Welcome aboard Lou. Glad to see another FSU fan stop by.

(05-03-2013 10:19 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  You go to pods of:

TX
TT
Baylor
OU
OSU

FSU
Miami
GT
Clemson
Wake

UNC
NCSU
Duke
UVA
VT

WVU
Louisville
Pitt
Syracuse
BC

I see one problem right away. Your not going to strand 1 N.C. school in a division and have 3 others in another. They'll split 2-2 or 4-0. How do you decide which school gets stranded? Although I like it myself. Throw in UMD and Wake, and that would almost be a perfect division for VT.

(05-03-2013 10:41 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 06:13 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 06:54 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  If Texas tech were looking to move after the GoR is up the Pac is a much better option. The blogger clearly had some sort of axe to gring in defacing Tech and the Big XII. (It is a TA&M supporter after all)

They would be perfect playing the AZ schools as well as Utah and Colorado.

The academics aren't that big of a concern for the Pac seeing how their other options are Boise, Hawaii and UNLV. If they want to expand Tech is a very good option.

The fact that many ACC supporters laughed at FSU and Clemson to the Big XII, it made a hell of a lot more sense than Tech to the ACC.

Oh and Maryland will not have some revolt and come running back to the ACC when the B1G is about to bring the majority of it's TV rights to market and the fight that ESPN and Fox will have over them. The TV money from that along with the B1G network will bring them enough money to make them very happy to be a member of the B1G.

TTech to the Pac 12 is a non-starter unless UT is first. If OU, a much better academic school and a football powerhouse, far better media draw cannot get into the Pac 12 without Texas, then TTech doesn't stand a chance.

Compared to what their other options are (Boise, UNLV and Hawaii) Tech is a sexy pick. The Pac doesn't have much to choose from. If OU really wanted in do you think they would have actually said "Naw, we'll just take Utah instead."?

The Pac 12 already rejected OU without Texas. TTech has no hope without Texas. BSU, UNLV and Hawaii are not on the Pac 12 Radar. If the PAC 12 expands, they will go with Texas and three, but not Baylor, TCU, SMU, BYU or AFA.

OU has the same academic ranking as UNL, so they are probably a candidate for the B1G, but UT is still the bigger prize. OU can go SEC. The ACC might consider them if UT was coming, too, their academics are better than Louisville and they are working to improve academics, like Louisville.

Many people forget that the PAC is safe because of geography. Even if the B1G, ACC and SEC went to 20, whether the Big 12 still existed and expanded, the PAC is still safe. Any expansion will be on their terms. They liked Texas well enough to take the others but they want the Texas market.

(05-03-2013 11:39 AM)Fburghokie Wrote:  No way ACC members will welcome WVU, simply not up to acc academics and research requirements. That is the decision of the presidents.

The membership is very pleased with the team, schools that all approach things between balancing academics, athletics and research. The only school that might render some discussion if Texas, but there will be no sweetheart deal. They come in full bore.

I disagree. Things may change in the next 13 years. ND may join full and the ACC may become strong enough that it doesn't have to accept a partial member. Now though, if Texas wasn't tied to the GoR and LHN, and wanted to be an independent with a 5 game ACC deal like ND; we'd give it to them.

(05-03-2013 10:19 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  First, we know it's going to be very difficult politically for Oklahoma and Texas to move without their state partners. In addition, they both should have substantial concern about leaving too many Texas schools behind, because it's important for recruiting that they play in Texas a lot. For example, I don't know if it's actually great for OU's long term health to go to the Big 10 with Texas. Is one game against Texas every year good enough for them to maintain their presence there? So even beyond the politics, I think it's probably good for Texas and OU to be in a Texas-heavy conference.

Neither Texas nor Oklahoma really has a political problem leaving their little brothers behind.

Texas was unable to force TAMU to stay in the Big 12. Rest assured, TTech has very little pull in Texas government. UT and TAMU are the strongest players and Houston would not go out of their way to assist TTech, they've already been burned by them. Baylor will do nothing to assist TTech unless Baylor is getting equal or better treatment.

OU and OSU are not even in the same system within Oklahoma, they are not tied at the hip. They like OSU and want them as a partner, but will do what has to be done to survive.

