(10-31-2015 11:17 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Let's imagine that news just broke of OU/Kansas joining the Big Ten. The Big Ten now sits at 16. The Big 12 is in crisis mode...

...what would happen next?

(I'm most interested in ACC fans' ideas and the SEC fans' plans to keep up in the arms race...)

Texas, Houston and TCU petition the ACC for admission.

The other schools, realizing that they have no where else to go, start rebuilding. Memphis, Tulane, Cincinnati and SMU are admitted. B12 name is dropped to reflect new reality.

SEC and ACC announce joint academic consortium to pool resources to counteract B1G members. B1G responds by opening up CIC membership to PAC schools. The rivalries extend to the power corridors of the federal government.

AAC adds UTSA, LT, Rice, Army and UMass

Army, Navy, Tulsa, LT, UTSA, Rice
UCONN, UMass, Temple, UCF, USF, ECU

(11-01-2015 03:29 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Ohio University is OU. ? I'm confused.

A more widely recognized OU is the University of Oklahoma (and its clear from the context that its Oklahoma and not Oregon).

And yes, its backwards, but they are a backwards bunch generally (Go Pokes!).

(11-01-2015 01:12 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Texas A&M was pushed aside and thus they went with their second choice.

You will have to define "their", as in what part of the TAMU community preferred the PAC over the SEC. Because TAMU alumni and fans have long wanted to join the SEC, and joining the SEC had massive support among them.

In contrast, I know many, many TAMU fans and alumni, and I've never heard anyone from the TAMU community, certainly not fans and alumni, clamor to join the PAC. Not now, not 4 years ago, never. But the SEC was a long-time dream of theirs.

Moving to the SEC was a massively popular move in College Station, nobody voiced any regrets about it being a sloppy-seconds disappointment to missing on the chance to play Washington State and Cal every year. Maybe a handful of elite faculty chairs or admins or somesuch that value the PAC's better academic profile did, but the great bulk of the TAMU community wanted the SEC. To think otherwise is a typical Heiny fantasy.

If news broke that the B1G wanted to expand, if I were the SEC, I would get a 3rd party to negotiate a deal where Missouri would be available with Kansas so the B1G could unify as a contiguous North/Midwestern conference.
Meanwhile, as the SEC, I would extend offers to Oklahoma, UNC, and UVA. In essence, attempting to mirror the B1G in the South.
This gives Texas the opportunity to decide if they want to throw in with the ACC or the PAC12. I would imagine they go west, along with TT, Baylor, and another school that would surprise most.
The ACC has some tough decisions to make at that point, stick to their eastern roots with the likes of WV, UConn, Cincy or go for the best available in the form of TCU, Ok St, etc
There is a pecking order and it will be established. If you aren't the North, South, or West kingpins in this scenario you are subject to wait and see. That's why there was a GOR established and why they hope it doesn't go away.
Just my opinion but like another poster said, the SEC doesn't wait to see what "scraps" fall their way. They will be very much involved in the process if the BIG 16, Super Conference shake up comes to pass. They will push to be at the front of the line if possible, even if it's addition by subtraction.

(11-01-2015 01:23 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Yes, I am saying that A&M's first choice was to stay with Texas schools. The talks were that it would be Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado. It would have been a massive coup de tat in the sports world if the PAC had pulled it off. They were drooling over it.

I don't have inside info or knowledge so all I can base anything off are the media reports. Scott clearly can't make a play for the Texhoma schools without having some interest from the other side. Outside of Colorado, I think its still hard to gauge what the actual opinions of the individuals schools were at the time of the proposal.

Quote:I don't think Texas ever actually wanted it. They just jumped on board the ship so that they could be the captain in order to make sure the ship never made landfall on "that" shore.

I have know idea either but I don't think the PAC-16 play is even broached unless Texas is involved from the jump. Now, minds might have changed from 'ye' to 'ne' during the intervening weeks regarding moving west, but for Texas to be as Machiavellian as you suggest seems somewhat far afield.

Quote:Texas A&M's first choice was to stay with the Texas schools. They could have joined the SEC years ago but they never did. So....something happened to drive Texas A&M away to their second choice. That is blatantly obvious.

I think a similar situation played out in College Station where the administration was initially onboard with the idea of moving west. But once the plan was publicized the backlash from fans and boosters led to a reconsideration. Perhaps both the Longhorns and the Aggies collaborated in torpedoing the deal or maybe it proved to just be a coincidence.

I think the LHN plan to show texas high school football games sent A&M to the sec. I don't really see how A&M was too vital to the pac 16 happening. It was more texas didn't want it to happen because of its LHN/control/ego or not really wanting to go west. I mean does it really matter if the 6 to the pac 16 is texas, texas tech, ou, ok state, Colorado and utah instead of A&M getting utah spot? Heck, if texas wanted they could have told the pac 10 to to add rice or houston if they didn't want utah and A&M wouldn't join. The real issue with texas at that time is they wanted to call all the shots with dodds/powers in charge. The best avenue for that was staying in the big 12 and ordering other school's around. That attitude resulted in the big 12 losing 4 members who could find spots. Also, you got to throw ND giving the big 12 some feelers they might join without fb. OF course, ND probably never had any intention other than leveraging it for an ACC deal but dodds was taken.

