(05-14-2013 01:02 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 12:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  You may be right. But play it out in your head. In the divisions outlined above, UT would play Tech, OU, Baylor and 1 of Ok St or TCU every year. That's not a radical change. A small price to pay for the potential for an OU/UT title game.

Damn, I bet Bit is turning blue right now. A Coog and Red Raider having a cordial, thoughtful discussion.

IMHO, the Big 12 is better served having OU and UT in the same division. While a Big 12 CCG between the 2 would be epic, it will never replace the RRSO. The RRSO splits the old "Cotton Bowl Stadium" down the middle at the 50 yard line. How do you get the same atmosphere in Jerryworld?

I'm not discounting your idea, I just think RRSO means more to those 2 schools than a CCG.

Like I mentioned previously, it will be hard to separate the Texoma 4 plus Baylor.

I am not so sure any more Texas schools would receive a "YES" vote from the six non-Texas schools in the Big XII...

(05-14-2013 01:02 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 12:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  You may be right. But play it out in your head. In the divisions outlined above, UT would play Tech, OU, Baylor and 1 of Ok St or TCU every year. That's not a radical change. A small price to pay for the potential for an OU/UT title game.

Damn, I bet Bit is turning blue right now. A Coog and Red Raider having a cordial, thoughtful discussion.

IMHO, the Big 12 is better served having OU and UT in the same division. While a Big 12 CCG between the 2 would be epic, it will never replace the RRSO. The RRSO splits the old "Cotton Bowl Stadium" down the middle at the 50 yard line. How do you get the same atmosphere in Jerryworld?

I'm not discounting your idea, I just think RRSO means more to those 2 schools than a CCG.

Like I mentioned previously, it will be hard to separate the Texoma 4 plus Baylor.

I agree. The Red River Shoot Out needs to happen. Enough college traditions have already been lost.

(05-14-2013 01:18 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 01:02 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 12:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  You may be right. But play it out in your head. In the divisions outlined above, UT would play Tech, OU, Baylor and 1 of Ok St or TCU every year. That's not a radical change. A small price to pay for the potential for an OU/UT title game.

Damn, I bet Bit is turning blue right now. A Coog and Red Raider having a cordial, thoughtful discussion.

IMHO, the Big 12 is better served having OU and UT in the same division. While a Big 12 CCG between the 2 would be epic, it will never replace the RRSO. The RRSO splits the old "Cotton Bowl Stadium" down the middle at the 50 yard line. How do you get the same atmosphere in Jerryworld?

I'm not discounting your idea, I just think RRSO means more to those 2 schools than a CCG.

Like I mentioned previously, it will be hard to separate the Texoma 4 plus Baylor.

I am not so sure any more Texas schools would receive a "YES" vote from the six non-Texas schools in the Big XII...

Given there is a 12th member on deck up North (Cincinnati?), I can't imagine what objections the non-Texas 6 would have to Houston. Other than just being paranoid about giving UT one more ally, Houston gives all of the Northern teams increased exposure in the country's #1 recruiting territory. Unless they would prefer another North team (BYU?) I can't see why they would oppose it.

Lot if delusion and wishful thinking here.

Despite what happened with realignment, the A&M/UT academic alliance is just fine. Nobody cancelled this years Maroon & Orange Day at the capital and nobody has walked out on any of the dozens of collaborative programs we have.

Coogs, we get that you are desperate to get into the B12 but cut the crap about how the B12 doesn't have and will never have the Houston market without you, nobody is buying it. You don't increase monetary value of the conference but do increase competition for Houston recruiting...again how does that help anyone but you? Finally, do you think any of the North schools are voting yes to losing annual games with UT and OU to be exiled into a new north division of KU, KSU, ISU, WVU, Cincy and one incredibly unwilling former South school?!

Adding you makes zero sense when instead, the market starved conference could expand into Ohio and Florida for real money and recruiting increases.

(05-14-2013 07:15 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Lot if delusion and wishful thinking here.

Despite what happened with realignment, the A&M/UT academic alliance is just fine. Nobody cancelled this years Maroon & Orange Day at the capital and nobody has walked out on any of the dozens of collaborative programs we have.

Coogs, we get that you are desperate to get into the B12 but cut the crap about how the B12 doesn't have and will never have the Houston market without you, nobody is buying it.

Yes, Big 12 interest in Houston is very high, and the U. of Houston has never delivered the Houston market to anyone anyway.

(05-14-2013 07:15 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Lot if delusion and wishful thinking here.

Despite what happened with realignment, the A&M/UT academic alliance is just fine. Nobody cancelled this years Maroon & Orange Day at the capital and nobody has walked out on any of the dozens of collaborative programs we have.