As long as OU plays UT in the Red River Rivalry annually, they will be fine. OU can always schedule other Texas teams for additional exposure; TAMU, TTech, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Houston, North Texas, UT San Antonio, Rice.

OU has a strong following in North Texas (North of Dallas) as it is closer than Austin. If OU stays with Texas, they will survive without problems. If they play UT annually, they likely will be perfectly fine, especially if they are in the SEC, regardless of where Texas lands.

(05-03-2013 12:39 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:19 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  First, we know it's going to be very difficult politically for Oklahoma and Texas to move without their state partners. In addition, they both should have substantial concern about leaving too many Texas schools behind, because it's important for recruiting that they play in Texas a lot. For example, I don't know if it's actually great for OU's long term health to go to the Big 10 with Texas. Is one game against Texas every year good enough for them to maintain their presence there? So even beyond the politics, I think it's probably good for Texas and OU to be in a Texas-heavy conference.

Neither Texas nor Oklahoma really has a political problem leaving their little brothers behind.

Texas was unable to force TAMU to stay in the Big 12. Rest assured, TTech has very little pull in Texas government. UT and TAMU are the strongest players and Houston would not go out of their way to assist TTech, they've already been burned by them. Baylor will do nothing to assist TTech unless Baylor is getting equal or better treatment.

OU and OSU are not even in the same system within Oklahoma, they are not tied at the hip. They like OSU and want them as a partner, but will do what has to be done to survive.

As long as OU plays UT in the Red River Rivalry annually, they will be fine. OU can always schedule other Texas teams for additional exposure; TAMU, TTech, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Houston, North Texas, UT San Antonio, Rice.

OU has a strong following in North Texas (North of Dallas) as it is closer than Austin. If OU stays with Texas, they will survive without problems. If they play UT annually, they likely will be perfectly fine, especially if they are in the SEC, regardless of where Texas lands.

All that could be true, especially if push came to shove. But the ACC can offer everything, IF the football and money is up to par.

Stay with biggest rivals
Include in-state schools
Still play a Texas-centric schedule

The ACC is actually in a very strong position. We have a solid TV deal, good balance top to bottom, with traditional powers rising again, we have the largest population footprint, which will keep on growing by all projections, and the demographics of income in the ACC footprint are improving (read: more educated people, higher incomes). We have the 5-year look-ins to chart our progress.

The ACC will be fine. Schools are making the commitments that needed to be made and we have strong ties between the schools. In 12-15 years, each conference will go through changes. 15 years ago, the SEC was NOT The power football conference. In 15 Years, the B1G will be hurting for population growth.

All we need to do is win. Win OOC games, win bowl games, beat teams that should be beaten. Win a few games that we are not expected to win. Win. Win. Win. The formula is easy, the commitments have been made, now we need teh coaching staffs and teams to do their part.

(05-03-2013 12:45 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 12:39 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:19 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  First, we know it's going to be very difficult politically for Oklahoma and Texas to move without their state partners. In addition, they both should have substantial concern about leaving too many Texas schools behind, because it's important for recruiting that they play in Texas a lot. For example, I don't know if it's actually great for OU's long term health to go to the Big 10 with Texas. Is one game against Texas every year good enough for them to maintain their presence there? So even beyond the politics, I think it's probably good for Texas and OU to be in a Texas-heavy conference.

Neither Texas nor Oklahoma really has a political problem leaving their little brothers behind.

Texas was unable to force TAMU to stay in the Big 12. Rest assured, TTech has very little pull in Texas government. UT and TAMU are the strongest players and Houston would not go out of their way to assist TTech, they've already been burned by them. Baylor will do nothing to assist TTech unless Baylor is getting equal or better treatment.

OU and OSU are not even in the same system within Oklahoma, they are not tied at the hip. They like OSU and want them as a partner, but will do what has to be done to survive.

As long as OU plays UT in the Red River Rivalry annually, they will be fine. OU can always schedule other Texas teams for additional exposure; TAMU, TTech, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Houston, North Texas, UT San Antonio, Rice.

OU has a strong following in North Texas (North of Dallas) as it is closer than Austin. If OU stays with Texas, they will survive without problems. If they play UT annually, they likely will be perfectly fine, especially if they are in the SEC, regardless of where Texas lands.

