P12 would be genius to add UH right now...increase the market...add great football. You'd have to find another though and BYU won't be it for P12

(10-06-2016 03:13 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Isn't it amazing that the Big 12 (perhaps not the conference itself, but prominent members of it's schools) is the only conference that openly admits that it's looking to get worse, not better?

What's more amazing is that a conference publicly announced that they are going to expand, publicly announce the universities that they are considering and requesting presentations from to make their case, will probably never expand because there is no consensus on the right candidates and no agreement to extend the GOR.

Switzer just understands that adding UH equates to the Big12 being the SWC plus the Big 8 teams, or what's left of them. Thanks to Texas. It would be a power flip in UT's favor. And he's right. You never give Texas teams a voting bloc over your conference. They'll always vote for the Texas team's interests instead of doing what is right for the conference. Texas ego/arrogance has no limits, so never give them limitless power over your conference. Never.

My wish is for all the OK teams to leave for the SEC. aTm at least has shown a backbone against UT and would be an objective conference mate.

(10-07-2016 10:35 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Switzer just understands that adding UH equates to the Big12 being the SWC plus the Big 8 teams, or what's left of them. Thanks to Texas. It would be a power flip in UT's favor. And he's right. You never give Texas teams a voting bloc over your conference. They'll always vote for the Texas team's interests instead of doing what is right for the conference. Texas ego/arrogance has no limits, so never give them limitless power over your conference. Never.

My wish is for all the OK teams to leave for the SEC. aTm at least has shown a backbone against UT and would be an objective conference mate.

Well that's one way of looking at it but did you actually read the article?

He was calling out recruiting and how schools would suffer.

Oh and as for the whole Big 8 plus SWC thing well that's exactly what they wanted (tried to get) in the first place. They will just be getting it minus Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, SMU and Rice.....

If TCU's negative vote is true that disproves your theory. Tech sides with Texas on some stuff but does stand up to them, Baylor on the other hand is just trying to stay alive now and in the future so there is some truth to that with them.

(10-06-2016 07:04 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  I thought Switzer was dead.

Haha...even from the grave he's a big mouth.
Cheers!

(10-07-2016 11:02 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-06-2016 07:04 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  I thought Switzer was dead.

Haha...even from the grave he's a big mouth.
Cheers!

Just don't check his luggage at the airport......

(10-07-2016 10:07 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

Funny, the conference would welcome the challenges FSU and Clemson would bring with open arms. I guess they must be pushovers.

(10-07-2016 10:43 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(10-07-2016 10:35 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Switzer just understands that adding UH equates to the Big12 being the SWC plus the Big 8 teams, or what's left of them. Thanks to Texas. It would be a power flip in UT's favor. And he's right. You never give Texas teams a voting bloc over your conference. They'll always vote for the Texas team's interests instead of doing what is right for the conference. Texas ego/arrogance has no limits, so never give them limitless power over your conference. Never.

My wish is for all the OK teams to leave for the SEC. aTm at least has shown a backbone against UT and would be an objective conference mate.

Well that's one way of looking at it but did you actually read the article?

He was calling out recruiting and how schools would suffer.

Oh and as for the whole Big 8 plus SWC thing well that's exactly what they wanted (tried to get) in the first place. They will just be getting it minus Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, SMU and Rice.....

If TCU's negative vote is true that disproves your theory. Tech sides with Texas on some stuff but does stand up to them, Baylor on the other hand is just trying to stay alive now and in the future so there is some truth to that with them.

I read the article, and I know Switzer is no dummy. Recruiting is a small part. The long game is about control, and Texas is ALL ABOUT control and how they can squeeze every nickel for themselves. As far as TCU and their vote? Show me evidence that they voted No. Till then, that's BS. Tortilla Tech is a puppet, along with every other Texas state school. Texas' retalitory politics guarantees they'll conform or pay the political price. The non-Texas schools know this is a takeover attempt, and will never vote for UH. And Texas schools won't break ranks. Conference expansion is dead, and the Big12 is dying.

(10-07-2016 11:09 AM)Groo Wrote:  

(10-07-2016 10:07 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

Funny, the conference would welcome the challenges FSU and Clemson would bring with open arms. I guess they must be pushovers.

I know and am not claiming we are better than those schools (that are never coming but that's besides the point....).

But time and time again in print people associated with B12 schools keep claiming the recruiting excuse.

Shouldn't the conference be trying to get better and not maintaining the status quo and therefore making the conference weaker as a result?

(10-07-2016 11:55 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  I read the article, and I know Switzer is no dummy. Recruiting is a small part. The long game is about control, and Texas is ALL ABOUT control and how they can squeeze every nickel for themselves. As far as TCU and their vote? Show me evidence that they voted No. Till then, that's BS. Tortilla Tech is a puppet, along with every other Texas state school. Texas' retalitory politics guarantees they'll conform or pay the political price. The non-Texas schools know this is a takeover attempt, and will never vote for UH. And Texas schools won't break ranks. Conference expansion is dead, and the Big12 is dying.

Tech has stood up to Texas multiple times. One that I can think of was Tech games on the Longhorn Network.

I hate defending Tech but even tough it would be in their best interest to cow tow to Texas they have a history of pushing back when they feel it is warranted.

As for TCU no nothing official and I said if that stance was in fact true it disproves your theory.

Funny thing is people on here will bash, twist, and turn any story into a window of opportunity for their school at the "offending" schools expense.....

And yes I know we have our share of fans doing the same thing. The difference between them and myself is I am realist for better or worse......

To sum up I think you are and aren't correct. I think the non-Texas schools are pushing back but as a means to establish parity in the power structure and geography of the conference.