Coogs, we get that you are desperate to get into the B12 but cut the crap about how the B12 doesn't have and will never have the Houston market without you, nobody is buying it. You don't increase monetary value of the conference but do increase competition for Houston recruiting...again how does that help anyone but you? Finally, do you think any of the North schools are voting yes to losing annual games with UT and OU to be exiled into a new north division of KU, KSU, ISU, WVU, Cincy and one incredibly unwilling former South school?!

Adding you makes zero sense when instead, the market starved conference could expand into Ohio and Florida for real money and recruiting increases.

Who are you responding to? What Cougar fan has ever said the Big 12 does not have and will not have the Houston market without UH? At most, UH fans have pointed out that Houston is turning into an SEC market. 4 of the top 5 rated TV games in Houston last year were SEC games, and 3 of those were Aggie games. Do you, as an Aggie, really dispute that Houston is turning into an SEC market?

There have been several reports recently that Houston and the Big 12 have had discussions. Deal with it. Will those discussions go anywhere? Who knows. We get that you "can't see it" and think expanding into Ohio and Florida make more sense. You already posted that opinion once in this thread, despite the fact that A&M proposed UH as its replacement when it made the SEC move.

However, if the discussions turn serious, you can bet politics are involved. How could they not be?

(05-14-2013 07:15 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Lot if delusion and wishful thinking here.

Mostly just responding to reports leaking out.

(05-14-2013 07:15 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Despite what happened with realignment, the A&M/UT academic alliance is just fine. Nobody cancelled this years Maroon & Orange Day at the capital and nobody has walked out on any of the dozens of collaborative programs we have.

None of that changes the fact that UT is not very happy with Perry trying to change Texas' higher education system into a profit center instead of a public service. A&M is cheering Perry on, and UT is recruiting UH to their cause to stop it. If the Big 12 carrot is what tips the scales politically in their favor (a Texas school using political leverage to ouster a rival? unheard of!), then watch out.

(05-14-2013 07:15 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Coogs, we get that you are desperate to get into the B12 but cut the crap about how the B12 doesn't have and will never have the Houston market without you, nobody is buying it.

Houston market representation hierarchy: UT > A&M > UH > LSU > TTU > everybody else. Big 12 isn't stupid. There's a lot of potential viewers to be had and significant ground to be gained there.

(05-14-2013 07:15 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  You don't increase monetary value of the conference

Cash is king, but as we've seen in the past, there are other considerations involved in conference realignment. And to be fair, nobody else not under a GOR increases the monetary value of the conference either.

(05-14-2013 07:15 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  but do increase competition for Houston recruiting...again how does that help anyone but you?

For schools like Tech, Baylor, etc. sure it's increased competition. For UT and OU, they're not threatened at all. For non-Texas programs, they gain increased access to the Houston market. So, don't be so certain about that.

(05-14-2013 07:15 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Finally, do you think any of the North schools are voting yes to losing annual games with UT and OU to be exiled into a new north division of KU, KSU, ISU, WVU, Cincy and one incredibly unwilling former South school?!

Conjecture. You have no idea what the new divisions would be like.

(05-14-2013 07:15 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Adding you makes zero sense when instead, the market starved conference could expand into Ohio and Florida for real money and recruiting increases.

Adding UH does not preclude the Big 12 from expanding into Florida or Ohio.

Y'all are reading way too much into all of this.

Bottom line is 3 no votes kill anyone's candidacy and here they are:

-Baylor
-TCU
-Tech

And if you think UT wants UH in their conference...brother there's no help for you. There is no convoluted, cloak and danger, Tom Clancy novel where UT really does want to bring in UH.

Elevating UH would negatively impact all of them so there are your "no" votes.

(05-14-2013 07:57 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Y'all are reading way too much into all of this.

Bottom line is 3 no votes kill anyone's candidacy and here they are:

-Baylor
-TCU
-Tech

And if you think UT wants UH in their conference...brother there's no help for you. There is no convoluted, cloak and danger, Tom Clancy novel where UT really does want to bring in UH.

Elevating UH would negatively impact all of them so there are your "no" votes.

In a vacuum, yes, those are 3 absolute 'no' votes. However, we don't live in a vacuum. UT swings a massive set of balls around, and there are more factors at play than just what could/will happen on the football field. If you think that's all there is to it, then you're being naive.

Look, if you're convinced that UT is against UH, then fine. That's your prerogative. Continue thinking that. Doesn't bother me. The rest of us know that Bill Powers is absolutely in our corner and that Deloss Dodds & the bleachergate grudge are soon to be nothing more than a memory in this discussion.

If you had told me 20 years ago that Baylor would be invited to the Big 12 over TCU or Houston, I would've told you that you were nuts. So, try to keep an open mind. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

(05-13-2013 06:16 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 04:17 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://www.sportstalkflorida.com/db-onli...ljgQdf2.01

An Orlando radio host with a connection to the UH athletic dept. talking about how Houston is talking to the XII. No confirmation whatsoever that there is any reciprocal interest, but the source within Houston said they were looking to bolt the AAC either after this upcoming season or within the next couple of years.