All that could be true, especially if push came to shove. But the ACC can offer everything, IF the football and money is up to par.

Stay with biggest rivals
Include in-state schools
Still play a Texas-centric schedule

I understand your point and it has validity. However, I was clarifying that there is no real hindrance to Texas and OU doing what they want. Also, if we can stay away from 18 or 20, then we'd be better off. We always want to be able to accommodate ND should they decide to go all in.

(05-03-2013 12:24 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:19 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  You go to pods of:

TX
TT
Baylor
OU
OSU

FSU
Miami
GT
Clemson
Wake

UNC
NCSU
Duke
UVA
VT

WVU
Louisville
Pitt
Syracuse
BC

I see one problem right away. Your not going to strand 1 N.C. school in a division and have 3 others in another. They'll split 2-2 or 4-0. How do you decide which school gets stranded? Although I like it myself. Throw in UMD and Wake, and that would almost be a perfect division for VT.

Yeah, I am going to strand WF there. It makes too much sense, and allthough I totally like WF and all, they have the least amount of juice.

I mean, right now, Wake Forest plays Duke and NCSU every year. They go a decade without playing UNC. In this scenario they would likely play one of those schools about every year instead of two of them, but they would play UNC much more often. They would also have a huge recruiting advantage over those school with their association in GA and FL.

It's not perfect, and it may be pretty sucky for WF, but it's better for the whole than breaking up the Triangle schools at all. You've got four North Carolina schools. I think doing something that's a perfect A+ for three of them and a D for the fourth is better than doing something that's a C- for one of them.

I try to stay out of the mindframe of "It's only Wake Forest" or whatever, but that's flat out the only blip on a perfect setup. With a pretty big compensation of being in the most glamorous division that is likely to get the most exposure. I don't think you trash a perfect setup so Wake and Duke can play football more frequently. You just don't.

(05-03-2013 12:48 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 12:45 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 12:39 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:19 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  First, we know it's going to be very difficult politically for Oklahoma and Texas to move without their state partners. In addition, they both should have substantial concern about leaving too many Texas schools behind, because it's important for recruiting that they play in Texas a lot. For example, I don't know if it's actually great for OU's long term health to go to the Big 10 with Texas. Is one game against Texas every year good enough for them to maintain their presence there? So even beyond the politics, I think it's probably good for Texas and OU to be in a Texas-heavy conference.

Neither Texas nor Oklahoma really has a political problem leaving their little brothers behind.

Texas was unable to force TAMU to stay in the Big 12. Rest assured, TTech has very little pull in Texas government. UT and TAMU are the strongest players and Houston would not go out of their way to assist TTech, they've already been burned by them. Baylor will do nothing to assist TTech unless Baylor is getting equal or better treatment.

OU and OSU are not even in the same system within Oklahoma, they are not tied at the hip. They like OSU and want them as a partner, but will do what has to be done to survive.

As long as OU plays UT in the Red River Rivalry annually, they will be fine. OU can always schedule other Texas teams for additional exposure; TAMU, TTech, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Houston, North Texas, UT San Antonio, Rice.

OU has a strong following in North Texas (North of Dallas) as it is closer than Austin. If OU stays with Texas, they will survive without problems. If they play UT annually, they likely will be perfectly fine, especially if they are in the SEC, regardless of where Texas lands.

All that could be true, especially if push came to shove. But the ACC can offer everything, IF the football and money is up to par.

Stay with biggest rivals
Include in-state schools
Still play a Texas-centric schedule

I understand your point and it has validity. However, I was clarifying that there is no real hindrance to Texas and OU doing what they want. Also, if we can stay away from 18 or 20, then we'd be better off. We always want to be able to accommodate ND should they decide to go all in.

I don't know if there's a hindrance, but there's a way of making it a hell of a lot more attractive. If it's just TX and OU and only those two, the ACC doesn't have much of a shot. The ability/willingness to meet everything on the wishlist can allow the ACC to be a favorite for their services instead of the end of the line.

I think you are really overstating the strength of the ACC, especially for the schools that intend to compete with the Alabama, Florida and Ohio States of the world for national championships. This league definitely has to improve itself. If you have a chance to take TX or OU, you don't turn your nose up at TT and OSU and let Texas and OU go to league that are already stronger than the ACC.

