(08-18-2013 06:12 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I still think that the only real option for Texas and it's pals is to go to the Pac. The Pac allows them to bring all their friends that their fans and alum want to see them play and bring in two more regional rivals in ASU and UA. It also gives them big named opponents who will be new to the schedule like the B1G would. USC, UCLA, Oregon and Stanford.

The thing that would really benefit Texas in the Pac would be is when they are the best in the league they would literally be able to say they are the best team in the whole western half of the country.

I think a division of UT, OU, OSU, Tech, UA, ASU, UC and Utah would suit the big donors better than one filled with teams in the mid-west. It would also ease the state legislator a bit more on Texas leaving some of it's fellow Texas schools behind.

I don't think this is close to happening and it wouldn't really heat up for at least 5 years and more than likely 9-10 years down the road.

If the Pac can't sway the Texas posse to roll with them, I see the Pac looking into a select set of G5 schools.

1. UNLV- Big City (in the west anyway) who is willing to invest in infrastructure for the school. They are in the works to build a huge state of the art football stadium. They have big potential but they need something like the Pac to help them realize it.

2. Hawaii- The Pac is making moves to put itself more into the asian markets. They are looking at playing games in China. Making Hawaii a member would help them achieve their goal. They are a state school with a great recruiting ground. Being a member of the pac will help keep some of those blue chippers home and help lure some of the big name recruits to head to the Big Island.

3. Nevada- They are a large state school that would help connect Utah and Colorado to the rest of the league. They have had some FB success and will be one of the top teams in the new MWC.

4. San Diego St- They are a great athletic department that would be an instant rival with it's fellow California brethren. They are in a big city and would be a great addition to the leagues athletic prowess.

I like it. It's like the Hobbit. They go into the West and never are heard from again. I like it a lot!

(08-18-2013 06:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 05:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:25 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 12:13 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  More nonsense. It's not happening. Oklahoma is not going to the Pac 12 or Big 10. These rumors are great traffic generators. Thuat is all.

How would you know for sure? I am certainly not saying it is happening and if I was it certainly would not be due to some bloggers that obviously love the attention but for you to make an absolute statement like that, how do you know? You are doing the same thing they are doing.

Because of the recent statements from the Big XII commissioner and that our local media would be all over the rumor. Somebody is trying to attract more traffic to their blog or message board.

Local media is all over it if they are told about it. They rely upon the openness and goodwill of University officials in that regard.

Nice cover by Bowlsby.

You mean like how the New York/New Jersey was all over the Rutgers move to B1G?

Media knows what they are told, when they are told it. If officials decide to keep silent on it then they know nothing. Investigative journalism at this point just means picking up the phone and hoping someone tells you something. If they don't then you know nothing.

Not really all that hard at this level to keep something from these guys.

Pretty easy as a Commish to keep everything real close to chest and then say that because no one is talking about it that it must mean nothing is really happening. That certainly is not a new trick.

The Pac16 seemed close to happening when there was a Pac10, but I think the move to being a Pac12 has solidified the opposition to any expansion (by adding two more NO votes).

-You have Stanford and Cal who don't like the academics of their expansion options
-the AZ schools (and now CO and Utah) don't want to be put in a division that lessens their exposure to the state of California.

That's a lot of no votes to start with.

It is is hard to see how a Pac12 future expansion happens. Maybe if the B12 schools ALL freed themselves from partners they had to bring with them, a group of Texas, Okla, Kansas and one other could be sold by Scott as basically their last chance ever to expand.

(08-18-2013 07:25 PM)krup Wrote:  The Pac16 seemed close to happening when there was a Pac10, but I think the move to being a Pac12 has solidified the opposition to any expansion (by adding two more NO votes).

-You have Stanford and Cal who don't like the academics of their expansion options
-the AZ schools (and now CO and Utah) don't want to be put in a division that lessens their exposure to the state of California.

That's a lot of no votes to start with.

It is is hard to see how a Pac12 future expansion happens. Maybe if the B12 schools ALL freed themselves from partners they had to bring with them, a group of Texas, Okla, Kansas and one other could be sold by Scott as basically their last chance ever to expand.

I think those members rather have a greater presence in the Texahoma region than Kansas or anywhere else.

