(07-24-2019 08:57 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 02:23 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Nothing we didn't really know already. Heck A&M nearly went to the SEC and Colorado to the Pac-10 which led to the formation of the Big 12. That they both left to their almost destinations when the B12 was approached by the P10 and B10 comes as no shock. Heck the P10 suspected as much and had Utah ready as an A&M back up.

I increasingly get the impression from all the various stories that Oklahoma State was always used as just a pawn by Oklahoma and not much of a participant in anything, except as a little brother riding along. The Sooners were willing to ditch them for a B1G spot in another rumor.

The B12 is down to the big 2 and the little 8. Where I separate from the Texas wont leave crowd is that Texas looks out for themselves first and foremost. The B12 works for them as long as Oklahoma sticks. But when Oklahoma leaves, it stops working for them, as there is no longer enough left. Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and West Virginia are all more often bottom half of the P5 schools than top --which matches the resources they can affordcommit to it-- and Baylor is middle.

From this perspective Texas has three choices:

1. Follow OU to the B1G or SEC
2. Stay put with the little-8
3. Choose another conference to belong to

Texas has kicked the tires with the Pac-12, and that doesn't work due to travel. They have explored the B1G and that just doesn't fit quite right, although joining OU there would mitigate some of the concerns they have about fitting, since the Red River rivalry would still go on. Similar situation with the SEC, where they would no longer enjoy superior resource advantage and would find themselves in a death match every year to make the playoffs. In both the B1G and SEC they'd no longer be the unquestioned big cheese.

That leaves the ACC. And I think that would work for them. They might even be able to bring TCU with them. It would give them a Notre Dame game every 3rd year, and they'd be with schools where they would still be the biggest cheese, but also have peers like Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia Tech. They could also likely finish out the LHN deal and so still be on par with the SEC and B1G or close financially.

The Big Cheese works just as well staying put, but replacing Oklahoma is problematic. Texas would likely decide who that 10th school is -- or even if there is a 10th, they may just say nobody, we'll play 8 Football games, allowing everyone to schedule another OOC game. Thinking outside the box, they might even go for a Basketball school instead. Texas would use it's OOC games to build schedule strength.

I think the ACC model is easier and more stable long run.

Your comments about Texas leaving if Oklahoma leaves is where I personally disagree. Texas was in their own Texas-based SWC (a power conference) for 80 yrs before joining up with Oklahoma and the Big 8 in 1996. Texas likes being the big fish, the center of attention, with the power. Texas would be even more the center of attention and the glue that holds the remaining Big 12 together without Oklahoma. Texas isn't a cultural fit (or geographical) for the Pac-12. Same can be said for the Big Ten and ACC. SEC is probably the closest fit, but would TAMU really want to deal with Texas again. I dunno. I think the bigger issue is if Texas goes to another conference they aren't the heart and focal point of that conference but just another member (albeit a big member). Even if multiple members were to leave the Big 12 once more (say the Oklahoma and Kansas schools), the Big 12 would be able to backfill with BYU (football only) and top AAC schools and be just fine (maybe even better in the long-run as they expand outside of their current footprint).

To caveat, Texas would rebuild some modern variant of the SWC before joining another conference. Which wouldn't be that hard with Houston, Rice, and SMU available. With that said I think only 1 of those (if any) would actually get added, but it isn't so crazy to think about. Memphis, Cincinnati, and UCF/USF would be lesser brands than OU, but could be solid replacements if OU, OSU, Kansas and K-State were all to leave.

Pretty sure Texas would do great in the PAC. Bring the Texahoma 4 over with them and do 2 divisions of 8. 1 division with the PAC 8 and the other with the new guys, schedule could look like.....


Texas Tech
*OOC Texas
*OOC Texas
UCLA - Rotate each year
Arizona
*OOC Texas
Oklahoma
Utah
USC - Rotate each year
Oklahoma State
Arizona State
Colorado

I don’t think it’s impossible to create a reasonable travel schedule if all 4 teams went.

I think the real reason it didn’t happen was $.

(07-23-2019 12:09 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri didn't trust anyone.

