(07-12-2018 11:53 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 10:21 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  the report at the time, including from espn, was that texas, tech, a&m, Colorado and the Oklahoma schools were headed to pac10

if I remember correctly Texas was getting pressured to take Baylor along.(at the expense of Colorado according to state of Texas) Colorado acted swiftly and joined the P10 instead of waiting to do as a group. Texas backed off and that left door open for Utah

But that report turns out to be inaccurate. That is what this story reveals. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech were not on the list Scott submitted.

Perhaps they got on that list from Oklahoma and even somebody with Texas, wanting more of their rivals. But I can see how that would be DOA with the Pac-10 Chancellors and Presidents. 5 Hell no votes locked in.

According to the Utah AD and president at the time. They are the ONLY ones who have said this. And they wouldn't know.

(07-13-2018 01:07 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Lubbock is similar size market as Boise State and Stillwater is just a small hick town in Oklahoma that is way way smaller than Boise.

Lubbock isn't the market they're going after. Dallas/Ft Worth (6,817,483 people, 2010 Census), Houston (6,114,562 people), San Antonio (2,142,508 people), Austin (1,716,289), El Paso (1,013,356 people) are all bigger than Boise (697,535). Those are the markets they're going after, and Texas Tech is the 3rd most popular team in those media markets. Add in Texas, and you've basically dominated them. (With 2 out of the 3 most popular college teams in Texas).

As far as Stillwater, you need to look at Oklahoma City (1,322,429), and Tulsa (1,106,131).

You seem to think that the primary market is the town that they're in. It's not.

Larry Scott also said in an interview that Boise State and San Diego State are backup plans for the future. They are looking at them as the only G5 schools on the west coast that could moved the needle somewhat if they can not get the Texhoma 4. Boise State is like number 1, 2,3 or 4 depending on which parts of the northwest that they are in. Boise State is like number behind Washington in a lot of the parts of the eastern parts of Washington. Sometimes number 1 near the border of the 2 states. They have beaten out Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State and BYU in a lot of areas because they are winning. The reason Boise State is considered is that they could bring some money that schools like Washington state is struggling right now. Look how bad Oregon State and Washington State gets beaten by Boise State in football? Look how bad those schools look when they lose to teams like Eastern Washington and Portland State? Yes, they know about Boise's academics are not that great yet, but they got a R3 from Carnegie which they jumped up 2 levels already that quickly. By 2020, Boise State could be at a high R2 by that time.

(07-13-2018 04:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Larry Scott also said in an interview that Boise State and San Diego State are backup plans for the future. They are looking at them as the only G5 schools on the west coast that could moved the needle somewhat if they can not get the Texhoma 4. Boise State is like number 1, 2,3 or 4 depending on which parts of the northwest that they are in. Boise State is like number behind Washington in a lot of the parts of the eastern parts of Washington. Sometimes number 1 near the border of the 2 states. They have beaten out Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State and BYU in a lot of areas because they are winning. The reason Boise State is considered is that they could bring some money that schools like Washington state is struggling right now. Look how bad Oregon State and Washington State gets beaten by Boise State in football? Look how bad those schools look when they lose to teams like Eastern Washington and Portland State? Yes, they know about Boise's academics are not that great yet, but they got a R3 from Carnegie which they jumped up 2 levels already that quickly. By 2020, Boise State could be at a high R2 by that time.

The only way I see it happening is if the PAC is raided by the XII for its California schools.

Then PAC has to reload with the best of the MWC in that event.

Wyoming finally gets left behind.

(07-13-2018 03:06 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I had some thoughts as to why Texas Tech and Okla St aren't on that list and I think it's because their invites were bargaining chips. The Pac 10 had their eyes on Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma. If that group of 4 was the original offer then then Texas and Oklahoma would have to negotiate to get their little brothers in. If you include those two "companion" schools in the original offer the Pac 10 loses that leverage and bargaining chip.

I think the ESPN folks knew that those two were going to be part of the compromise so when the story leaked the version we all heard was the iteration that included them.

The great irony of the 2010 expansion was that had A&M let its intentions be known sooner their spot could have been re-allotted to Baylor and Pac 16 could have been salvaged.

Baylor wasn't getting in the Pac-16 back then.