Those schools already overlooked the academics last time. It was Texas pulling away from the idea and not the Pac-10.

They would be adding a big money maker to the league. The TV partners would JUMP at the chance to bid for those TV rights. USC, UT, UCLA, OU, Oregon, Stanford etc. Thats the one and only Power conference in the western half of the country. Yes, the SEC and B1G bleed in along the border but the Pac would OWN half the country. Thats a game changer that could even increase the slice of the playoff pie. Possibly open up another contract bowl or two for the taking.

(08-18-2013 07:40 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 07:25 PM)krup Wrote:  The Pac16 seemed close to happening when there was a Pac10, but I think the move to being a Pac12 has solidified the opposition to any expansion (by adding two more NO votes).

-You have Stanford and Cal who don't like the academics of their expansion options
-the AZ schools (and now CO and Utah) don't want to be put in a division that lessens their exposure to the state of California.

That's a lot of no votes to start with.

It is is hard to see how a Pac12 future expansion happens. Maybe if the B12 schools ALL freed themselves from partners they had to bring with them, a group of Texas, Okla, Kansas and one other could be sold by Scott as basically their last chance ever to expand.

I think those members rather have a greater presence in the Texahoma region than Kansas or anywhere else.

Those schools already overlooked the academics last time. It was Texas pulling away from the idea and not the Pac-10.

They would be adding a big money maker to the league. The TV partners would JUMP at the chance to bid for those TV rights. USC, UT, UCLA, OU, Oregon, Stanford etc. Thats the one and only Power conference in the western half of the country. Yes, the SEC and B1G bleed in along the border but the Pac would OWN half the country. Thats a game changer that could even increase the slice of the playoff pie. Possibly open up another contract bowl or two for the taking.

One big glaring problem that you guys seem to love to ignore.

Texas has made it very clear that they are not interested in going out West. They don't mind scheduling a California team on their ooc schedule but in terms of conference affiliation, they have made it VERY clear they are not interested in going West.

You can delve into that theory all you want about how spectacular it would be but the fact of the matter is if the Big 12 breaks apart then whomever lands Texas is going to be open to new contract bowls because the Big 12 will no longer be contracted to them.

(08-18-2013 07:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  One big glaring problem that you guys seem to love to ignore.

Texas has made it very clear that they are not interested in going out West. They don't mind scheduling a California team on their ooc schedule but in terms of conference affiliation, they have made it VERY clear they are not interested in going West.

You can delve into that theory all you want about how spectacular it would be but the fact of the matter is if the Big 12 breaks apart then whomever lands Texas is going to be open to new contract bowls because the Big 12 will no longer be contracted to them.

Well, one glaring problem with this thread is that the PAC doesn't want the schools mentioned. But people don't have a problem ignoring that. Lol.

What's more realistic, Texahoma to PAC or the PAC inviting OSU/TT/KSU in order to help Texas move to another conference? This whole thread is so crazy it's hard to wrap my head around it. So Arizona and ASU are going to vote to reduce access to LA so that they can help Texas go to the B1G? In what world is that even within the realm of consideration?

(08-18-2013 08:08 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 07:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  One big glaring problem that you guys seem to love to ignore.

Texas has made it very clear that they are not interested in going out West. They don't mind scheduling a California team on their ooc schedule but in terms of conference affiliation, they have made it VERY clear they are not interested in going West.

You can delve into that theory all you want about how spectacular it would be but the fact of the matter is if the Big 12 breaks apart then whomever lands Texas is going to be open to new contract bowls because the Big 12 will no longer be contracted to them.

Well, one glaring problem with this thread is that the PAC doesn't want the schools mentioned. But people don't have a problem ignoring that. Lol.

What's more realistic, Texahoma to PAC or the PAC inviting OSU/TT/KSU in order to help Texas move to another conference? This whole thread is so crazy it's hard to wrap my head around it. So Arizona and ASU are going to vote to reduce access to LA so that they can help Texas go to the B1G? In what world is that even within the realm of consideration?

I'm going to tell you the same thing I told the poster who said the same thing about academics. They were fine with it the first time why would they now object? The Pac was in serious negotiations with those schools. So much so that Colorado actually accepted. They invited 6 schools to the the league. You don't send out an invite unless you have the votes to do so.

