(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 PAC blew their big chance. Now they take what is left.

(08-18-2013 05:37 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:22 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:07 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:55 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:48 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I agree and they are not going to the SEC either.

Did I say they were? We are locked into the Big XII for a long while. However, the SEC has a more likely shot of landing OU than the Pac 12.

I didn't say you did. I agree they are locked into the Big12 and seem very happy with it. However, I do not think the SEC has a more likely shot of landing OU than the PAC. I think it is the other way around.

The Pac 12 is not a cultural fit for Oklahoma. The SEC is. The PAC wants the Texas market and would not take Oklahoma without Texas. Oklahoma is tied to Oklahoma State and it's not likely the Pac 12 members would vote in favor of adding the Cowboys.

There are many reasons Texas is not moving west. Two of them being the LHN and the control they have in the Big XII. David Boren's opinion about AAU members in 2011 means very little now that the SEC took two of those AAU members. The writing is on the wall and people are starting to realize it. The SEC is going to remain dominant. Oklahoma will not be winning any more NC in the Big XII -definitely not in the Pac 12. It's a can't beat em, join em situation that is beginning to take form. Boren is nearing retirement and money talks.

Let the SEC win a few more national championships and more of the fans in Norman will start to realize they are playing the wrong opponents.

The cultural fit is a matter of opinion, not a fact. It has been welll documented that the PAC12 was set to take UT, A&M, Tech, CU , OU and OSU, before UT backed out. So actually it is likely the PAC12 would take OSU.

I believe most informed people would tell you the PAC would likely take the Texoma four (which includes OSU) in a heart beat. So again it is likely they would take OSU.

I think Joe Castiglione and Bob Stoops would disagree with you about OU not winning any more National Championships in the Big12. I think OU and Texas are both convinced that they have the best route to a National Championship in the Big12. DeLoss Dodds has been pretty outspoken about this.

It's not a matter of opinion on whether Oklahoma is a better cultural fit with the SEC than it is the Pac 12. I've lived in both Pac 12 and SEC country. The Pac 12 states have college football. We are college football. They had their chance and declined. Because they never intended to add Oklahoma or Oklahoma State. It will not happen. I question people's brain power who would rather watch OU play UCLA over Alabama. Oklahoma isn't remotely Pacific or remotely a fit for that conference.

Oklahoma will continue to watch the SEC win nc after nc and Bob Stoops can continue to pretend his system isn't outdated. We used to have the best route. Frankly, you cannot be the best if you don't play the best.

(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.

But why would the PAC have to add anyone? That's the better question. I think they'd rather stay at 12 than add Ok. St. & other XII leftovers. Who's forcing them to expand? TV? Not a chance.

(08-18-2013 09:32 PM)CommuterBob 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.

But why would the PAC have to add anyone? That's the better question. I think they'd rather stay at 12 than add Ok. St. & other XII leftovers. Who's forcing them to expand? TV? Not a chance.

This. People keep pretending there is some kind of race to see who can grow their conference the quickest. Expansion is only desirable if the added market offsets the loss of revenue each school experiences by adding new members.

(08-18-2013 09:32 PM)CommuterBob 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.

But why would the PAC have to add anyone? That's the better question. I think they'd rather stay at 12 than add Ok. St. & other XII leftovers. Who's forcing them to expand? TV? Not a chance.

Just have to wait until the january meetings to see if the P5 or P4 needs to restructure for 16 teams each. might not have a choice.

(08-18-2013 09:40 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:32 PM)CommuterBob 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.

But why would the PAC have to add anyone? That's the better question. I think they'd rather stay at 12 than add Ok. St. & other XII leftovers. Who's forcing them to expand? TV? Not a chance.

Just have to wait until the january meetings to see if the P5 or P4 needs to restructure for 16 teams each. might not have a choice.

Why? What will happen if they don't?

(08-18-2013 09:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:32 PM)CommuterBob 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.

But why would the PAC have to add anyone? That's the better question. I think they'd rather stay at 12 than add Ok. St. & other XII leftovers. Who's forcing them to expand? TV? Not a chance.

This. People keep pretending there is some kind of race to see who can grow their conference the quickest. Expansion is only desirable if the added market offsets the loss of revenue each school experiences by adding new members.

If the PAC 12 is content with 12, why did their commish fly all over the country to try to get four Big XII schools? Pretty obvious to me they want more.

(08-18-2013 09:44 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

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

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

But why would the PAC have to add anyone? That's the better question. I think they'd rather stay at 12 than add Ok. St. & other XII leftovers. Who's forcing them to expand? TV? Not a chance.

This. People keep pretending there is some kind of race to see who can grow their conference the quickest. Expansion is only desirable if the added market offsets the loss of revenue each school experiences by adding new members.

If the PAC 12 is content with 12, why did their commish fly all over the country to try to get four Big XII schools? Pretty obvious to me they want more.