They were wise to get while the gettin’ was good.

(07-24-2019 09:32 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 12:09 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri didn't trust anyone.

They were wise to get while the gettin’ was good.

Missouri's governor is the one who started the mistrust. Right after the Big Ten announced it was thinking about expanding, he drooled all over the idea of Missouri joining the Big Ten.
https://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/...67fe8.html

Quote:"I'm not going to say anything bad about the Big 12, but when you compare Oklahoma State to Northwestern, when you compare Texas Tech to Wisconsin, I mean, you begin looking at educational possibilities that are worth looking at," Nixon said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Colorado's then-AD said that after hearing those comments, he reached out to the Pac-12 office because he thought CU needed to protect itself.
https://www.denverpost.com/2011/05/07/pa...mike-bohn/

Quote:Bohn, the CU athletic director, was beaming Saturday morning. A year ago this month, he was scowling. University of Missouri officials met to discuss a potential switch from the Big 12 to the Big Ten, and Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon publicly and earnestly endorsed the transfer, terming the Big Ten an upgrade.

“The governor’s remarks got me going. We had to do something, and fast,” Bohn told me over a wholesome breakfast — pastrami sandwiches — at the New York Deli News in Denver. The Pac-10 had hired former Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg as chief operating officer. Bohn and Weiberg fast-tracked private talks, and the Buffaloes announced intentions in mid-June to join the Pac-10.

(07-23-2019 12:09 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri didn't trust anyone.

There was a great article by Henry Cordes of the Omaha World Herald several years ago, detailing NU's decision to bolt to the B10. It had interviews with Nebraska's then-chancellor Harvey Perlman, then-AD Tom Osbourne, and Jim Delaney. It's now archived and behind a paywall, but the link below captured the text in its entirety. It's a very long, but very interesting read.

If there's a cliff notes version, it's that Nebraska wanted to stay in the B12, but the mistrust of UT and what they were or were not doing led to NU having little option to hike up her skirt to the B10. Delaney sped up the timeline of B10 expansion because of the ultimatum put on NU.

"Despite the talk of commitments, Perlman and Osborne decided NU's posture going in [to B12 meetings] would be to keep its options open. Perlman described the Nebraska message as this: “Look, rumors are six of you are leaving for the Pac-10. We do not have an offer from the Big Ten, and we are feeling vulnerable that if we do make a commitment to the Big 12, there won't be a conference there to honor it.''
...
The call was an awkward dance for Perlman, who tried to avoid directly asking Delany to consider Nebraska, given the school had never been invited to apply. He stressed Nebraska's problem wasn't Delany's problem, but said, “If the Big Ten is seriously considering Nebraska, it doesn't have much time.''

In effect, Perlman had just crossed the Rubicon — for the first time signaling to the Big Ten that Nebraska wanted in.

“This is not our timeline,'' Perlman recalls Delany saying, “but I understand the predicament you're in.''


THE BIG TEN DECISION (text of article from Omaha World Herald)

(07-24-2019 02:47 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 12:09 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri didn't trust anyone.

There was a great article by Henry Cordes of the Omaha World Herald several years ago, detailing NU's decision to bolt to the B10. It had interviews with Nebraska's then-chancellor Harvey Perlman, then-AD Tom Osbourne, and Jim Delaney. It's now archived and behind a paywall, but the link below captured the text in its entirety. It's a very long, but very interesting read.

If there's a cliff notes version, it's that Nebraska wanted to stay in the B12, but the mistrust of UT and what they were or were not doing led to NU having little option to hike up her skirt to the B10. Delaney sped up the timeline of B10 expansion because of the ultimatum put on NU.

"Despite the talk of commitments, Perlman and Osborne decided NU's posture going in [to B12 meetings] would be to keep its options open. Perlman described the Nebraska message as this: “Look, rumors are six of you are leaving for the Pac-10. We do not have an offer from the Big Ten, and we are feeling vulnerable that if we do make a commitment to the Big 12, there won't be a conference there to honor it.''
...
The call was an awkward dance for Perlman, who tried to avoid directly asking Delany to consider Nebraska, given the school had never been invited to apply. He stressed Nebraska's problem wasn't Delany's problem, but said, “If the Big Ten is seriously considering Nebraska, it doesn't have much time.''