(08-18-2013 08:08 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 07:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  One big glaring problem that you guys seem to love to ignore.

Texas has made it very clear that they are not interested in going out West. They don't mind scheduling a California team on their ooc schedule but in terms of conference affiliation, they have made it VERY clear they are not interested in going West.

You can delve into that theory all you want about how spectacular it would be but the fact of the matter is if the Big 12 breaks apart then whomever lands Texas is going to be open to new contract bowls because the Big 12 will no longer be contracted to them.

Well, one glaring problem with this thread is that the PAC doesn't want the schools mentioned. But people don't have a problem ignoring that. Lol.

What's more realistic, Texahoma to PAC or the PAC inviting OSU/TT/KSU in order to help Texas move to another conference? This whole thread is so crazy it's hard to wrap my head around it. So Arizona and ASU are going to vote to reduce access to LA so that they can help Texas go to the B1G? In what world is that even within the realm of consideration?

It's not about helping Texas move to another conference. Maybe you could wrap your head around the concept if you were capable of comprehending the basic premise of what the folks talking about such are trying to get across.

That is why I have stopped trying to explain to most folks here. It is too complicated I guess.

(08-18-2013 07:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 07:40 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 07:25 PM)krup Wrote:  The Pac16 seemed close to happening when there was a Pac10, but I think the move to being a Pac12 has solidified the opposition to any expansion (by adding two more NO votes).

-You have Stanford and Cal who don't like the academics of their expansion options
-the AZ schools (and now CO and Utah) don't want to be put in a division that lessens their exposure to the state of California.

That's a lot of no votes to start with.

It is is hard to see how a Pac12 future expansion happens. Maybe if the B12 schools ALL freed themselves from partners they had to bring with them, a group of Texas, Okla, Kansas and one other could be sold by Scott as basically their last chance ever to expand.

I think those members rather have a greater presence in the Texahoma region than Kansas or anywhere else.

Those schools already overlooked the academics last time. It was Texas pulling away from the idea and not the Pac-10.

They would be adding a big money maker to the league. The TV partners would JUMP at the chance to bid for those TV rights. USC, UT, UCLA, OU, Oregon, Stanford etc. Thats the one and only Power conference in the western half of the country. Yes, the SEC and B1G bleed in along the border but the Pac would OWN half the country. Thats a game changer that could even increase the slice of the playoff pie. Possibly open up another contract bowl or two for the taking.

One big glaring problem that you guys seem to love to ignore.

Texas has made it very clear that they are not interested in going out West. They don't mind scheduling a California team on their ooc schedule but in terms of conference affiliation, they have made it VERY clear they are not interested in going West.

You can delve into that theory all you want about how spectacular it would be but the fact of the matter is if the Big 12 breaks apart then whomever lands Texas is going to be open to new contract bowls because the Big 12 will no longer be contracted to them.

Well they didn't make it very clear. They were in actual negotiations with the Pac, and were actually offered membership in the league along with Tech, A&M, OU, OSU and Colorado. The Buffs actually accpeted, A&M threatened to leave and Texas backed out because of the A&M threat and the rest fell in line with the Longhorns. The thing is that then A&M still left and Texas got to rule the roost. Doesn't mean the time wont come when they feel they need to make that jump. Maybe they start getting screwed out of playoff spots, maybe they are being squeezed to the bottom of the P5 or maybe the Pac makes them an offer they can't refuse.

It came close to happening once, saying that it can't possibly happen because it's just all so ridiculous doesn't really make sense since it almost already happened.

(08-18-2013 08:12 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I'm going to tell you the same thing I told the poster who said the same thing about academics. They were fine with it the first time why would they now object? The Pac was in serious negotiations with those schools. So much so that Colorado actually accepted. They invited 6 schools to the the league. You don't send out an invite unless you have the votes to do so.

The votes on contingent on Texas coming along.

Larry Scott didn't have the votes to get OU/OSU in without Texas. I'm not sure why anyone thinks he has the votes to get TT/OSU/KSU in without Texas.