What are you talking about? They publicly stated they are happy with their current members.

These conference alignment rumors are a real pain in the ass. The Pac 12 is not adding Oklahoma or Texas.

(08-18-2013 09:44 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  If the PAC 12 is content with 12, why did their commish fly all over the country to try to get four Big XII schools? Pretty obvious to me they want more the Longhorns.

FIFY

(08-18-2013 09:47 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:44 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

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

But why would the PAC have to add anyone? That's the better question. I think they'd rather stay at 12 than add Ok. St. & other XII leftovers. Who's forcing them to expand? TV? Not a chance.

This. People keep pretending there is some kind of race to see who can grow their conference the quickest. Expansion is only desirable if the added market offsets the loss of revenue each school experiences by adding new members.

If the PAC 12 is content with 12, why did their commish fly all over the country to try to get four Big XII schools? Pretty obvious to me they want more.

What are you talking about? They publicly stated they are happy with their current members.

These conference alignment rumors are a real pain in the ass. The Pac 12 is not adding Oklahoma or Texas.

Two years ago dude. The Texhoma Four, and I remember the B1G and SEC happy at 12 too. Do you seriously believe these public statements?

(08-18-2013 09:52 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:47 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:44 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  But why would the PAC have to add anyone? That's the better question. I think they'd rather stay at 12 than add Ok. St. & other XII leftovers. Who's forcing them to expand? TV? Not a chance.

This. People keep pretending there is some kind of race to see who can grow their conference the quickest. Expansion is only desirable if the added market offsets the loss of revenue each school experiences by adding new members.

If the PAC 12 is content with 12, why did their commish fly all over the country to try to get four Big XII schools? Pretty obvious to me they want more.

What are you talking about? They publicly stated they are happy with their current members.

These conference alignment rumors are a real pain in the ass. The Pac 12 is not adding Oklahoma or Texas.

Two years ago dude. The Texhoma Four, and I remember the B1G and SEC happy at 12 too. Do you seriously believe these public statements?

Dude, let me tell you something that I've already stated on this thread. The only interest was Texas, and it was just that: an interest. The Pac 12 was never interested in adding OU and Oklahoma State. Their current members would never vote for that.

Boren made it into a media frenzy hoping it would scare Texas into submission over the LHN. There was never any intention of adding the Oklahoma Schools, Boren and the OU brass knew it. Texas was never leaving. They would have to give up the LHN and would not have the comfort and control they do in the Big XII. It was a game of chicken. The Pac 12 ended the facade by publicly stating they were happy with their current members. There was never an offer and the media created all that nonsense. It was a big joke and many people looked like fools when it was all said and done.

1. Joining the Pac 12 does not help the recruiting situation for Oklahoma. California players will still generally stay close to home. (USC) Oklahoma has a geographical advantage being Texas' neighbor.

2. OU already has a national brand

3. The Big XII is content with splitting the pie ten ways.

(08-18-2013 10:00 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:52 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:47 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:44 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  This. People keep pretending there is some kind of race to see who can grow their conference the quickest. Expansion is only desirable if the added market offsets the loss of revenue each school experiences by adding new members.

If the PAC 12 is content with 12, why did their commish fly all over the country to try to get four Big XII schools? Pretty obvious to me they want more.

What are you talking about? They publicly stated they are happy with their current members.

These conference alignment rumors are a real pain in the ass. The Pac 12 is not adding Oklahoma or Texas.

Two years ago dude. The Texhoma Four, and I remember the B1G and SEC happy at 12 too. Do you seriously believe these public statements?

Dude, let me tell you something that I've already stated on this thread. The only interest was Texas, and it was just that: an interest. The Pac 12 was never interested in adding OU and Oklahoma State. Their current members would never vote for that.

Boren made it into a media frenzy hoping it would scare Texas into submission over the LHN. There was never any intention of adding the Oklahoma Schools, Boren and the OU brass knew it. Texas was never leaving. They would have to give up the LHN and would not have the comfort and control they do in the Big XII. It was a game of chicken. The Pac 12 ended the facade by publicly stating they were happy with their current members. There was never an offer and the media created all that nonsense. It was a big joke and many people looked like fools when it was all said and done.

You keep believing that... Texas blew the deal up. Everyone knows that. More of those silly public statements you believe in.

(08-18-2013 09:44 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

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

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

But why would the PAC have to add anyone? That's the better question. I think they'd rather stay at 12 than add Ok. St. & other XII leftovers. Who's forcing them to expand? TV? Not a chance.

This. People keep pretending there is some kind of race to see who can grow their conference the quickest. Expansion is only desirable if the added market offsets the loss of revenue each school experiences by adding new members.

If the PAC 12 is content with 12, why did their commish fly all over the country to try to get four Big XII schools? Pretty obvious to me they want more.