In effect, Perlman had just crossed the Rubicon — for the first time signaling to the Big Ten that Nebraska wanted in.

“This is not our timeline,'' Perlman recalls Delany saying, “but I understand the predicament you're in.''


THE BIG TEN DECISION (text of article from Omaha World Herald)

That's a complete misreading of the article. Pearlman heard rumors of schools heading for the Pac. Pearlman asked the UT president what was going on because Pearlman said he had a good relationship with him. The UT president didn't give him details but basically confirmed it. That was when Nebraska reached out to the Big 10. Later, Texas told them that they would commit to the Big 12 if 11 of the 12 others did (must have figured CU was gone). CU and NU refused to commit. And that was when the later part of your quote came from. Pearlman decided he liked the Big 10 better than the Big 12 and so he was rushing the Big 10 to make an offer so he didn't have to re-commit. That wasn't about "distrust." It was because he believed he had a better home for Nebraska.

I'm pretty sure this board was pretty dismissive when I said that the PAC never expected A&M to accept the invite, and that Utah was aware of this and waiting for A&M to decline before getting formally invited. Before Texas strategically broke and flight tracking blew up, people missed Scott's stop in SLC before heading to Austin.

The timing of Colorado's offer has a lot less to do with Baylor and a lot more to do with presidents approving PAC16 AND PAC12 plans prior to Scott leaving to negotiate the deal. CU was in every iteration and Utah was a go for the PAC12 and PAC16b options, so Colorado could join with no risk of being stranded at 11.

Hopefully, Loftin, Hill, and Scott have said enough now that everyone recognizes thst A&M despite having an offer was never really in play for the PAC.

Maybe somebody will say enough some day to confirm that the PAC presidents wanted Scott to last minute scuttle OKSU in favor of Kansas in their PAC16 scenario.

(07-24-2019 04:35 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I'm pretty sure this board was pretty dismissive when I said that the PAC never expected A&M to accept the invite, and that Utah was aware of this and waiting for A&M to decline before getting formally invited. Before Texas strategically broke and flight tracking blew up, people missed Scott's stop in SLC before heading to Austin.

The timing of Colorado's offer has a lot less to do with Baylor and a lot more to do with presidents approving PAC16 AND PAC12 plans prior to Scott leaving to negotiate the deal. CU was in every iteration and Utah was a go for the PAC12 and PAC16b options, so Colorado could join with no risk of being stranded at 11.

Hopefully, Loftin, Hill, and Scott have said enough now that everyone recognizes thst A&M despite having an offer was never really in play for the PAC.

Maybe somebody will say enough some day to confirm that the PAC presidents wanted Scott to last minute scuttle OKSU in favor of Kansas in their PAC16 scenario.

Utah was way down the list.

Colorado
Texas
Oklahoma
Texas Tech
Oklahoma St.
Kansas
then Utah

You sound like those Louisville fans who claim the only reason WVU was picked over them was because they were too moral (Bobby Petrino anyone?) to leave the Big East early.

Utah's place in the pecking order was clear. It was good enough to get an invite, but not to be at the top of the list. I followed this real closely and people were doing plane tracking. This is the first I've ever heard a claim of stopping in SLC before heading to the Big 12 schools.

(07-24-2019 01:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 09:32 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 12:09 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri didn't trust anyone.

They were wise to get while the gettin’ was good.

Missouri's governor is the one who started the mistrust. Right after the Big Ten announced it was thinking about expanding, he drooled all over the idea of Missouri joining the Big Ten.
https://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/...67fe8.html

Quote:"I'm not going to say anything bad about the Big 12, but when you compare Oklahoma State to Northwestern, when you compare Texas Tech to Wisconsin, I mean, you begin looking at educational possibilities that are worth looking at," Nixon said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Colorado's then-AD said that after hearing those comments, he reached out to the Pac-12 office because he thought CU needed to protect itself.
https://www.denverpost.com/2011/05/07/pa...mike-bohn/

Quote:Bohn, the CU athletic director, was beaming Saturday morning. A year ago this month, he was scowling. University of Missouri officials met to discuss a potential switch from the Big 12 to the Big Ten, and Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon publicly and earnestly endorsed the transfer, terming the Big Ten an upgrade.