(07-13-2018 04:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Larry Scott also said in an interview that Boise State and San Diego State are backup plans for the future. They are looking at them as the only G5 schools on the west coast that could moved the needle somewhat if they can not get the Texhoma 4. Boise State is like number 1, 2,3 or 4 depending on which parts of the northwest that they are in. Boise State is like number behind Washington in a lot of the parts of the eastern parts of Washington. Sometimes number 1 near the border of the 2 states. They have beaten out Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State and BYU in a lot of areas because they are winning. The reason Boise State is considered is that they could bring some money that schools like Washington state is struggling right now. Look how bad Oregon State and Washington State gets beaten by Boise State in football? Look how bad those schools look when they lose to teams like Eastern Washington and Portland State? Yes, they know about Boise's academics are not that great yet, but they got a R3 from Carnegie which they jumped up 2 levels already that quickly. By 2020, Boise State could be at a high R2 by that time.

Again, Larry Scott was being polite. He's not going to say, "We'd never consider Boise State ever." He's going to be diplomatic about it. If the PAC-12 doesn't get the Texhoma 4, then the PAC-12 doesn't expand, period. I see at least 8 votes against adding Boise State, including the Northwest 4 that you seem to be banking on. (In fact, my guess is that all 12 teams vote against them, but I don't have specific reasons for Arizona, ASU, Utah or Colorado). Boise State doesn't do what the PAC-12 wants to do with a future expansion. They will not be offered, frankly.

The PAC-12, especially the northwest schools, want to get to an east-west alignment with the next expansion. The old PAC-8 want to play eachother, and Boise State frankly doesn't do that. The Northwest Schools and the California Schools would be no votes for a variety of reasons, but this would be paramont among them. The Northwest Schools would be looking for greater exposure, especially in population-rich Southern California. They're not going to trade games against the S. Cal teams for a game against Boise State. The California Schools aren't going to trade playing eachother each year (which they would have to give up if there was to be an expansion) for games against Boise State.

As far as "by 2020, Boise State could be at a High R2"? I seriously doubt it. All the R3 means is that you offer 20 doctoral degrees. So, you are raising, but you're literally in the lowest category of doctoral universities. Oklahoma State (R2), Texas Tech (R1) are both light years ahead of you in that category. So, if Oklahoma State and Texas Tech are out of it because of their academics, where does that put Boise State?

(07-11-2018 11:56 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Utah Speaks

I think this quote from Utah president Mike Young shows how far apart Scott and the PAC-10 presidents were from the PAC16 that was proposed by Texas and being reported by expansion prognosticators:

Quote:Young: The call I remember most clearly was I had a call with Larry Scott in which he said, “Gee Mike, I’m sorry to tell you but we’re going to go in a different direction.” I said, “Well, I’ve heard that geographic description before. What’s that mean?” And he said, “We’re going to go with Colorado, Oklahoma, the University of Texas, and Texas A&M.” And I said, “Larry, let me give you my cell number. That’s not going to work out.”

Not AT ALL like I remember it happening JR84105.
Total revisionist history by a hard core Ute
But, hey Utah deserved it. You guys crushed it in the MWC and are a good academic school and you aren't BYU.--a strange school you guys often get associated with.

(07-13-2018 04:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Larry Scott also said in an interview that Boise State and San Diego State are backup plans for the future. They are looking at them as the only G5 schools on the west coast that could moved the needle somewhat if they can not get the Texhoma 4. Boise State is like number 1, 2,3 or 4 depending on which parts of the northwest that they are in. Boise State is like number behind Washington in a lot of the parts of the eastern parts of Washington. Sometimes number 1 near the border of the 2 states. They have beaten out Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State and BYU in a lot of areas because they are winning. The reason Boise State is considered is that they could bring some money that schools like Washington state is struggling right now. Look how bad Oregon State and Washington State gets beaten by Boise State in football? Look how bad those schools look when they lose to teams like Eastern Washington and Portland State? Yes, they know about Boise's academics are not that great yet, but they got a R3 from Carnegie which they jumped up 2 levels already that quickly. By 2020, Boise State could be at a high R2 by that time.