UH hasn't been blackballed like you would seem to prefer. We are just being used as a bargaining chip to ensure the long-term stability of the conference and geographic balance.

(10-06-2016 07:37 PM)texasorange Wrote:  

(10-06-2016 03:13 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Isn't it amazing that the Big 12 (perhaps not the conference itself, but prominent members of it's schools) is the only conference that openly admits that it's looking to get worse, not better?

What's more amazing is that a conference publicly announced that they are going to expand, publicly announce the universities that they are considering and requesting presentations from to make their case, will probably never expand because there is no consensus on the right candidates and no agreement to extend the GOR.

Please show me where the Big12 ever publicly announced they were going to expand.

(10-07-2016 01:37 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(10-07-2016 11:55 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  I read the article, and I know Switzer is no dummy. Recruiting is a small part. The long game is about control, and Texas is ALL ABOUT control and how they can squeeze every nickel for themselves. As far as TCU and their vote? Show me evidence that they voted No. Till then, that's BS. Tortilla Tech is a puppet, along with every other Texas state school. Texas' retalitory politics guarantees they'll conform or pay the political price. The non-Texas schools know this is a takeover attempt, and will never vote for UH. And Texas schools won't break ranks. Conference expansion is dead, and the Big12 is dying.

Tech has stood up to Texas multiple times. One that I can think of was Tech games on the Longhorn Network.

I hate defending Tech but even tough it would be in their best interest to cow tow to Texas they have a history of pushing back when they feel it is warranted.

As for TCU no nothing official and I said if that stance was in fact true it disproves your theory.

Funny thing is people on here will bash, twist, and turn any story into a window of opportunity for their school at the "offending" schools expense.....

And yes I know we have our share of fans doing the same thing. The difference between them and myself is I am realist for better or worse......

To sum up I think you are and aren't correct. I think the non-Texas schools are pushing back but as a means to establish parity in the power structure and geography of the conference.

UH hasn't been blackballed like you would seem to prefer. We are just being used as a bargaining chip to ensure the long-term stability of the conference and geographic balance.

"Tortilla Tech is a puppet of UT"---I was about ready to bring up the ESPN proposed Texas v Tech game on the LHN. ESPN was promising them a nice H&H OOC game in the future if they'd play a road game vs UT on the LHN. Tech went bat **** crazy. Heard they even called the PAC about joining. (Not that the PAC would ever take a stand alone Texas Tech) hahaha....yeah, Tech gets feisty with UT sometimes....And OSU and KSU did say they'd be ok with games on the LHN when it looked like the Big 12 was going to fall apart the second time. Not Tortilla Tech.
Cheers!

(10-06-2016 01:11 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  I love how the "Power 5" schools want candidates to be good at football, but not so good that they threaten to disrupt the historical hierarchy of a conference.

Once again, this is why many people prefer the NFL. What you see is what you get!

I'm not an NFL fan, but there's lots of truth in that ^^^^

(10-07-2016 01:37 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  UH hasn't been blackballed like you would seem to prefer. We are just being used as a bargaining chip to ensure the long-term stability of the conference and geographic balance.

Don't misunderstand. I don't want UH blackballed. I was just saying where I believe Switzer is coming from, with his recent statements about UH. I believe recruiting is a small part of it, but Switzer and most everyone else, who isn't in TX, would want a TX led voting bloc. We've seen how that worked for the SWC. I personally respect UH for being a thorn in UT's side, but make no mistake, if UT demanded fealty for a Big12 invite to the Big12, UH would be their lackeys.

You might disagree, but you know I'm right on what the cost is for UH to get into the Big12, and what would be expected of UH going forward. But imo, its a moot point. The non-TX schools won't let it happen.

(10-07-2016 11:25 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(10-07-2016 01:37 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  UH hasn't been blackballed like you would seem to prefer. We are just being used as a bargaining chip to ensure the long-term stability of the conference and geographic balance.

Don't misunderstand. I don't want UH blackballed. I was just saying where I believe Switzer is coming from, with his recent statements about UH. I believe recruiting is a small part of it, but Switzer and most everyone else, who isn't in TX, would want a TX led voting bloc. We've seen how that worked for the SWC. I personally respect UH for being a thorn in UT's side, but make no mistake, if UT demanded fealty for a Big12 invite to the Big12, UH would be their lackeys.

You might disagree, but you know I'm right on what the cost is for UH to get into the Big12, and what would be expected of UH going forward. But imo, its a moot point. The non-TX schools won't let it happen.

I think there is truth in that last statement. Several B12 ADs and HCs have said as much, publicly. But the outcome depends on whether there is some sort of compromise for UH.

IF UT is truly backing UH for whatever reasons (political pressure, satellite campus, etc.), and 3 or more schools oppose, then UT could get UH in if they gather 2 more no votes on everybody else, to stop expansion completely, OR, they generate some compromise, like getting UH in, but agreeing to add 4 teams to give the Little 8 more security and more money.

Just an example.

I do think if they go to 14, it would be crazy not to include UH, as the Texas/non-Texas school ratio would remain the same (actually slightly less percentage). But if they only add 2, I don't see any way UH makes it. That would increase the TX influence in the conference, which I think is a no-go for a number of B12 schools.

(10-06-2016 04:01 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  He didn't bring up the OU/Coog game as he was saying "hell no"

He brought it up before he said Hell No. He was talking about OU's losses this season, and he said "Hell, Houston beats everybody." That led Bohls to ask about UH to the Big 12.

So it's nothing more than the same BS whining as the OK St head coach or the K St coordinator, basically saying "Houston should be kept out because they'll steal Texas recruits from us!"