“The governor’s remarks got me going. We had to do something, and fast,” Bohn told me over a wholesome breakfast — pastrami sandwiches — at the New York Deli News in Denver. The Pac-10 had hired former Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg as chief operating officer. Bohn and Weiberg fast-tracked private talks, and the Buffaloes announced intentions in mid-June to join the Pac-10.

When the Missouri governor made those comments about Texas Tech and Oklahoma St, I lost complete respect for him and that University.

(07-24-2019 04:35 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I'm pretty sure this board was pretty dismissive when I said that the PAC never expected A&M to accept the invite, and that Utah was aware of this and waiting for A&M to decline before getting formally invited. Before Texas strategically broke and flight tracking blew up, people missed Scott's stop in SLC before heading to Austin.

The timing of Colorado's offer has a lot less to do with Baylor and a lot more to do with presidents approving PAC16 AND PAC12 plans prior to Scott leaving to negotiate the deal. CU was in every iteration and Utah was a go for the PAC12 and PAC16b options, so Colorado could join with no risk of being stranded at 11.

Hopefully, Loftin, Hill, and Scott have said enough now that everyone recognizes thst A&M despite having an offer was never really in play for the PAC.

Maybe somebody will say enough some day to confirm that the PAC presidents wanted Scott to last minute scuttle OKSU in favor of Kansas in their PAC16 scenario.

The Colorado offer was issued to make sure Baylor didn't have a spot. Utah got an invite when the Texoma 4 said they would remain in the Big 12.

So many theories being floated around but I know Larry Scott came to Lubbock with an invite. He left Lubbock and was headed to Austin.

You guys can speculate the rest. As Bullet mentioned, Utah was down the list.

Utah, TCU and Louisville have to be the luckiest schools in realignment.

(07-24-2019 09:48 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 01:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 09:32 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 12:09 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri didn't trust anyone.

They were wise to get while the gettin’ was good.

Missouri's governor is the one who started the mistrust. Right after the Big Ten announced it was thinking about expanding, he drooled all over the idea of Missouri joining the Big Ten.
https://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/...67fe8.html

Quote:"I'm not going to say anything bad about the Big 12, but when you compare Oklahoma State to Northwestern, when you compare Texas Tech to Wisconsin, I mean, you begin looking at educational possibilities that are worth looking at," Nixon said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Colorado's then-AD said that after hearing those comments, he reached out to the Pac-12 office because he thought CU needed to protect itself.
https://www.denverpost.com/2011/05/07/pa...mike-bohn/

Quote:Bohn, the CU athletic director, was beaming Saturday morning. A year ago this month, he was scowling. University of Missouri officials met to discuss a potential switch from the Big 12 to the Big Ten, and Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon publicly and earnestly endorsed the transfer, terming the Big Ten an upgrade.

“The governor’s remarks got me going. We had to do something, and fast,” Bohn told me over a wholesome breakfast — pastrami sandwiches — at the New York Deli News in Denver. The Pac-10 had hired former Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg as chief operating officer. Bohn and Weiberg fast-tracked private talks, and the Buffaloes announced intentions in mid-June to join the Pac-10.

When the Missouri governor made those comments about Texas Tech and Oklahoma St, I lost complete respect for him and that University.

So you don't recognize that Northwestern and Wisconsin are better academically than Oklahoma State and Texas Tech?

(07-24-2019 04:35 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I'm pretty sure this board was pretty dismissive when I said that the PAC never expected A&M to accept the invite, and that Utah was aware of this and waiting for A&M to decline before getting formally invited. Before Texas strategically broke and flight tracking blew up, people missed Scott's stop in SLC before heading to Austin.