Hahaha....you bring sunshine to a cloudy day DaveyboySt

(07-13-2018 05:39 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:56 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Utah Speaks

I think this quote from Utah president Mike Young shows how far apart Scott and the PAC-10 presidents were from the PAC16 that was proposed by Texas and being reported by expansion prognosticators:

Quote:Young: The call I remember most clearly was I had a call with Larry Scott in which he said, “Gee Mike, I’m sorry to tell you but we’re going to go in a different direction.” I said, “Well, I’ve heard that geographic description before. What’s that mean?” And he said, “We’re going to go with Colorado, Oklahoma, the University of Texas, and Texas A&M.” And I said, “Larry, let me give you my cell number. That’s not going to work out.”

Not AT ALL like I remember it happening JR84105.
Total revisionist history by a hard core Ute
But, hey Utah deserved it. You guys crushed it in the MWC and are a good academic school and you aren't BYU.--a strange school you guys often get associated with.

How can you or anyone else possibly remember it happening? How do people who got 5th hand speculation remember things better than people who were there?

It’s like still believing Ferris Bueller died at 31 Flavors after he shows up at school the next day. While the B1G, SEC, and PAC all played things as close to the vest as possible and expanded proactively, the BigXII made a spectacle of itself. The BigXII in its approach to realignment in 2010 was no different than in the farcical public charade of expansion they pulled off in 2016. They said and did what the needed to get what they wanted.

It is really startling how susceptible people are to the illusory truth effect which seems to be one of the biggest problems of the Information Age.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

(07-13-2018 08:08 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 05:39 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:56 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Utah Speaks

I think this quote from Utah president Mike Young shows how far apart Scott and the PAC-10 presidents were from the PAC16 that was proposed by Texas and being reported by expansion prognosticators:

Quote:Young: The call I remember most clearly was I had a call with Larry Scott in which he said, “Gee Mike, I’m sorry to tell you but we’re going to go in a different direction.” I said, “Well, I’ve heard that geographic description before. What’s that mean?” And he said, “We’re going to go with Colorado, Oklahoma, the University of Texas, and Texas A&M.” And I said, “Larry, let me give you my cell number. That’s not going to work out.”

Not AT ALL like I remember it happening JR84105.
Total revisionist history by a hard core Ute
But, hey Utah deserved it. You guys crushed it in the MWC and are a good academic school and you aren't BYU.--a strange school you guys often get associated with.

How can you or anyone else possibly remember it happening? How do people who got 5th hand speculation remember things better than people who were there?

It’s like still believing Ferris Bueller died at 31 Flavors after he shows up at school the next day. While the B1G, SEC, and PAC all played things as close to the vest as possible and expanded proactively, the BigXII made a spectacle of itself. The BigXII in its approach to realignment in 2010 was no different than in the farcical public charade of expansion they pulled off in 2016. They said and did what the needed to get what they wanted.

It is really startling how susceptible people are to the illusory truth effect which seems to be one of the biggest problems of the Information Age.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

Wikipedia is off on the date of its first appearance by oh say 32-33 years. It was Herr Goebbels who first utilized the technique of telling a big lie often enough and having it corroborated by enough other sources that people believe it. Both of our political parties today, and many of our corporations have become extremely adept at its use. So it was hardly 1977 when it appeared. It was just 1977 when the technique was renamed so some egghead could sell a new text book. Spin, propaganda, public lies passing as news or information have been around since Cain was asked where his brother was, and since King David needed to kill Uriah to cover up an affair.

The simple truth here is that there is as many versions to this story as there are co conspirators. None of them tell it exactly right and all of them tell it in a way that makes them look better in the public's eye. The Utah president screwed up some key facts in his heavily self favorable view.

The bottom line is the PAC tried to move to 16 and whiffed. Why they whiffed is no longer important. The SEC went for 16 in '91-2. We landed 2 and started a CCG and called it visionary. It was a nice gloss for trying to land 6 schools 5 of which didn't pan out. The Big 10's market acquisition talk regarding Maryland and Rutgers is a gloss for whiffing on better ACC targets. The Big 12's mantra on how much more they make with 10 is gloss for losing 4 AAU programs and not being able to attract quality programs back in.

So you see it's all simply what has happened factually but surrounded and contained within a souffle of self serving face saving bullcrap! But I have to hand it to Texas after chasing Bevo onto the field for years at least they are pros at shoveling it!

that’s another tactic- to a make something u and when called on it say everyone’s making stuff up.