When what you’ve referenced occurred, it was the PAC 10 then…. The PAC 10 was looking forward to: a new tv contract—more markets meant more $$$, CCG, and building its own network. The PAC was willing to take non-AAU schools on two separate occasions because it wanted TX. TX is the biggest tv money maker when it comes to college football, and the PAC was looking at dollar $ign$ on both occasions. However, the PAC 12 will never accept B12 schools that aren’t AAU members without TX included, which has been clearly demonstrated on two separate occasions.

(08-18-2013 10:06 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 10:00 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Dude, let me tell you something that I've already stated on this thread. The only interest was Texas, and it was just that: an interest. The Pac 12 was never interested in adding OU and Oklahoma State. Their current members would never vote for that.

You keep believing that... Texas blew the deal up. Everyone knows that. More of those silly public statements you believe in.

True…. If TX and the LHN were included, OU, OSU, and TT were in the PAC.

(08-18-2013 09:44 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

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

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

But why would the PAC have to add anyone? That's the better question. I think they'd rather stay at 12 than add Ok. St. & other XII leftovers. Who's forcing them to expand? TV? Not a chance.

This. People keep pretending there is some kind of race to see who can grow their conference the quickest. Expansion is only desirable if the added market offsets the loss of revenue each school experiences by adding new members.

If the PAC 12 is content with 12, why did their commish fly all over the country to try to get four Big XII schools? Pretty obvious to me they want more.

They had a chance to add Texas and Oklahoma - two huge national brands. Ok St. and Texas Tech went along for the ride because their partners wanted them. And even then, the PAC membership ended up passing on the deal. TV wasn't going to pump more into the PAC for just ANYONE. It's not that the PAC wanted more - it's WHO the PAC wanted to add. OK St. is a fine brand, but it's not Oklahoma. Texas Tech is a far cry from Texas in national pull. Both were throw-ins to get Texas and Oklahoma. If those two are gone, then the PAC wants nothing to do with the leftovers.

(08-18-2013 10:20 PM)Underdog Wrote:  However, the PAC 12 will never accept B12 schools that aren’t AAU members without TX included, which has been demonstrated on two separate occasions.

Interesting. I never thought AAU was that crucial to the PAC 12 after they took Utah.

There are 60 US colleges in the AAU. All 60 are Carnegie "very high research" schools. There are 108 total Carnegie "very high research" schools.

Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, TCU and Baylor are NOT on that Carnegie list. Utah is.

So is Hawaii, New Mexico, Houston and Colo St in the western and southwestern US. Rice and Tulane are AAU of course, as are Texas, Kansas and Iowa St.

(08-18-2013 09:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 05:37 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:22 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:07 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:55 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Did I say they were? We are locked into the Big XII for a long while. However, the SEC has a more likely shot of landing OU than the Pac 12.

I didn't say you did. I agree they are locked into the Big12 and seem very happy with it. However, I do not think the SEC has a more likely shot of landing OU than the PAC. I think it is the other way around.

The Pac 12 is not a cultural fit for Oklahoma. The SEC is. The PAC wants the Texas market and would not take Oklahoma without Texas. Oklahoma is tied to Oklahoma State and it's not likely the Pac 12 members would vote in favor of adding the Cowboys.

There are many reasons Texas is not moving west. Two of them being the LHN and the control they have in the Big XII. David Boren's opinion about AAU members in 2011 means very little now that the SEC took two of those AAU members. The writing is on the wall and people are starting to realize it. The SEC is going to remain dominant. Oklahoma will not be winning any more NC in the Big XII -definitely not in the Pac 12. It's a can't beat em, join em situation that is beginning to take form. Boren is nearing retirement and money talks.

Let the SEC win a few more national championships and more of the fans in Norman will start to realize they are playing the wrong opponents.

The cultural fit is a matter of opinion, not a fact. It has been welll documented that the PAC12 was set to take UT, A&M, Tech, CU , OU and OSU, before UT backed out. So actually it is likely the PAC12 would take OSU.

I believe most informed people would tell you the PAC would likely take the Texoma four (which includes OSU) in a heart beat. So again it is likely they would take OSU.

I think Joe Castiglione and Bob Stoops would disagree with you about OU not winning any more National Championships in the Big12. I think OU and Texas are both convinced that they have the best route to a National Championship in the Big12. DeLoss Dodds has been pretty outspoken about this.

It's not a matter of opinion on whether Oklahoma is a better cultural fit with the SEC than it is the Pac 12. I've lived in both Pac 12 and SEC country. The Pac 12 states have college football. We are college football. They had their chance and declined. Because they never intended to add Oklahoma or Oklahoma State. It will not happen. I question people's brain power who would rather watch OU play UCLA over Alabama. Oklahoma isn't remotely Pacific or remotely a fit for that conference.