The timing of Colorado's offer has a lot less to do with Baylor and a lot more to do with presidents approving PAC16 AND PAC12 plans prior to Scott leaving to negotiate the deal. CU was in every iteration and Utah was a go for the PAC12 and PAC16b options, so Colorado could join with no risk of being stranded at 11.

Hopefully, Loftin, Hill, and Scott have said enough now that everyone recognizes thst A&M despite having an offer was never really in play for the PAC.

Maybe somebody will say enough some day to confirm that the PAC presidents wanted Scott to last minute scuttle OKSU in favor of Kansas in their PAC16 scenario.

You’re right, Utah was going to be in a Pac-12 or Pac-16 but it was not guaranteed on the Pac-16 if A&M was on board.

There would’ve been a hope as slight as it might have been to convince A&M to go west otherwise why wait to invite Utah then? Colorado was invited first to prevent Baylor from using the same trick they used to get into the Big XII. Utah was told they were in consideration if A&M said no and once the Texas and Oklahoma schools decided to stay in the Big XII, Utah got the invite. Utah was going to be invited regardless if A&M went to the SEC but had A&M said yes to Larry Scott, Utah would still be in the MWC.

(07-24-2019 10:05 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 09:48 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 01:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 09:32 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 12:09 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri didn't trust anyone.

They were wise to get while the gettin’ was good.

Missouri's governor is the one who started the mistrust. Right after the Big Ten announced it was thinking about expanding, he drooled all over the idea of Missouri joining the Big Ten.
https://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/...67fe8.html

Quote:"I'm not going to say anything bad about the Big 12, but when you compare Oklahoma State to Northwestern, when you compare Texas Tech to Wisconsin, I mean, you begin looking at educational possibilities that are worth looking at," Nixon said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Colorado's then-AD said that after hearing those comments, he reached out to the Pac-12 office because he thought CU needed to protect itself.
https://www.denverpost.com/2011/05/07/pa...mike-bohn/

Quote:Bohn, the CU athletic director, was beaming Saturday morning. A year ago this month, he was scowling. University of Missouri officials met to discuss a potential switch from the Big 12 to the Big Ten, and Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon publicly and earnestly endorsed the transfer, terming the Big Ten an upgrade.

“The governor’s remarks got me going. We had to do something, and fast,” Bohn told me over a wholesome breakfast — pastrami sandwiches — at the New York Deli News in Denver. The Pac-10 had hired former Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg as chief operating officer. Bohn and Weiberg fast-tracked private talks, and the Buffaloes announced intentions in mid-June to join the Pac-10.

When the Missouri governor made those comments about Texas Tech and Oklahoma St, I lost complete respect for him and that University.

So you don't recognize that Northwestern and Wisconsin are better academically than Oklahoma State and Texas Tech?

They are. No doubt about it.

As an elected official, I wouldn't have made those comments which is why I have zero respect for him or Mizzou.

Bullet,
Maybe it’s because you need to bend things around to fit some narrative that UT was the savior of the BigXII rather than the program that sacrificed Nebraska, Missouri, A&M, Colorado, and potentially the future stability of the conference to get its LHN. For whatever purpose your adherence to the Chip Brown/UT version of events serves, it precludes you ever having a grasp of what happened then or what could happen prospectively.

It’a a waste of time to pull the same links that you’ve ignored previously because no matter what Loftin, Scott, Neinas, Hill, etc say on the record after the fact, you’re still going to stick with wild speculation and media gap-filling from 2010 to form your narrative. So be it.

But here’s a quick grab from ISU’s discussion of Scott’s travels as it happened. I can’t think of a more neutral party source than ISU.



And yes, the planned flight to KC, which never happened, did have Utah folks worried because that was not in the playbook before Scott arrived in Texas. (I’ll let you sleuth around and figure out which school president let slip that the PAC wanted to replace OSU with KU last minute)

As we’ve had several presidents and key figures go on the record in the last few years, each providing stories that are consistent with each other, one has to decide which version of the events to believe: the version told by presidents, ADs, and commissioners several years later or the speculation and insinuations of reporters as it happened in 2010.