(07-13-2018 04:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Larry Scott also said in an interview that Boise State and San Diego State are backup plans for the future.

That dog won't hunt. Larry Scott never said that Boise State and San Diego State are backups plans for the future. You are making it up. Backup plan for what? No one is leaving.

The Pac-12 does not need a team in Idaho. The state has a population of 1.7 million. It is just not an attractive market and the campus of Washington State is about 300 miles from Boise State and 8 miles from the University of Idaho. If you live in Idaho, you can drive to Pullman, Washington and watch a Pac-12 game. There is nothing gained adding Boise State.

As for San Diego State, why would UCLA and USC want another school in Southern California. SDSU brings nothing that the Pac-12 does not already have.

The only school that really matters in expansion is Texas. You get UT, you get the whole state of Texas and they bring a population of 28 million. Now that is a real market.

(07-13-2018 11:27 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  that’s another tactic- to a make something u and when called on it say everyone’s making stuff up.

No sir. It's what happens when you have been around enough of these kind of events to know the angles and see the lies. But I suppose that politicians and University presidents are immune from this in Utah. Talk to anyone on any side of a major business deal, and that's what realignment is, and you will hear as many different stories as there are participants. It's just human nature to put the best face on any situation. And that includes politics, religious institutions, right on down to your next door neighbor bragging about his tax return. But in the case of realignment I had some good sources and know how all sides put the spin to what did or didn't happen so it's apparent from the numerous varying accounts the same thing is at work here, not to mention the factual errors of the Utah president regarding the LHN. And sport I seriously doubt that Larry Scott was so utterly out of touch that he whiffed on all of the intricacies of the applicants including which ones were likely to join and which ones (like A&M) weren't. I don't find that stuff credible at all!

JRsec,

I would just chalk it up to selective memory. We all have it, we all rewrite our histories to our advantage, often completely innocent and unwitting beneficiaries (surprise heroes even) of our remembered tales. The LHN didn't exist until December 24, 2010. So clearly some faulty memories, as Utah joined on June 17, 2010. But the nasty implications of your remarks presume an unfounded malice, and then on top of that you instigate the logical fallacy called burden of proof. (As they say, nice work if you can get it.)

But I think the key takeaways from this is that (1) Scott went after Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Colorado. And (2) that Texas Tech and Oklahoma State were not mentioned. (3) Kansas was seen by Utah as the main competition.

Clearly OU and A&M were targets to try to pull Texas in. If one recalls there were preliminary talks with Texas and CU in the '90s that came close to pulling them in in 1994. At that time A&M was ready to move to the SEC as well, and Nebraska had not much earlier talked some with the B1G. I agree completely that Scott knew A&M had an SEC faction. But OU and A&M were Texas' big rivals. This was perhaps a response to the B1G effort to woo Texas which had just ended.

My read from this is that Texas Tech and Oklahoma State got into the conversation late, and not from Scott's side, but from Texas and OU. But it doesn't look from this article that they came from the Pac-10 side.

This sort of matches another rumor, from a Big XII AD (I think I know who from the reporter's comments, and no it wasn't OU) about the B1G being approached about by five schools to go to 16. Nebraska, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State. At the time every school was an AAU member except OU. Again notice that Oklahoma State was missing.

It also matches the public rumors of Boren approaching Larry Scott and asking the Pac-12 to take OU and Oklahoma State, which was rejected.

The basic pattern coming through all of this is that Oklahoma State and Texas Tech are not seen as attractive/acceptable expansion candidates. It's a given Baylor and K State are seen the same way, likely also TCU and West Virginia.

Another note, is Gordon Gee's comments about how the B1G passed on adding Mizzou and KU at the same time they added Nebraska, and that they might revisit that (at least KU one suspects). Gee said a number of things (He and Boren suffer similar foot in mouth disease).

The whole point of the above is show that the evidence, although anecdotal remembrances, paints a clear picture of Texas, then Oklahoma, and then Kansas are seen as valuable. And that Texas Tech and Oklahoma State do not get any love from other power conferences. The details of the memories is less important. We have been given some tea leaves.

