(04-12-2015 12:24 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Greatest troll in the history of NCAABBS/CSNBBS. Either him or TOCG.

The OP doesn't look a whole lot different from the Orange Bloods guy opining a few years ago. I'm surprised that you rank this thread as such a great troll.

If the B1G were going to 15, I would think nothing would be announced until after the conference championship game deregulation passes. If it doesn't pass, it puts the B1G in an awkward position.

(04-12-2015 12:24 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Greatest troll in the history of NCAABBS/CSNBBS. Either him or TOCG.

He once claimed Georgetown was going to the ACC, too.

(04-11-2015 09:50 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-11-2015 09:35 PM)BE4evah Wrote:  

(04-11-2015 09:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I'm not speaking as to the credibility of the guy but I was waiting to see if I would have to point out to you folks that he never says anything about UConn placement, just that he had some interesting conversations that folks on that forum would find very interesting.

He is allowing you to think it is directly involving UConn.

As I thought, I ended up having to point out what I thought was obvious but ends up not being so obvious after all I guess.

The guy is the moderator on the UConn football board. He posts in a forum on that board dedicated to conference realignment. The information that he heard was heard at the UConn spring game. I don't understand what you are saying, that the guy is referencing UConn? That makes zero sense.

Moreover, a very reputable and high powered business lawyer additionally vouches for the guy-

"The OP has credibility. Does that mean his source is right or speculation won't come to fruition? We have no way of knowing. But I have zero doubt that he heard something from someone who he belives has credibility"
Poster
businesslawyer


So all these UConn guys are vouching for his credibility. The anti-Uconn guys might just get their comeuppance, and that looks like it it is scaring a whole lot of people...

Once again, I do love to see people go off on a tangent after completely misunderstanding what they read. All I said was simply that the quoted statements say nothing about UConn directly and yes I was aware of his position there. I was able to read the thread just as easily as anyone else.

My comment is not "Anti-UConn". If you weren't so damn ignorant, you would know that I have been very solid in my statements that UConn's spot has been assured in the ACC. So how I am anti UConn is beyond me. Truth is, you are just throwing a little tantrum here.

Even the lawyer doesn't say anything to lead to UConn. I know of something very interesting that is in the works. It indirectly involves UConn but its not all about UConn. Nothing that said person on the UConn board says would directly contradict my statement. The guy is just letting you know that something is happening, that is all. It started right after the Tournament ended.

That was a strategic "rumor drop" designed to test the waters and prepare the way for UConn to move to the Big Ten.

Aren't such rumors and leaks the way it is done?

Some on this board(not you but others) have told us such.

i think everyone needs to settle down, take a deep breath and focus on whats important.... providence college just won the national championship in mens hockey!

(04-11-2015 10:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-11-2015 10:37 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-11-2015 10:34 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-11-2015 10:30 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-11-2015 10:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Wrong. It is obvious that the UConn moderator wants folks at that forum to think it is all about UConn but that doesn't mean such is the truth. It may have a positive affect on UConn in the end which would be why it would make him excited.

I find it funny Omni that you are attempting to "say what the poster was saying" when the poster was purposefully being very vague which means you CANT tell us what the poster is saying.

All I am saying is that he is not saying anything at all about UConn getting into anything. You and others are trying to fictitiously write that story as the truth but it's not.

Again, you may very well be proven right. But the path you are on in trying to get to a different result doesn't make sense in light of what was written.

Do you really think that any poster who wants to keep their reputation alive would willingly mislead a starving fanbase desperate to get into a P5 conference with what was copied verbatim above from said poster only to say later on, well what I was trying to convey back in April truly wasn't ABOUT UConn in terms of P5 membership (as you have tried to claim) but something altogether different that just might involve UConn in some way but doesn't actually lead to P5 membership?

If what he has heard doesn't have a chance of leading to P5 membership as an immediate impact of what was discussed, what he has written would be way more cautionary than the above, imho.