(08-18-2013 08:18 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 08:12 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I'm going to tell you the same thing I told the poster who said the same thing about academics. They were fine with it the first time why would they now object? The Pac was in serious negotiations with those schools. So much so that Colorado actually accepted. They invited 6 schools to the the league. You don't send out an invite unless you have the votes to do so.

The votes on contingent on Texas coming along.

Larry Scott didn't have the votes to get OU/OSU in without Texas. I'm not sure why anyone thinks he has the votes to get TT/OSU/KSU in without Texas.

Did you read anything I wrote? If you did you would know that I NEVER said the Pac would just invite OSU, TT & KSU. I said UT, Tech, OU and OSU. Read the post you are commenting on before commenting.

(08-18-2013 08:18 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 08:12 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I'm going to tell you the same thing I told the poster who said the same thing about academics. They were fine with it the first time why would they now object? The Pac was in serious negotiations with those schools. So much so that Colorado actually accepted. They invited 6 schools to the the league. You don't send out an invite unless you have the votes to do so.

The votes on contingent on Texas coming along.

Larry Scott didn't have the votes to get OU/OSU in without Texas. I'm not sure why anyone thinks he has the votes to get TT/OSU/KSU in without Texas.

Your problem is that you are not looking at this like a mathematical equation.

There is a huge difference between now and then as to other variables in the entire equation.

The first big variable change is how close we are to having major changes in the NCAA which will allow new rules changes which will then allow further growth in these major conference to actually be feasible and profitable.

Having the two strongest conferences, politically speaking, expanding to 14 makes it very obvious where this is all going. The ACC doing the same first shows they were acting very proactively to stay ahead of that trend instead of falling behind which makes it more difficult to not get chewed apart.

We are going to see movement to 16 and the amount of money that is going to be there will be immense and the opportunity cost of these conferences acting in a way that stalls the process will be very considerable.

If the PAC wants to alienate themselves by holding up the process for the Big Ten, SEC and ACC then by all means, go for it.

The PAC's other options for expansion in the area all suck. Good luck with that!

(08-18-2013 08:22 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Did you read anything I wrote? If you did you would know that I NEVER said the Pac would just invite OSU, TT & KSU. I said UT, Tech, OU and OSU. Read the post you are commenting on before commenting.

I quoted what you wrote and have no idea what you were talking about frankly. Since I didn't mention anything about academics in the post you were replying to.

(08-18-2013 08:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Your problem is that you are not looking at this like a mathematical equation.

Um, realignment is not a mathematical equation. I'm not sure why you would treat it as such.

If realignment were a mathematical equation, FSU/UVA/UNC would not still be in the ACC. If realignment were a mathematical equation, ND would be in the B1G.

(08-18-2013 08:25 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 08:22 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Did you read anything I wrote? If you did you would know that I NEVER said the Pac would just invite OSU, TT & KSU. I said UT, Tech, OU and OSU. Read the post you are commenting on before commenting.

I quoted what you wrote and have no idea what you were talking about frankly. Since I didn't mention anything about academics in the post you were replying to.

I said "I'm going to tell you the same thing I told the poster who said the same thing about academics."

So clearly i didn't say you said anything about academics, but that i would tell you the same thing I told the guy who did mention them. If they had the votes before why would they not have the votes now? Why would they NOW change their vote?

(08-18-2013 08:30 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I said "I'm going to tell you the same thing I told the poster who said the same thing about academics."

So clearly i didn't say you said anything about academics, but that i would tell you the same thing I told the guy who did mention them. If they had the votes before why would they not have the votes now? Why would they NOW change their vote?

They had the votes for Texas +others. They did not then and do not now have the votes for others -Texas.

They did not have the votes for OU/OSU the last time around. Why would anyone think the votes would be there for TT/OSU/KSU without Texas now?

So yes, if Texas comes along the votes are there. If Texas didn't come, the votes are not there and we already saw that they wouldn't even take Oklahoma without Texas.

(08-18-2013 08:33 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 08:30 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I said "I'm going to tell you the same thing I told the poster who said the same thing about academics."

So clearly i didn't say you said anything about academics, but that i would tell you the same thing I told the guy who did mention them. If they had the votes before why would they not have the votes now? Why would they NOW change their vote?

They had the votes for Texas +others. They did not then and do not now have the votes for others -Texas.