I’ll put the ball in your court and ask you to find one on-the-record interview with an AD, school president, or commissioner which contradicts any aspect of these accounting of events:

https://theathletic.com/1083080/2019/07/...10-big-12/

https://theathletic.com/1091572/2019/07/...c-program/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/247sports.c...13965/Amp/

(07-25-2019 01:12 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Bullet,
Maybe it’s because you need to bend things around to fit some narrative that UT was the savior of the BigXII rather than the program that sacrificed Nebraska, Missouri, A&M, Colorado, and potentially the future stability of the conference to get its LHN. For whatever purpose your adherence to the Chip Brown/UT version of events serves, it precludes you ever having a grasp of what happened then or what could happen prospectively.

It’a a waste of time to pull the same links that you’ve ignored previously because no matter what Loftin, Scott, Neinas, Hill, etc say on the record after the fact, you’re still going to stick with wild speculation and media gap-filling from 2010 to form your narrative. So be it.

But here’s a quick grab from ISU’s discussion of Scott’s travels as it happened. I can’t think of a more neutral party source than ISU.



And yes, the planned flight to KC, which never happened, did have Utah folks worried because that was not in the playbook before Scott arrived in Texas. (I’ll let you sleuth around and figure out which school president let slip that the PAC wanted to replace OSU with KU last minute)

As we’ve had several presidents and key figures go on the record in the last few years, each providing stories that are consistent with each other, one has to decide which version of the events to believe: the version told by presidents, ADs, and commissioners several years later or the speculation and insinuations of reporters as it happened in 2010.

I’ll put the ball in your court and ask you to find one on-the-record interview with an AD, school president, or commissioner which contradicts any aspect of these accounting of events:

https://theathletic.com/1083080/2019/07/...10-big-12/

https://theathletic.com/1091572/2019/07/...c-program/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/247sports.c...13965/Amp/

your narrative about the LHN is what is 100% wrong

posted just up this thread (and about 100 other times on this forum)

https://www.ign.com/boards/threads/great...195398239/

And on the issues of greatest import, “Nebraska was getting largely what it wanted,'' Perlman said.

While some schools complained about the league's unequal distribution of revenue from network TV contracts, Nebraska wasn't among them. It joined Texas as a strong proponent of giving big-time football schools — those most appealing to the networks — a bigger slice of the pie.

Plus, Perlman said, the Big 12 had just recently completed important conversations about whether to form its own TV network for secondary sports programming, akin to the Big Ten's.

While many have blamed Texas and its plans to start its own Longhorn TV network as the reason a Big 12 network never got off the ground, Nebraska wasn't on board with a conference network, either. Nebraska's support was conditional on the high-profile schools taking a larger cut of that revenue, too — a condition some schools strongly opposed.

As a result of those talks, Nebraska, like Texas, was now moving to create its own network. A consultant's study had concluded that a Husker network would succeed and bring in seven-figure revenue on top of what Nebraska was getting from major network telecasts.

Perlman said NU was on track to have its network running by the fall of 2011 — actually ahead of Texas' timetable

so the person that was 100% in charge of making the Big 10 decision for Nebraska contradicts your thoughts on the LHN and in fact says the exact opposite of what you believe

and Missouri was also one of the schools that supported unequal revenue sharing especially near the end of their time there because they were earning well from football

it took way more than one single vote by Texas to not have a conference network in the Big 12.....so if you are going to blame Texas then you need to clearly blame Nebraska, aggy, OU, and most likely Kansas and Missouri as well for not having a conference network

because it is a 100% fact that aggy, NU, and OU were also against one and highly likely that MU and KU were as well

and the same with unequal revenue sharing

14 & 16 team conferences are such garbage.

(07-24-2019 05:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  Utah was way down the list.

Colorado
Texas
Oklahoma
Texas Tech
Oklahoma St.
Kansas
then Utah

You sound like those Louisville fans who claim the only reason WVU was picked over them was because they were too moral (Bobby Petrino anyone?) to leave the Big East early.

Utah's place in the pecking order was clear. It was good enough to get an invite, but not to be at the top of the list.

The thing I wonder about here is, if that was the case, which did Utah get an invite but when, AFAIU, the Sooners and Pokes were looking at whether they could get invited to a Pac-14, it turned out that the couldn't?