(07-14-2018 03:45 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  JRsec,

I would just chalk it up to selective memory. We all have it, we all rewrite our histories to our advantage, often completely innocent and unwitting beneficiaries (surprise heroes even) of our remembered tales. The LHN didn't exist until December 24, 2010. So clearly some faulty memories, as Utah joined on June 17, 2010. But the nasty implications of your remarks presume an unfounded malice, and then on top of that you instigate the logical fallacy called burden of proof. (As they say, nice work if you can get it.)

But I think the key takeaways from this is that (1) Scott went after Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Colorado. And (2) that Texas Tech and Oklahoma State were not mentioned. (3) Kansas was seen by Utah as the main competition.

Clearly OU and A&M were targets to try to pull Texas in. If one recalls there were preliminary talks with Texas and CU in the '90s that came close to pulling them in in 1994. At that time A&M was ready to move to the SEC as well, and Nebraska had not much earlier talked some with the B1G. I agree completely that Scott knew A&M had an SEC faction. But OU and A&M were Texas' big rivals. This was perhaps a response to the B1G effort to woo Texas which had just ended.

My read from this is that Texas Tech and Oklahoma State got into the conversation late, and not from Scott's side, but from Texas and OU. But it doesn't look from this article that they came from the Pac-10 side.

This sort of matches another rumor, from a Big XII AD (I think I know who from the reporter's comments, and no it wasn't OU) about the B1G being approached about by five schools to go to 16. Nebraska, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State. At the time every school was an AAU member except OU. Again notice that Oklahoma State was missing.

It also matches the public rumors of Boren approaching Larry Scott and asking the Pac-12 to take OU and Oklahoma State, which was rejected.

The basic pattern coming through all of this is that Oklahoma State and Texas Tech are not seen as attractive/acceptable expansion candidates. It's a given Baylor and K State are seen the same way, likely also TCU and West Virginia.

Another note, is Gordon Gee's comments about how the B1G passed on adding Mizzou and KU at the same time they added Nebraska, and that they might revisit that (at least KU one suspects). Gee said a number of things (He and Boren suffer similar foot in mouth disease).

The whole point of the above is show that the evidence, although anecdotal remembrances, paints a clear picture of Texas, then Oklahoma, and then Kansas are seen as valuable. And that Texas Tech and Oklahoma State do not get any love from other power conferences. The details of the memories is less important. We have been given some tea leaves.

Texas Tech and Oklahoma St. were tagalongs. But its revisionist history to claim they weren't part of the deal. Anyone following it closely at the time knows they were. Anyone who knew anything about Texas politics knew that from the early 90s through 2010 knew that UT couldn't go anywhere without making sure Texas Tech was taken care of. The Ohio St. e-mails and numerous other sources show that (Ohio St. president discussing UT to the Big 10 and UT said they couldn't go without TT and Big 10 saying they couldn't do TT). President Cunningham's book about the formation of the Big 12 discusses it.

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/news/...id=5270048
https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college...-Texas-584
"...While Texas and Texas Tech each scheduled board of regents meeting on Tuesday to consider realignment and possibly authorize conference movement, A&M had not announced any such session...."
"Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione had said the Sooners were linked with Texas, citing their long-standing rivalry. Dallas billionaire and Oklahoma State booster T. Boone Pickens, who donated $100 million to the UT system in 2007, told the Tulsa World that the Cowboys would follow Texas and Oklahoma.

Oklahoma State released a statement Friday, saying in part: "We are pleased Oklahoma State University has opportunities and we believe it is a reflection of the strength of our overall athletic and academic programs...."

https://www.rockmnation.com/2010/6/13/15...2010tm-the
And a Mizzou blog which lists a dozen sources saying the same thing.

(07-14-2018 03:45 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  JRsec,

I would just chalk it up to selective memory. We all have it, we all rewrite our histories to our advantage, often completely innocent and unwitting beneficiaries (surprise heroes even) of our remembered tales. The LHN didn't exist until December 24, 2010. So clearly some faulty memories, as Utah joined on June 17, 2010. But the nasty implications of your remarks presume an unfounded malice, and then on top of that you instigate the logical fallacy called burden of proof. (As they say, nice work if you can get it.)

But I think the key takeaways from this is that (1) Scott went after Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Colorado. And (2) that Texas Tech and Oklahoma State were not mentioned. (3) Kansas was seen by Utah as the main competition.