And you don't hold off anything for Notre Dame. I don't care if we have 50 schools, if ND wants in, we'll fit them in. But you don't hold off making a homerun move because you hope someday 10 or 20 years from now ND will be forced to do something they REALLY, REALLY don't want to do.

The ACC has to think bigger than they did from 1990 to 2011, not fall back into that old mindset now that they've got a GOR.

(05-02-2013 11:27 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 11:23 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 11:19 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 11:16 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 08:52 PM)ArQ Wrote:  It is just a matter of time that Texas and Oklahoma join PAC14/16.

DeLoss Dodds has publicly indicated that given a choice of heading to the Pac or ACC, Texas would chose the ACC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...NQ#t=1322s

The LHN is a abject failure. OU has an almost identical profile to UNL. UT may be making a choice between eastern conferences.

How is the LHN a failure? UT gets 15 million regardless of ratings and UT will go west

It is a complete failure for ESPN. They can't even get carriage in Texas. The programming is atrocious. UT gets their money, sure, but isn't bringing the school more exposure. I'd look for ESPN to cut their losses as soon as the contract allows.

It's on Grande, Time Warner and AT&T Uverse now. How is it not getting exposure? I am not a UT homer just wondering your angle.

Is it on TW? I'm in San Antonio and we don't have it as far as I know...maybe just in A-Town.

(05-03-2013 01:03 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 12:48 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 12:45 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 12:39 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:19 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  First, we know it's going to be very difficult politically for Oklahoma and Texas to move without their state partners. In addition, they both should have substantial concern about leaving too many Texas schools behind, because it's important for recruiting that they play in Texas a lot. For example, I don't know if it's actually great for OU's long term health to go to the Big 10 with Texas. Is one game against Texas every year good enough for them to maintain their presence there? So even beyond the politics, I think it's probably good for Texas and OU to be in a Texas-heavy conference.

Neither Texas nor Oklahoma really has a political problem leaving their little brothers behind.

Texas was unable to force TAMU to stay in the Big 12. Rest assured, TTech has very little pull in Texas government. UT and TAMU are the strongest players and Houston would not go out of their way to assist TTech, they've already been burned by them. Baylor will do nothing to assist TTech unless Baylor is getting equal or better treatment.

OU and OSU are not even in the same system within Oklahoma, they are not tied at the hip. They like OSU and want them as a partner, but will do what has to be done to survive.

As long as OU plays UT in the Red River Rivalry annually, they will be fine. OU can always schedule other Texas teams for additional exposure; TAMU, TTech, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Houston, North Texas, UT San Antonio, Rice.

OU has a strong following in North Texas (North of Dallas) as it is closer than Austin. If OU stays with Texas, they will survive without problems. If they play UT annually, they likely will be perfectly fine, especially if they are in the SEC, regardless of where Texas lands.

All that could be true, especially if push came to shove. But the ACC can offer everything, IF the football and money is up to par.

Stay with biggest rivals
Include in-state schools
Still play a Texas-centric schedule

I understand your point and it has validity. However, I was clarifying that there is no real hindrance to Texas and OU doing what they want. Also, if we can stay away from 18 or 20, then we'd be better off. We always want to be able to accommodate ND should they decide to go all in.

I don't know if there's a hindrance, but there's a way of making it a hell of a lot more attractive. If it's just TX and OU and only those two, the ACC doesn't have much of a shot. The ability/willingness to meet everything on the wishlist can allow the ACC to be a favorite for their services instead of the end of the line.

I think you are really overstating the strength of the ACC, especially for the schools that intend to compete with the Alabama, Florida and Ohio States of the world for national championships. This league definitely has to improve itself. If you have a chance to take TX or OU, you don't turn your nose up at TT and OSU and let Texas and OU go to league that are already stronger than the ACC.

And you don't hold off anything for Notre Dame. I don't care if we have 50 schools, if ND wants in, we'll fit them in. But you don't hold off making a homerun move because you hope someday 10 or 20 years from now ND will be forced to do something they REALLY, REALLY don't want to do.