YMMV, as it often does.

Cheers,
Neil

He isn't misleading them. They are misleading themselves. After some things happen he will be able to explain then if he so feels like doing that. He is saying what he can at this time, that is all. It is on others if they try to attribute more to his words than what his words actually say.

Again, you may be proven right over the course of time. Or perhaps what he has heard has nothing whatsoever to do with the thing you have heard and you are internalizing it this way since it kind of blows up your Oklahoma and Kansas to the B1G theory? Maybe UConn posters are not the only ones misleading themselves?

Cheers,
Neil

If you wish to believe all that about me, you are more than welcome to. Once again though, I am not the one attributing more to what the UConn guy posted than what he actually posted.

Maybe you don't like me pointing out how you went along with the Herd on this one so you attack me personally. All I can say to that is that I am not a herd animal.

What specific, detailed information do you possess that Oklahoma and Kansas will end up in the Big Ten and UConn will end up in the ACC.

Can you lay it all out in detail?

Step by step my friend, step by step. Right now, it's rule time. I am not going to write out the entire order of events when the situation is dynamic.

I could believe Uconn to the ACC and KU and OU to the big 10, good pickups for each league. Yet, hard to believe the SEC and Pac 12 would take any of the leftovers of the big 12 without also getting Texas….which would KO the concept of texas going to the ACC in an ND type deal. I guess maybe the SEC could take WVU and TCU or baylor to get to 16 but that seems unlikely. No way would the pac 12 take any second tier big 12 school's without texas. If you breaking up the big 12, the first issue is do you find homes for all 10 school's or go for the 8 and dissolve? I think for it to happen texas would need to go to the pac 12 and bump it up to 18, 3 pods of 6. Yet, if they are doing that why not just include OU in the move? I mean if OU goes to the big 10 and plays 9 conference games, makes it hard for them to play Texas and Ok state non-conference.

(04-11-2015 11:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Just so you guys know, my sources have nothing concerning UCONN moving anywhere at this time. The rumor is baseless and designed to gin up more traffic to the Boneyard. Hopefully, this clears it up for everyone.

You're welcome.

I call BS on this...if a non-disclosure agreement was signed...only a small handful of folks would know.

(04-12-2015 09:50 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I could believe Uconn to the ACC and KU and OU to the big 10, good pickups for each league. Yet, hard to believe the SEC and Pac 12 would take any of the leftovers of the big 12 without also getting Texas….which would KO the concept of texas going to the ACC in an ND type deal. I guess maybe the SEC could take WVU and TCU or baylor but that seems unlikely. No way would the pac 12 take any second tier big 12 school's without texas.

The PAC will because of the money. When the big 12 gor disappears in a decade, the PAC isn't going to land any of the premier schools. They already tried. They might as well get on the bandwagon and get that big pay day now. If they don't and they make everyone else wait, then there is no reason to pay them more.

They will be paid for their cooperation and for moving into the Central Time Zone thus adding 90 new possible match ups to be shown on that early kick off. The PAC currently doesn't have games start at that time slot. Moving into that time slot will earn them a very nice pay increase.

As far as the SEC? They already have plenty of blue chip programs. It's funny watching fans treat this like a baseball card collection or something. That isn't how it works. The existing hierarchy of The SEC isn't necessarily trying to rock the boat too hard. Oklahoma State and West Virginia provide atmospheres great for TV. They provide strong and loyal followings.

It's alright if you cant envision it. None of you envisioned Maryland to The Big Ten either. I did. None of you envisioned that Harbaugh would actually choose a University rather than a Pro team to coach. I did. So once again, you don't have to agree with me on this for this to be right. It wouldn't be the first time that I went it alone and was right in the end.

So something like this 3 pod setup? Play your 4 divisional mates every year and a 4 year cycle thru the other 2 divisions to play host to every B1G team every 4 years. Not sure which way to put Indiana and Michigan St though. Indiana is already in a different division than Purdue but really to help the Penn St division you need a second decent football program to even everything out.