Actually, the Orlando host heard the rumor from a couple of OU guys while covering the CUSA softball tournament in Tulsa, and called a UH source who verified.

There is a lot more behind this story. A great deal of state politics. The Austin school is really angry with the Aggie Perry. I think they are ready to circle the wagons. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". I look forward to what will happen next.

(05-13-2013 07:39 PM)nsmith6 Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 07:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 06:13 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  The Big 12 showed a lot more interest in talking to us after the Pac 12 came down for a tour/visit.

Still no chance of the Big 12 unless and until Deloss Dodds retires.

And Bill Powers. And everyone working in the UT AD who remembers Bleachergate the last time Texas played Houston.

I always chuckle when I hear this argument. Is the administration at Texas really that childish? UH's entire administration, both for the UH System and in the Athletic department, has completely changed since bleachergate in 2001.

Is this REALLY still an issue, or are you guys just super extra vengeful up there in Austin?

Add to that, I simply don't believe that business decisions of this magnitude are made on the basis of spite, disregarding all else. I think this argument is just something that UT forum posters can hang over the heads of UH forum posters.

Are you from Texas?

Better win and better fill that new stadium if you even want a sniff.

So to be clear....

UT is going to FORCE Baylor, Tech and TCU to let in UH because they really, really want the Coogs in their conference?

And I'm the one who is being naieve?

OK, then.

(05-14-2013 01:02 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 12:53 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  You may be right. But play it out in your head. In the divisions outlined above, UT would play Tech, OU, Baylor and 1 of Ok St or TCU every year. That's not a radical change. A small price to pay for the potential for an OU/UT title game.

Damn, I bet Bit is turning blue right now. A Coog and Red Raider having a cordial, thoughtful discussion.

I found it to be a pleasant change of pace. But no color change was indicated...

(05-14-2013 08:44 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  So to be clear....

UT is going to FORCE Baylor, Tech and TCU to let in UH because they really, really want the Coogs in their conference?

And I'm the one who is being naieve?

OK, then.

If you have to resort to being obtuse and purposefully misrepresenting people's arguments (i.e. the strawman tactic), then you've already lost. You're not as much naive as you are just incredibly biased. Just be happy that Aggie got what they wanted. You have no need to crap on anybody else.

(05-14-2013 08:44 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  So to be clear....

UT is going to FORCE Baylor, Tech and TCU to let in UH because they really, really want the Coogs in their conference?

And I'm the one who is being naieve?

OK, then.

...and KU, KSU, ISU, WVU, OU and OSU?

Unless there are 6 teams other than UT or TT (TX politics) willing to vote for UH it does raise the question of which schools vote for it.

If you would have told someone in 1982 that in 2013, SMU and Houston would effectively (and perhaps permanently) be kicked to the curb of college football, but that TTU and Baylor would be sitting pretty, they would have assumed you were a heroin addict.

(05-14-2013 09:02 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  If you would have told someone in 1982 that in 2013, SMU and Houston would effectively (and perhaps permanently) be kicked to the curb of college football, but that TTU and Baylor would be sitting pretty, they would have assumed you were a heroin addict.

Your logic and rational thinking are not wanted here!

BOO!! GET OUT!!

Houston would be better served to approach the SEC with this on its resume:

Population of Houston, TX

City-2,145,146

Urban-4,944,332

Metro-6,086,538

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston

Houston would need to present itself with another school from the AAC that the SEC would consider for its network.

(05-13-2013 09:02 PM)FormerShasta Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 07:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 07:39 PM)nsmith6 Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 07:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 06:13 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  The Big 12 showed a lot more interest in talking to us after the Pac 12 came down for a tour/visit.

Still no chance of the Big 12 unless and until Deloss Dodds retires.

And Bill Powers. And everyone working in the UT AD who remembers Bleachergate the last time Texas played Houston.

I always chuckle when I hear this argument. Is the administration at Texas really that childish? UH's entire administration, both for the UH System and in the Athletic department, has completely changed since bleachergate in 2001.

Is this REALLY still an issue, or are you guys just super extra vengeful up there in Austin?

Add to that, I simply don't believe that business decisions of this magnitude are made on the basis of spite, disregarding all else. I think this argument is just something that UT forum posters can hang over the heads of UH forum posters.

Houston risked the life of 10,000 Texas fans on those flimsy bleachers. Had they not been condemned it might have been a disaster. Its not doing business with someone who has a reckless disregard for the safety of fans.

The exact opposite of what you posted is true. Those stands were built by the same firm who built them for the Olympics. The UH officials inspected the stands and called off the extra seating, thereby having complete regard for Longhorn lives. I wouldn't have been so charitable.

The City inspector condemned them.

Longhorn Bob claimed he was the one pushing the city to inspect them, but then he was always a big talker.