The ACC has to think bigger than they did from 1990 to 2011, not fall back into that old mindset now that they've got a GOR.

If the issue of taking a couple extras comes up in negotiations, you cross that bridge when you get there. If the ACC outright offered UT, OU and 2-3 extras of their choice, the ACC would look desperate.

As to overstating the ACC's strength, not sure where you are coming from. There are only a few elite schools, the Big 10 has two, UM and tOSU, with PSU and UNL not far behind them. The SEC has Alabama and LSU. There are a few not far behind, but Florida, Auburn and Tennessee are not to that elite level. The Pac 12 has USC. The Big 12 has OU and Texas. The ACC matches up overall fairly well, unless you are looking at this from the last 5-10 years, in which case, you probably aren't aware that Syracuse and Pitt have more wins than any current ACC member and that ND ranks above them. In short, the ACC has added three historically great schools, one at the top of their game (ND), two climbing back to their winning ways.

As to TTech and OSU, there are far better options. I would take WVU before either of them, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Houston, Cincy, for that matter, if you are stooping low academically, go with Memphis, it's close by and in another football crazy state. I understand your point about luring Texas and OU into the ACC, but this has already been offered by the PAC 12, so they probably can exercise that choice at any time they wish to do so.

One of the aspects that Texas likes about the B1G, ACC and PAC 12 are the academic rivals, whereas, UT has plainly stated they have no interest in the SEC, and, no, it has nothing to do with competition, UT would hold their own. It has more to do with the fact that Vandy, Florida (excepting the football and hoops teams) and UGA have respectable academics. By adding TAMU and Mizzou, the SEC academic standing significantly improved.

If you note, I did call for the ACC needing to win OOC and beat the teams we should beat and win games we're not supposed to. So you actually agree with me.

I also stated we keep the door open for ND. While I agree that no matter the conference size, if ND wants in, you let them in. However, reason dictates that ND is not likely to want into a mega conference unless it has no option. It is far better to keep talking with them and consider their opinion than to keep expanding for expansion's sake. Bringing TTech, OSU and other Big 12 teams wold NOT entice ND, only UT and possibly OU.

Perhaps TerryD can comment on the ND perspective. He has many fellow Golden Dome fans and usually has a good pulse on ND's position.

I would love that headline a lot more if there were just one word taken out of it.

(05-03-2013 04:36 PM)zibby Wrote:  I would love that headline a lot more if there were just one word taken out of it.

I'll go out on a limb and guess the word Tech is the word that you were taken out of the title.

(05-03-2013 12:25 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:41 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 06:13 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 06:54 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  If Texas tech were looking to move after the GoR is up the Pac is a much better option. The blogger clearly had some sort of axe to gring in defacing Tech and the Big XII. (It is a TA&M supporter after all)

They would be perfect playing the AZ schools as well as Utah and Colorado.

The academics aren't that big of a concern for the Pac seeing how their other options are Boise, Hawaii and UNLV. If they want to expand Tech is a very good option.

The fact that many ACC supporters laughed at FSU and Clemson to the Big XII, it made a hell of a lot more sense than Tech to the ACC.

Oh and Maryland will not have some revolt and come running back to the ACC when the B1G is about to bring the majority of it's TV rights to market and the fight that ESPN and Fox will have over them. The TV money from that along with the B1G network will bring them enough money to make them very happy to be a member of the B1G.

TTech to the Pac 12 is a non-starter unless UT is first. If OU, a much better academic school and a football powerhouse, far better media draw cannot get into the Pac 12 without Texas, then TTech doesn't stand a chance.

Compared to what their other options are (Boise, UNLV and Hawaii) Tech is a sexy pick. The Pac doesn't have much to choose from. If OU really wanted in do you think they would have actually said "Naw, we'll just take Utah instead."?

The Pac 12 already rejected OU without Texas. TTech has no hope without Texas. BSU, UNLV and Hawaii are not on the Pac 12 Radar. If the PAC 12 expands, they will go with Texas and three, but not Baylor, TCU, SMU, BYU or AFA.

OU has the same academic ranking as UNL, so they are probably a candidate for the B1G, but UT is still the bigger prize. OU can go SEC. The ACC might consider them if UT was coming, too, their academics are better than Louisville and they are working to improve academics, like Louisville.