Penn St
Maryland
Rutgers
UCONN
Michigan St/Indiana

Ohio St
Michigan
Indiana/Michigan St
Purdue
Northwestern

Wisconsin
Nebraska
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois

The numbers don't add up unless some conference jumps past 16.

Big 10 -2
SEC- 2
pac 12- 4

Thus, the big 12 can be dissolved and 2 teams join the AAC and Sue. Or the ACC jumps to 18 with texas and ND getting indy status? I could see the above happen with texas going to pac 12 but still don't believe the pac 12 would take kan state, iowa state, etc without texas….maybe i could see them take texas tech solo just since they are in texas and a western school.

The numbers add up just fine, one more G5 gets pulled up. Yes the PAC will do it, it has been explained with much more detail and much more logic than posts like this which simply say that they wouldn't do it without ever arguing against the ACTUAL reasons why they would.

At least when I say I am right about something, I provide actual reason and proof of why such is the case.

Your first lesson, attempt to wrap your head around the idea of just how much more valuable the PAC line up would be to the networks if they are able to showcase them at an entirely new time slot for The PAC. Then once you have that, realize that the first time slot, the noon Eastern time slot, is a very important time slot to get into in terms of coverage.

Those games are the ones being talked about during that entire time slot. If you aren't on during that time slot then there is a whole lot of folks that aren't going to see OR hear anything about you until much later on in the day. Not everyone sticks around the tv all day for all of college football. Many catch the early game and then move on with their day.

In terms of the people that view football all day. Without the early game, you are not going to be talked about during any of the half time shows for that first time slot. You are not going to be talked about much in between the noon slot games and the next time slot of games. You will just start to be talked about at half time of the 2:30/3:00 games which means about 4:00 in the afternoon. The PAC gets the worst coverage of all the Majors and this is a very well known fact. Moving strong into the Central Time Zone will be a big money move for them. They tried to control who they would get for that move by trying to jump the gun. They tried to get the top big 12 brands but that failed. Now they have competition for those brands, they wont get them. They are better off taking the big deal now rather than still getting the "crumbs" in ten years but having zero leverage to score as big of a deal as possible.

The PAC will take them.

Well, why didn't the pac 10 take OU and Ok state combo if they want central time zone school's. Its not like the crumbs of the big 12 won't be available to the pac 12 in when the big 12 GOR expire down the road. Having a conference of second tier state school's seems strange and could result in a split someday. The pac 12 could just offer texas tech, OU, and Ok state, the latter probably want to stick together. Thus, they would bring in a blue blood football program and have a good bait to force texas to make a move. OR the better move is if everybody is working together is to just create a pac 20 with texas and allow each division to have a hoop tourney + cut a deal with texas on the LHN.

(04-12-2015 10:26 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Well, why didn't the pac 10 take OU and Ok state combo if they want central time zone school's. Its not like the crumbs of the big 12 won't be available to the pac 12 in when the big 12 GOR expire down the road. Having a conference of second tier state school's seems strange and could result in a split someday. The pac 12 could just offer texas tech, OU, and Ok state, the latter probably want to stick together. Thus, they would bring in a blue blood football program and have a good bait to force texas to make a move. OR the better move is if everybody is working together is to just create a pac 20 with texas and allow each division to have a hoop tourney + cut a deal with texas on the LHN.

Because Oklahoma truly wasn't willing to go out there without Texas. If they were then they would be there, as you said. They aren't there so obviously Oklahoma was just trying to maneuver Texas into the move so that the move would be worth it for Oklahoma.

The PAC 12 already did offer Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. That was very public so I don't know why you think that is the solution when it was already attempted and Wasn't the solution.

Texas can go the indie route with the ACC and do the same thing as Notre Dame. When they do that they can still have a protected rivalry game with Oklahoma. They can also promise Tech a protected yearly rivalry game in order to soothe that Tech pride. Tech would have something that A&M doesn't while becoming THE Texas team of The PAC Conference. That's worked out pretty well for A&M so far in The SEC.