Clearly OU and A&M were targets to try to pull Texas in. If one recalls there were preliminary talks with Texas and CU in the '90s that came close to pulling them in in 1994. At that time A&M was ready to move to the SEC as well, and Nebraska had not much earlier talked some with the B1G. I agree completely that Scott knew A&M had an SEC faction. But OU and A&M were Texas' big rivals. This was perhaps a response to the B1G effort to woo Texas which had just ended.

My read from this is that Texas Tech and Oklahoma State got into the conversation late, and not from Scott's side, but from Texas and OU. But it doesn't look from this article that they came from the Pac-10 side.

This sort of matches another rumor, from a Big XII AD (I think I know who from the reporter's comments, and no it wasn't OU) about the B1G being approached about by five schools to go to 16. Nebraska, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State. At the time every school was an AAU member except OU. Again notice that Oklahoma State was missing.

It also matches the public rumors of Boren approaching Larry Scott and asking the Pac-12 to take OU and Oklahoma State, which was rejected.

The basic pattern coming through all of this is that Oklahoma State and Texas Tech are not seen as attractive/acceptable expansion candidates. It's a given Baylor and K State are seen the same way, likely also TCU and West Virginia.

Another note, is Gordon Gee's comments about how the B1G passed on adding Mizzou and KU at the same time they added Nebraska, and that they might revisit that (at least KU one suspects). Gee said a number of things (He and Boren suffer similar foot in mouth disease).

The whole point of the above is show that the evidence, although anecdotal remembrances, paints a clear picture of Texas, then Oklahoma, and then Kansas are seen as valuable. And that Texas Tech and Oklahoma State do not get any love from other power conferences. The details of the memories is less important. We have been given some tea leaves.

There is no burden of proof fallacy here. And there was no assumption of malice, though the word "lie" could give that impression I suppose. However anything that is less than 100% accurate in the intention of the telling is by definition a lie. There are only my experiences and the glosses I refer to are real. The funny thing here to me is that what I said merely stated the obvious, nor was it meant to be mean spirited.

Furthermore, I wasn't trying to paint a picture about Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma being the "only" valuable schools from the Big 12. But clearly that is part of your world view. I have a couple of threads on the SEC board giving various data on how the value of those schools breaks down utilizing different metrics. And unlike several of your posts here have indicated, if not flatly misstated, the SEC doesn't, and hasn't, seen Oklahoma State as having "no value" nor have we "flatly rejected them". They are between 4th & 5th most seasons in the Big 12 in Gross Total Revenue, and their WSJ valuation numbers are relatively strong when compared to schools from other conferences which only means they have a strong enough economic impact upon their region to merit them. When taken in tandem with those of Oklahoma the two schools combined have a higher average than the average of the conference with the highest numbers. The same can be said of their ability to generate total revenue. So since we are clearly speaking of the possibility of them moving as a pair whether to the PAC or the SEC financially speaking it would be profitable for either conference.

I realize OSU is not a R1 research university, but then athletics are part of the business end of a university. And sports conferences are extensions of that business collectively speaking. So if Oklahoma can only move if OSU is taken care of, and since there are two schools in the Big 12 which carry with them an economic impact valued at over 1 billion dollars by the WSJ and Oklahoma is one of them, it is not illogical to assume that various conferences might consider taking either one of Texas or Oklahoma with another school of their choosing.

As academically prestigious as the Big 10 is I bet even they would pause over the possibility of landing Texas if the price was Texas Tech. So it is certainly conceivable that a conference which views athletics as being more about athletics than academic associations might consider Oklahoma State to land Oklahoma.

Now as to the cynicism I have for a preponderance of public statements all I can say is given the highly politicized nature of everything today, that I take it all with a grain of salt. But the word "gloss" is appropriate for most explanations coming from corporations to explain their quarterly statements even when the numbers speak for themselves. It's appropriate for the majority of political statements issued over policies or projects that have failed to meet expectations. Mitigation of damage seems to be on the forefront of the minds of all kinds of leadership these days but that is not surprising to me at all. I'm merely surprised by those who are surprised. But as with my observations about certain age groups there is a lot of "deny responsibility and assign blame" going around these days.