Oklahoma will continue to watch the SEC win nc after nc and Bob Stoops can continue to pretend his system isn't outdated. We used to have the best route. Frankly, you cannot be the best if you don't play the best.

So, you are saying since you have lived in a PAC 12 state and a SEC state, whatever you say about cultural fit becomes a fact and not your opinion.

I suppose one could also question another's brain power if they would rather watch OU play Vandy over Southern Cal.

And you say Bob Stoops is an outdated pretender. I am sure Mack Brown will be glad to hear that.

I think people reading this thread can now draw their own conclusions. So I do not believe I have to say any more.

(08-18-2013 10:43 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 10:20 PM)Underdog Wrote:  However, the PAC 12 will never accept B12 schools that aren’t AAU members without TX included, which has been demonstrated on two separate occasions.

Interesting. I never thought AAU was that crucial to the PAC 12 after they took Utah.

There are 60 US colleges in the AAU. All 60 are Carnegie "very high research" schools. There are 108 total Carnegie "very high research" schools.

Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, TCU and Baylor are NOT on that Carnegie list. Utah is.

So is Hawaii, New Mexico, Houston and Colo St in the western and southwestern US. Rice and Tulane are AAU of course, as are Texas, Kansas and Iowa St.

Why do you think a marquee school like OU was snubbed by the PAC 12?

(08-18-2013 08:43 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(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.

LOL wow...I just reread your post in response to mine. Perhaps I was trying to quote the other guy when I made that post to you. Seems we are pretty heavy in agreement that the PAC will end up taking what is left because it is much better than what they have to choose from out West.

(08-18-2013 10:45 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 05:37 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:22 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:07 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I didn't say you did. I agree they are locked into the Big12 and seem very happy with it. However, I do not think the SEC has a more likely shot of landing OU than the PAC. I think it is the other way around.

The Pac 12 is not a cultural fit for Oklahoma. The SEC is. The PAC wants the Texas market and would not take Oklahoma without Texas. Oklahoma is tied to Oklahoma State and it's not likely the Pac 12 members would vote in favor of adding the Cowboys.

There are many reasons Texas is not moving west. Two of them being the LHN and the control they have in the Big XII. David Boren's opinion about AAU members in 2011 means very little now that the SEC took two of those AAU members. The writing is on the wall and people are starting to realize it. The SEC is going to remain dominant. Oklahoma will not be winning any more NC in the Big XII -definitely not in the Pac 12. It's a can't beat em, join em situation that is beginning to take form. Boren is nearing retirement and money talks.

Let the SEC win a few more national championships and more of the fans in Norman will start to realize they are playing the wrong opponents.

The cultural fit is a matter of opinion, not a fact. It has been welll documented that the PAC12 was set to take UT, A&M, Tech, CU , OU and OSU, before UT backed out. So actually it is likely the PAC12 would take OSU.

I believe most informed people would tell you the PAC would likely take the Texoma four (which includes OSU) in a heart beat. So again it is likely they would take OSU.

I think Joe Castiglione and Bob Stoops would disagree with you about OU not winning any more National Championships in the Big12. I think OU and Texas are both convinced that they have the best route to a National Championship in the Big12. DeLoss Dodds has been pretty outspoken about this.

It's not a matter of opinion on whether Oklahoma is a better cultural fit with the SEC than it is the Pac 12. I've lived in both Pac 12 and SEC country. The Pac 12 states have college football. We are college football. They had their chance and declined. Because they never intended to add Oklahoma or Oklahoma State. It will not happen. I question people's brain power who would rather watch OU play UCLA over Alabama. Oklahoma isn't remotely Pacific or remotely a fit for that conference.

Oklahoma will continue to watch the SEC win nc after nc and Bob Stoops can continue to pretend his system isn't outdated. We used to have the best route. Frankly, you cannot be the best if you don't play the best.

Quote:So, you are saying since you have lived in a PAC 12 state and a SEC state, whatever you say about cultural fit becomes a fact and not your opinion.

Oklahoma has a southern bent with a insane craving for college football. Something you do not find out west. Oklahoma and Alabama are the two most prestigious programs of all time. There is cultural tie as Oklahomans are culturally akin to people in the SE. Southeastern Oklahoma is part of the Southeast.

Quote:I suppose one could also question another's brain power if they would rather watch OU play Vandy over Southern Cal.

The bottom tier teams in the SEC are better than the bottom tier in the Pac. The SEC's top tier is better than the top tier in the Pac.

Quote:And you say Bob Stoops is an outdated pretender. I am sure Mack Brown will be glad to hear that.

Texas has different problems than OU. Some of the problems are the same issue, but Texas's mediocrity was not caused by our mediocre. Stoops is a good coach but bad marketer.

Quote:I think people reading this thread can now draw their own conclusions. So I do not believe I have to say any more.

I'm not sure I understand that statement in this context, but OK.