They did not have the votes for OU/OSU the last time around. Why would anyone think the votes would be there for TT/OSU/KSU without Texas now?

So yes, if Texas comes along the votes are there. If Texas didn't come, the votes are not there and we already saw that they wouldn't even take Oklahoma without Texas.

I believe that they want Texas and others first, but if and this is a B1G if that i'm not 100% sold on, the B1G gets UT and OU i'm pretty sure that the Pac rather open up their arms to the Big XII leftovers than a MWC team. It would be easier to scoop them up after the defection of the big two. They could get the others to vote to end the GoR's and get them without costing an arm and a leg. From the outside it might not look like a great fit with them just adding Tech, OSU, KU & KSU but compared to their other options? Hawaii, UNLV, San Diego St, Nevada, Fresno or Boise? Those four start to look a whole lot better.

(08-18-2013 08:28 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 08:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Your problem is that you are not looking at this like a mathematical equation.

Um, realignment is not a mathematical equation. I'm not sure why you would treat it as such.

If realignment were a mathematical equation, FSU/UVA/UNC would not still be in the ACC. If realignment were a mathematical equation, ND would be in the B1G.

We are not talking simple math here. I get what you are saying but that is not what I am saying. Get it?

You think only money numbers matter but that is not the case. A Mathematical Equation can put value to Everything and Cultural Complications are part of the overall equation.

(08-18-2013 08:38 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 08:33 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 08:30 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I said "I'm going to tell you the same thing I told the poster who said the same thing about academics."

So clearly i didn't say you said anything about academics, but that i would tell you the same thing I told the guy who did mention them. If they had the votes before why would they not have the votes now? Why would they NOW change their vote?

They had the votes for Texas +others. They did not then and do not now have the votes for others -Texas.

They did not have the votes for OU/OSU the last time around. Why would anyone think the votes would be there for TT/OSU/KSU without Texas now?

So yes, if Texas comes along the votes are there. If Texas didn't come, the votes are not there and we already saw that they wouldn't even take Oklahoma without Texas.

I believe that they want Texas and others first, but if and this is a B1G if that i'm not 100% sold on, the B1G gets UT and OU i'm pretty sure that the Pac rather open up their arms to the Big XII leftovers than a MWC team. It would be easier to scoop them up after the defection of the big two. They could get the others to vote to end the GoR's and get them without costing an arm and a leg. From the outside it might not look like a great fit with them just adding Tech, OSU, KU & KSU but compared to their other options? Hawaii, UNLV, San Diego St, Nevada, Fresno or Boise? Those four start to look a whole lot better.

The Big Ten is not getting Texas for the same reasons that they couldn't pull North Carolina.

Cultural Complications NEEDS to be part of the thought process that you guys are attempting.

(08-18-2013 08:42 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 08:38 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 08:33 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 08:30 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I said "I'm going to tell you the same thing I told the poster who said the same thing about academics."

So clearly i didn't say you said anything about academics, but that i would tell you the same thing I told the guy who did mention them. If they had the votes before why would they not have the votes now? Why would they NOW change their vote?

They had the votes for Texas +others. They did not then and do not now have the votes for others -Texas.

They did not have the votes for OU/OSU the last time around. Why would anyone think the votes would be there for TT/OSU/KSU without Texas now?

So yes, if Texas comes along the votes are there. If Texas didn't come, the votes are not there and we already saw that they wouldn't even take Oklahoma without Texas.

I believe that they want Texas and others first, but if and this is a B1G if that i'm not 100% sold on, the B1G gets UT and OU i'm pretty sure that the Pac rather open up their arms to the Big XII leftovers than a MWC team. It would be easier to scoop them up after the defection of the big two. They could get the others to vote to end the GoR's and get them without costing an arm and a leg. From the outside it might not look like a great fit with them just adding Tech, OSU, KU & KSU but compared to their other options? Hawaii, UNLV, San Diego St, Nevada, Fresno or Boise? Those four start to look a whole lot better.

The Big Ten is not getting Texas for the same reasons that they couldn't pull North Carolina.

Cultural Complications NEEDS to be part of the thought process that you guys are attempting.

I agree with you, but i never say never. Thats why I said it was a B1G if.