But to the point. Realignment is a series of business driven moves which include successes which are public, and failures, many of which aren't quite as public. There is a great deal of consideration given as to how to discuss either an acquisition, or a failed one, and virtually all of these are designed to protect image whether that is the image of the school, the image of the conference they come from, the image of the conference they are going to, or the personnel involved. Some people have been given way too much credit and some way too much blame for matters what were decided on wholly other data than what they had handled, including somethings beyond their scope of knowledge in the process. Failed realignment attempts may not even have come to light simply because of legal implications like tortuous interference, or the violation of stipulations in GOR's. It wasn't so much my intention to paint all glosses as nefarious as it was to just point them out as being glosses. Although I found the piece cited in the OP to be extremely self aggrandizing for the speaker and therefore of suspect credibility.

Point of view is everything where many discussions on this board and others are concerned. The vantage point of years lived and the number of adult experiences in business and politics and my work in life on behalf of the disenfranchised have given me an interesting look into aspects of all of it. The difference between idealism and cynicism in many cases is just time lived. If that seems nasty to some of you then all I can say is I hope you live long enough to view my remarks in a different light.

Refreshingly, I have met many genuine and truthful people in life. It's just that only a few of them were ever in the public eye. It is my observation that the more aware people are of public opinion, the more they play to it.

Are we now saying that the LHN was conceived of, planned, negotiated, and launched on Dec 24, 2010? That narrative puts the 6 days of Genesis to shame. UT’s intention to launch a network preceded even the initial talks of PAC expansion and were known from the begininning by all parties involved.

Hell, the PAC-12 Network configuration only makes sense when you realize that it was built around one of UT’s earlier propositions- the UT/A&M joint Texas network.

“Texas' pursuit of its own network was widely known in 2010 when Nebraska and Colorado decided to leave and the remaining 10 teams all committed to keeping the conference together.”

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story...dodds-says

Other interesting quotes:
“Dodds told The Associated Press he first met with Texas A&M athletic director Bill Byrne about the idea of an Aggies-Longhorns network about four years ago [~2007] but Byrne didn't seem interested. At the time, the Longhorns weren't sure they could carry a network on their own”

“Byrne tried to re-open discussions about a year ago, but by then it was too late, Dodds said.
Texas had decided it had the national brand, stature and skill to forge ahead alone.’I said we were too far down the road," Dodds said. "We had figured out how to do it by ourselves.’"

From the Utah piece it seems that UT had secured backing for a solo network prior to their PAC negotiations falling apart.

(07-14-2018 02:33 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Are we now saying that the LHN was conceived of, planned, negotiated, and launched on Dec 24, 2010? That narrative puts the 6 days of Genesis to shame. UT’s intention to launch a network preceded even the initial talks of PAC expansion and were known from the begininning by all parties involved.

Hell, the PAC-12 Network configuration only makes sense when you realize that it was built around one of UT’s earlier propositions- the UT/A&M joint Texas network.

“Texas' pursuit of its own network was widely known in 2010 when Nebraska and Colorado decided to leave and the remaining 10 teams all committed to keeping the conference together.”

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story...dodds-says

Other interesting quotes:
“Dodds told The Associated Press he first met with Texas A&M athletic director Bill Byrne about the idea of an Aggies-Longhorns network about four years ago [~2007] but Byrne didn't seem interested. At the time, the Longhorns weren't sure they could carry a network on their own”

“Byrne tried to re-open discussions about a year ago, but by then it was too late, Dodds said.
Texas had decided it had the national brand, stature and skill to forge ahead alone.’I said we were too far down the road," Dodds said. "We had figured out how to do it by ourselves.’"

From the Utah piece it seems that UT had secured backing for a solo network prior to their PAC negotiations falling apart.

Prior to October 2010, UT thought it would get about $3 million a year for the network. When President Powers, Deloss Dodds and Chris Plonsky held their press conference after the Pac 16 deal fell apart, I don't recall the LHN being mentioned at all. So I don't believe it had much of an impact on the discussions. Powers and Dodds were too exhausted to be making a bunch of stuff up. They basically said they figured they could do about the same financially with a similar schedule (the discussions involved minimizing travel in the way they scheduled the Pac 16) and stay in the Big 12.

$3M is positive revenue, and more than the PACN thought it would provide.

It’s pretty clear that when Larry Scott flew out to Texas, there were two deals being proposed:
The PAC deal for UT, A&M, OU, and CU with equal revenue sharing.
The Texas deal with UT, A&M, OU, CU, TTU, and OSU with UT retaining rights to its own network.