A&M had been planning to leave long before the LHN which provided them nice cover for bolting

Texas leaves eventually, New B12 same suspects without OU/KU/UT, with new members Houston/Cincy/Memphis possibly BYU if they want or CSU. if the powers that be at the time are smart they pick up SDSU invade Cali, especially if they lose there Pro team, which may be likely to happen, B12 becomes the tweener league

The SEC and Big Ten are the power players. Here is both conferences dream:

SEC

WEST
Oklahoma
Texas
Texas A&M
Arkansas
LSU
TCU/Baylor/Rice/Texas Tech/SMU

SOUTH
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
Alabama
Auburn
Tennessee
Vanderbilt

EAST
Clemson
South Carolina
Georgia
Georgia Tech
Florida
Florida State

NORTH
North Carolina
Duke
Virginia
West Virginia
Kentucky
Louisville/NC State/Virginia Tech

BIG TEN

WEST
Kansas
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Missouri
Iowa State

MID-WEST
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Northwestern

NORTH
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Notre Dame OR Ohio State

EAST
Ohio State OR Syracuse
Syracuse OR Pitt
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers

Then Southern Schools (I Doubt It)
UVA, UNC, GT, Duke, Vandy, UF

So a true north / south gap could be made. Oklahoma is the swing both conferences want to add AAU schools. This would leave some schools out but there would be other "power" conferences for them the Big Ten and SEC would just be the big players. The PAC-12 would just stay as put and be just number 3 in charge.

(11-01-2015 02:46 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the talks were with the PAC 10 and Texas, A&M, OU, OKState, Texas Tech and CU

when NU started to talk to the Big 10 they ask Texas to commit to the Big 12 and Texas said they would do so (and so did the other 5) if Nebraska said they would do the same.....at that time Nebraska said they would NOT do so they needed more time to talk to the Big 10

this is directly from the mouth of the chancellor of NU and is published in the Omaha News

once NU said they would not commit CU said they had an offer from the PAC 10 on their own and they were leaving no matter what anyone else said

at that same time A&M said they had no interest in going to the PAC 10 and they were not going no matter what anyone else did and they started talking to the SEC

the PAC 10 said they were adding CU and Utah

then Texas, Texas Tech, OU and OkState continued to talk to the PAC 10......during those talks Texas made it clear they were going to explore all other offers and independence

at that point the PAC 10+2 told the others "we are waiting to see what Texas does".......this did not sit well with OU and OkState power brokers and they started to talk to the PAC 10 about what the PAC 10 would do if Texas decided to do something else and the PAC 10+2 realized that OU and OkState were probably their only viable/best options if they wanted to go past 12 because they had already bad mouthed BYU to the point they could not go back on that and CSU was not going to be added when CU was just added

A&M then informs the Big 12 they are leaving for the SEC

at that point OU and OkState and the PAC 10+2 basically said we will let everyone know we are "talking" to placate OU and OkState power brokers and to "pressure Texas" (after the adding CU failed to "pressure Texas" especially after A&M said "not going to the PAC 10"

Texas explored all options and decided to stay in the Big 12 and let OU and OkState know this and OU and OkState let the PAC 10+2 know they were no longer interested and the PAC 10+2 voted to table all expansion talks

A&M had made it clear they were not going to the PAC 10 at the same time that CU was leaving to the PAC 10 and when it was clear that NU would not commit to the Big 12 even though Texas and the 5 others said they would if NU did as well

as for NU and "fitting in with the Big 10" AAU membership was what mattered to the Big 10 not "research" or "research and development dollars" and AAU membership is not at all about "research dollars" and if NU had placed their medical school under the main campus it would not have made a difference for AAU membership because having a medical school changes the evaluation criteria that the AAU uses for a university and NU still would not have made the cut.......at the time A&M and Texas did not have a medical school under the main campus and GaTech the newest public AAU member does not have a medical school

NU had 10 years notice their membership was in jeopardy and if adding the medical school to the main campus mattered they would have done so.....the did not do so because they knew it would not make a difference

AAU status and research dollars are clearly decoupled. It just so happens that most of the top research dollar schools are in the AAU.

But an example proving the point is Indiana. They rank the lowest of the B1G, as far as the Bloomington campus alone is concerned. But if you throw the medical research at Indianapolis in, they shoot back up.

So the same can be said for Lincoln, just to a smaller extent.


I disagree that AAU itself matters more than research dollars, to the B1G. I believe that it's backwards. I think the AAU is just something simple for the media to throw around. It doesn't really mean anything.


So as to why Nebraska's AAU membership was expired, I have no idea. I'd like to know the official reason.