Many people forget that the PAC is safe because of geography. Even if the B1G, ACC and SEC went to 20, whether the Big 12 still existed and expanded, the PAC is still safe. Any expansion will be on their terms. They liked Texas well enough to take the others but they want the Texas market.

It's hard for me to believe that the Pac turned down OU but took Utah. It's just as likely that OU decided to hitch it's wagon to UT, and when the Longhorns walked away so did the Sooners.

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/ran...nkings.php

Just to speak to the relative weakness of the Big 12 overall and why they will be in trouble longterm, in college football data warehouse, they have a formula to rank the top teams of all-time and for each decade. Here are the total number of teams in the top 25 of all-time and in the last decade:

SEC: 8 (Alabama, LSU, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Texas A&M, Arkansas)
B1G: 7 (Michigan, Ohio St., Nebraska, Penn St., Minnesota, Michigan St., Illinois)
ACC 4 or 5 (Notre Dame, Miami (Fl), Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, Florida State)
Pac 12: 3 (USC, Washington, UCLA)
Big 12: 2 (Oklahoma, Texas)

If you think history doesn't matter, then look at the last decade rankings 2001-2010.

SEC: 8 (Florida, LSU, Auburn, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina)
Pac-12: 8 (USC, Oregon, Cal, Oregon State, UCLA, Stanford, Arizona State, Washington State)
ACC: 5 (Miami (Fl), Virginia Tech, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson)
B1G: 2 (Ohio State, Nebraska)
Big 12: 2 (Oklahoma, Texas)

The Big 12 is the worst conference historically and recently. The ACC is middle of the pack in both. Sure it's not the SEC, and the PAC-12 has had a lot of recent success with USC, Oregon, and Stanford but it's not as far off as some of the naysayers would like you to think. The Big 12 is the conference that stinks and the B1G is right there with them in the last 10-15 years.

(05-03-2013 06:20 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 12:25 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 10:41 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 06:13 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 06:54 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  If Texas tech were looking to move after the GoR is up the Pac is a much better option. The blogger clearly had some sort of axe to gring in defacing Tech and the Big XII. (It is a TA&M supporter after all)

They would be perfect playing the AZ schools as well as Utah and Colorado.

The academics aren't that big of a concern for the Pac seeing how their other options are Boise, Hawaii and UNLV. If they want to expand Tech is a very good option.

The fact that many ACC supporters laughed at FSU and Clemson to the Big XII, it made a hell of a lot more sense than Tech to the ACC.

Oh and Maryland will not have some revolt and come running back to the ACC when the B1G is about to bring the majority of it's TV rights to market and the fight that ESPN and Fox will have over them. The TV money from that along with the B1G network will bring them enough money to make them very happy to be a member of the B1G.

TTech to the Pac 12 is a non-starter unless UT is first. If OU, a much better academic school and a football powerhouse, far better media draw cannot get into the Pac 12 without Texas, then TTech doesn't stand a chance.

Compared to what their other options are (Boise, UNLV and Hawaii) Tech is a sexy pick. The Pac doesn't have much to choose from. If OU really wanted in do you think they would have actually said "Naw, we'll just take Utah instead."?

The Pac 12 already rejected OU without Texas. TTech has no hope without Texas. BSU, UNLV and Hawaii are not on the Pac 12 Radar. If the PAC 12 expands, they will go with Texas and three, but not Baylor, TCU, SMU, BYU or AFA.

OU has the same academic ranking as UNL, so they are probably a candidate for the B1G, but UT is still the bigger prize. OU can go SEC. The ACC might consider them if UT was coming, too, their academics are better than Louisville and they are working to improve academics, like Louisville.

Many people forget that the PAC is safe because of geography. Even if the B1G, ACC and SEC went to 20, whether the Big 12 still existed and expanded, the PAC is still safe. Any expansion will be on their terms. They liked Texas well enough to take the others but they want the Texas market.

It's hard for me to believe that the Pac turned down OU but took Utah. It's just as likely that OU decided to hitch it's wagon to UT, and when the Longhorns walked away so did the Sooners.

So be it. The PAC 12 took Utah before OU sought PAC 12 admission without UT. Research can be a friend.