Was that just a matter of timing?

When TexA&M pulled out, Texas brought up Baylor
Utah was invited, so there was no room for Baylor
I agree OSU was not going anywhere, Kansas was #6

(07-25-2019 07:03 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  When TexA&M pulled out, Texas brought up Baylor
Utah was invited, so there was no room for Baylor
I agree OSU was not going anywhere, Kansas was #6

Nope, Colorado took Baylor's spot. The Texoma 4 (including Oklahoma St) plus aggy had an invite to the PAC 12. Kansas and Utah were backup schools.

(07-25-2019 01:55 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-25-2019 01:12 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Bullet,
Maybe it’s because you need to bend things around to fit some narrative that UT was the savior of the BigXII rather than the program that sacrificed Nebraska, Missouri, A&M, Colorado, and potentially the future stability of the conference to get its LHN. For whatever purpose your adherence to the Chip Brown/UT version of events serves, it precludes you ever having a grasp of what happened then or what could happen prospectively.

It’a a waste of time to pull the same links that you’ve ignored previously because no matter what Loftin, Scott, Neinas, Hill, etc say on the record after the fact, you’re still going to stick with wild speculation and media gap-filling from 2010 to form your narrative. So be it.

But here’s a quick grab from ISU’s discussion of Scott’s travels as it happened. I can’t think of a more neutral party source than ISU.



And yes, the planned flight to KC, which never happened, did have Utah folks worried because that was not in the playbook before Scott arrived in Texas. (I’ll let you sleuth around and figure out which school president let slip that the PAC wanted to replace OSU with KU last minute)

As we’ve had several presidents and key figures go on the record in the last few years, each providing stories that are consistent with each other, one has to decide which version of the events to believe: the version told by presidents, ADs, and commissioners several years later or the speculation and insinuations of reporters as it happened in 2010.

I’ll put the ball in your court and ask you to find one on-the-record interview with an AD, school president, or commissioner which contradicts any aspect of these accounting of events:

https://theathletic.com/1083080/2019/07/...10-big-12/

https://theathletic.com/1091572/2019/07/...c-program/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/247sports.c...13965/Amp/

your narrative about the LHN is what is 100% wrong

posted just up this thread (and about 100 other times on this forum)

https://www.ign.com/boards/threads/great...195398239/

And on the issues of greatest import, “Nebraska was getting largely what it wanted,'' Perlman said.

While some schools complained about the league's unequal distribution of revenue from network TV contracts, Nebraska wasn't among them. It joined Texas as a strong proponent of giving big-time football schools — those most appealing to the networks — a bigger slice of the pie.

Plus, Perlman said, the Big 12 had just recently completed important conversations about whether to form its own TV network for secondary sports programming, akin to the Big Ten's.

While many have blamed Texas and its plans to start its own Longhorn TV network as the reason a Big 12 network never got off the ground, Nebraska wasn't on board with a conference network, either. Nebraska's support was conditional on the high-profile schools taking a larger cut of that revenue, too — a condition some schools strongly opposed.

As a result of those talks, Nebraska, like Texas, was now moving to create its own network. A consultant's study had concluded that a Husker network would succeed and bring in seven-figure revenue on top of what Nebraska was getting from major network telecasts.

Perlman said NU was on track to have its network running by the fall of 2011 — actually ahead of Texas' timetable

so the person that was 100% in charge of making the Big 10 decision for Nebraska contradicts your thoughts on the LHN and in fact says the exact opposite of what you believe

and Missouri was also one of the schools that supported unequal revenue sharing especially near the end of their time there because they were earning well from football

it took way more than one single vote by Texas to not have a conference network in the Big 12.....so if you are going to blame Texas then you need to clearly blame Nebraska, aggy, OU, and most likely Kansas and Missouri as well for not having a conference network

because it is a 100% fact that aggy, NU, and OU were also against one and highly likely that MU and KU were as well

and the same with unequal revenue sharing

And Texas and Nebraska had to fund the conference network study themselves because EVERYONE else was opposed.