense for the PAC and the SEC than it does for the big 12. That is not me saying that Houston should receive an invite from them, but Houston is more of a problem for the big 12 than a solution.

Looking at it again though, Houston is a better solution for the ACC than it is for the SEC which is already nearby with A&M. The point is that Houston causes more problems for the big 12 than it solves.

(06-30-2015 06:19 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  If it is true and Houston is the top choice for the Big 12, then Texas must be leaving, and that will be bad news for the Big 12. I don't think the Big 12 will add anyone. I think Houston might be on Boren's list, but that doesn't equate to being the top choice of the Big 12.

Jeez. The reality is nobody is leaving the Big-12 for awhile due to the GOR. That said, IF Texas leaves, it wont be because Houston joined conference (assuming that even happens). Its pretty clear there have been issues brewing in the Big-12 for some time and Texas has been toying with various exit strategies for years.

(06-30-2015 06:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:51 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:37 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  And David Boren's mouthpiece just said Houston tops the list.

That doesn't mean anything ON the list is good enough. That just means that Houston and Cincy are on top of that list. Wordplay.

Something else for you to learn, mouthpieces say anything their masters tell them to. That doesn't always mean it's the truth and as I just said, that doesn't mean what they say means what you want it to mean.

If everyone is getting turned down, shouldn't Houston be the closest one making it? If they only had a partner that made $ense!

Personally, I think Houston makes the most sense for the PAC or the SEC IF they were to get an invite.

Houston isn't getting a SEC invite.

That said, they make a lot of sense for the PAC which needs a presence in Texas.

Yeah, I amended my comment. I was thinking more along the lines of why Houston is more of a problem for the big 12 than a solution. Houston is a better solution for the ACC than it is for the SEC. That whole...A&M membership thing ya know.

(06-30-2015 05:38 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:03 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 04:57 PM)BE4evah Wrote:  The general thought was either UCF or Memphis would be Cincy's partner. This is like a thunderbolt. This guy is the real deal.

Aside form geography Memphis never made any sense. They literally just jumped form C-USA to AAC. Even the BE/AAC didn't want them until schools like Tulsa and Tulane got the call. That speaks volumes. Everyone like to pretend that their "david" school can conquer a "Goliath" conference. Its just not realistic. Long term winning like Louisville and WVU did in the BE will get you an invite. Not a bad run in C-USA and mediocre bowl win against BYU.

You should probably look up Memphis' basketball and football recent history. Memphis and Cincinnati are Louisville clones on top of being a 3 way rivalry. It would not be very hard for either to be in the top half of the Big 12 in both sports.

LOL. Maybe you should go look it up since you obviously don't get it. 4-5 Bowl wins is not a history. 3 Bowls in 20 years of being the C-USA is not impressing anyone. The only success was winning a down AAC and winning a mediocre bowl. That means nothing.

Tell me what specific football accomplishments I should be impressed with?
If a school struggles in C-USA and never wins it in 20 years why would you think they will be a top half team in a power conference?

Some of the stuff on this board simply amazes me. Memphis, UNI, etc.. are not getting in the Big 12. Go look at AD budgets, accomplishments, attendance, TV ratings, etc... It doesnt' work.


Memphis towards the end of its' best season in school history got a 0.0 TV rating playing against UConn in a half filled stadium. No thanks.

(06-30-2015 07:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:19 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  If it is true and Houston is the top choice for the Big 12, then Texas must be leaving, and that will be bad news for the Big 12. I don't think the Big 12 will add anyone. I think Houston might be on Boren's list, but that doesn't equate to being the top choice of the Big 12.

Jeez. The reality is nobody is leaving the Big-12 for awhile due to the GOR. That said, IF Texas leaves, it wont be because Houston joined conference (assuming that even happens). Its pretty clear there have been issues brewing in the Big-12 for some time and Texas has been toying with various exit strategies for years.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying Texas would leave if Houston was added. I'm saying I don't believe Houston have any kind of shot at being added until after Texas and probably a few other leave.

To be honest, if Texas leaves, OU would probably pack their bags and jet too. And their goes Boren and his support for Houston. On the positive side, what would be left of the Big 12 would probably be interested in adding Houston. They would probably lose their spot in the BCS and playoff system, but they would still have a much better T.V. deal then the AAC and the rest of the G5s.

(06-30-2015 09:00 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:38 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 05:03 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 04:57 PM)BE4evah Wrote:  The general thought was either UCF or Memphis would be Cincy's partner. This is like a thunderbolt. This guy is the real deal.

Aside form geography Memphis never made any sense. They literally just jumped form C-USA to AAC. Even the BE/AAC didn't want them until schools like Tulsa and Tulane got the call. That speaks volumes. Everyone like to pretend that their "david" school can conquer a "Goliath" conference. Its just not realistic. Long term winning like Louisville and WVU did in the BE will get you an invite. Not a bad run in C-USA and mediocre bowl win against BYU.

You should probably look up Memphis' basketball and football recent history. Memphis and Cincinnati are Louisville clones on top of being a 3 way rivalry. It would not be very hard for either to be in the top half of the Big 12 in both sports.

LOL. Maybe you should go look it up since you obviously don't get it. 4-5 Bowl wins is not a history. 3 Bowls in 20 years of being the C-USA is not impressing anyone. The only success was winning a down AAC and winning a mediocre bowl. That means nothing.

Tell me what specific football accomplishments I should be impressed with?
If a school struggles in C-USA and never wins it in 20 years why would you think they will be a top half team in a power conference?

Some of the stuff on this board simply amazes me. Memphis, UNI, etc.. are not getting in the Big 12. Go look at AD budgets, accomplishments, attendance, TV ratings, etc... It doesnt' work.


Memphis towards the end of its' best season in school history got a 0.0 TV rating playing against UConn in a half filled stadium. No thanks.

I have no idea where University of Northern Iowa keeps coming up... but NIU (northern illinois) has probably been mentioned at least a few times... cant ignore the market