(04-12-2015 10:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 10:26 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Well, why didn't the pac 10 take OU and Ok state combo if they want central time zone school's. Its not like the crumbs of the big 12 won't be available to the pac 12 in when the big 12 GOR expire down the road. Having a conference of second tier state school's seems strange and could result in a split someday. The pac 12 could just offer texas tech, OU, and Ok state, the latter probably want to stick together. Thus, they would bring in a blue blood football program and have a good bait to force texas to make a move. OR the better move is if everybody is working together is to just create a pac 20 with texas and allow each division to have a hoop tourney + cut a deal with texas on the LHN.

Because Oklahoma truly wasn't willing to go out there without Texas. If they were then they would be there, as you said. They aren't there so obviously Oklahoma was just trying to maneuver Texas into the move so that the move would be worth it for Oklahoma.

The PAC 12 already did offer Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. That was very public so I don't know why you think that is the solution when it was already attempted and Wasn't the solution.

Texas can go the indie route with the ACC and do the same thing as Notre Dame. When they do that they can still have a protected rivalry game with Oklahoma. They can also promise Tech a protected yearly rivalry game in order to soothe that Tech pride. Tech would have something that A&M doesn't while becoming THE Texas team of The PAC Conference. That's worked out pretty well for A&M so far in The SEC.

I disagree on the reasoning of why the PAC didn't take them. It has been fairly well documented that Stanford (among others) didn't want Oklahoma State and had some resistance to Tech even with Texas. But the real issue H1 was at the time the PAC remained independent of network ownership and there was no way that ESPN was going to permit Texas to move outside of their control. Hence the LHN as an anchor. Then came the GOR.

(04-12-2015 10:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 10:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 10:26 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Well, why didn't the pac 10 take OU and Ok state combo if they want central time zone school's. Its not like the crumbs of the big 12 won't be available to the pac 12 in when the big 12 GOR expire down the road. Having a conference of second tier state school's seems strange and could result in a split someday. The pac 12 could just offer texas tech, OU, and Ok state, the latter probably want to stick together. Thus, they would bring in a blue blood football program and have a good bait to force texas to make a move. OR the better move is if everybody is working together is to just create a pac 20 with texas and allow each division to have a hoop tourney + cut a deal with texas on the LHN.

Because Oklahoma truly wasn't willing to go out there without Texas. If they were then they would be there, as you said. They aren't there so obviously Oklahoma was just trying to maneuver Texas into the move so that the move would be worth it for Oklahoma.

The PAC 12 already did offer Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. That was very public so I don't know why you think that is the solution when it was already attempted and Wasn't the solution.

Texas can go the indie route with the ACC and do the same thing as Notre Dame. When they do that they can still have a protected rivalry game with Oklahoma. They can also promise Tech a protected yearly rivalry game in order to soothe that Tech pride. Tech would have something that A&M doesn't while becoming THE Texas team of The PAC Conference. That's worked out pretty well for A&M so far in The SEC.

I disagree on the reasoning of why the PAC didn't take them. It has been fairly well documented that Stanford (among others) didn't want Oklahoma State and had some resistance to Tech even with Texas. But the real issue H1 was at the time the PAC remained independent of network ownership and there was no way that ESPN was going to permit Texas to move outside of their control. Hence the LHN as an anchor. Then came the GOR.

Disagree if you like. Your reasoning still stands against the concept that bluesox was pushing.

As a UConn alum/fan, I don't believe any of this.

It's fun to think about and discuss, but it's naive to actually believe any of it before it's in the papers.

(04-12-2015 09:44 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Step by step my friend, step by step. Right now, it's rule time. I am not going to write out the entire order of events when the situation is dynamic.

Just skip to the end, then....

I don't care about the details anyway, just the final outcome.