(03-02-2014 03:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:27 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 03:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 02:41 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I disagree. Tulane is Oklahoma's Rice. Adding them would mean nothing to Texas, and Oklahoma can schedule them in OOC games any time they want.

You could say the same thing about every team you have listed. I don't think Tulane is the choice. I simply said Tulane is MORE LIKELY than Rice. I doubt either is very high on the list. Like I said, I think Cincy and ECU are the best available choices. I don't think the B12 goes beyond 12.

i like rice because they have

good facilities
history with the TX schools
elite academics

as much as everyone hates the idea of more tx expansion in the b12. it is more to the benefit of the tx schools who don't want to see their political power diluted down with more additions. so if the b12 does expand by more than 2 teams i think including a tx school to keep UT satisfied is a no brainer. they won't want anything to do with elevating another in-state land grant which leaves rice/smu as the most likely options. having more tx schools give all the other b12 schools more tx access as well. so it is beneficial to the conference as a whole. no offense to smu but i believe that rice provides more of what the b12 is looking for/needs.

That makes no sense. Texas doesn't need any other Texas programs to make them happy. Texas along with Texas A&M already have a majority of fan support in every media market in Texas. TCU got the nod because the were winning at the highest level (BCS Bowl), and located between UT and OU. Rice doesn't have the same situation, and SMU was beaten out by TCU for the spot. Their will be no more Texas teams in the BIG12 as long as Texas is in the conference, and they aren't going anywhere.

You are right about no large public universities. Neither Texas nor Oklahoma would let a Houston, UTEP, North Texas, or UTSA into the BIG12.

reading comprehension dude

you missed the whole "political power within the b12" aspect that i was getting at. the b12 schools have traditionally held 33% of the votes. right now they hold 40%. do you really think they would stand for that number to drop down to 28%????

They have no political power in the BIG12. Where are you from? Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU have almost zero say in what the BIG12 does. Plus, Richards and Bullock haven't run the state of Texas in a very long time. Texas Tech and Baylor are just lucky to be in the conference. They could have easily been left on the outside looking in, like Houston and SMU. TCU is just lucky they are located between UT and OU.

You should research how the SWC fell apart and how the Texas teams got into the BIG12. You also need to look at how the exit fees were distributed when Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri left. Texas and Oklahoma run the BIG12, everyone else settles for the scraps they are given.