From Dodd’s reporting after the fact, there was likely also an attempt to compromise by accepting TTU and replacing OSU with KU, but this never went anywhere because equal revenue sharing was non-negotiable for both the PAC and UT.

Additionally, one thing that comes out of this IMO is how absolutely ineffectual and devoid of original ideas Scott is. His big plan was CU and Utah, but he couldn’t get Utah by the presidents. Then the idea for expansion with a block of BigXII schools was gifted to him by UT, but he really didn’t come close to getting that done, because OSU was never getting votes. Then he just used the UT/A&M network idea to build out the PAC networks even though spacing the content out over 7 networks makes the channel(s) unwatchable.

The failure of PAC viewers to drop DTV is the main reason for PAC struggles but Scott has had absolutely no ideas for helping things along.

(07-14-2018 11:15 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 03:45 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  JRsec,

I would just chalk it up to selective memory. We all have it, we all rewrite our histories to our advantage, often completely innocent and unwitting beneficiaries (surprise heroes even) of our remembered tales. The LHN didn't exist until December 24, 2010. So clearly some faulty memories, as Utah joined on June 17, 2010. But the nasty implications of your remarks presume an unfounded malice, and then on top of that you instigate the logical fallacy called burden of proof. (As they say, nice work if you can get it.)

But I think the key takeaways from this is that (1) Scott went after Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Colorado. And (2) that Texas Tech and Oklahoma State were not mentioned. (3) Kansas was seen by Utah as the main competition.

Clearly OU and A&M were targets to try to pull Texas in. If one recalls there were preliminary talks with Texas and CU in the '90s that came close to pulling them in in 1994. At that time A&M was ready to move to the SEC as well, and Nebraska had not much earlier talked some with the B1G. I agree completely that Scott knew A&M had an SEC faction. But OU and A&M were Texas' big rivals. This was perhaps a response to the B1G effort to woo Texas which had just ended.

My read from this is that Texas Tech and Oklahoma State got into the conversation late, and not from Scott's side, but from Texas and OU. But it doesn't look from this article that they came from the Pac-10 side.

This sort of matches another rumor, from a Big XII AD (I think I know who from the reporter's comments, and no it wasn't OU) about the B1G being approached about by five schools to go to 16. Nebraska, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State. At the time every school was an AAU member except OU. Again notice that Oklahoma State was missing.

It also matches the public rumors of Boren approaching Larry Scott and asking the Pac-12 to take OU and Oklahoma State, which was rejected.

The basic pattern coming through all of this is that Oklahoma State and Texas Tech are not seen as attractive/acceptable expansion candidates. It's a given Baylor and K State are seen the same way, likely also TCU and West Virginia.

Another note, is Gordon Gee's comments about how the B1G passed on adding Mizzou and KU at the same time they added Nebraska, and that they might revisit that (at least KU one suspects). Gee said a number of things (He and Boren suffer similar foot in mouth disease).

The whole point of the above is show that the evidence, although anecdotal remembrances, paints a clear picture of Texas, then Oklahoma, and then Kansas are seen as valuable. And that Texas Tech and Oklahoma State do not get any love from other power conferences. The details of the memories is less important. We have been given some tea leaves.

Texas Tech and Oklahoma St. were tagalongs. But its revisionist history to claim they weren't part of the deal. Anyone following it closely at the time knows they were. Anyone who knew anything about Texas politics knew that from the early 90s through 2010 knew that UT couldn't go anywhere without making sure Texas Tech was taken care of. The Ohio St. e-mails and numerous other sources show that (Ohio St. president discussing UT to the Big 10 and UT said they couldn't go without TT and Big 10 saying they couldn't do TT). President Cunningham's book about the formation of the Big 12 discusses it.

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/news/...id=5270048
https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college...-Texas-584
"...While Texas and Texas Tech each scheduled board of regents meeting on Tuesday to consider realignment and possibly authorize conference movement, A&M had not announced any such session...."
"Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione had said the Sooners were linked with Texas, citing their long-standing rivalry. Dallas billionaire and Oklahoma State booster T. Boone Pickens, who donated $100 million to the UT system in 2007, told the Tulsa World that the Cowboys would follow Texas and Oklahoma.

Oklahoma State released a statement Friday, saying in part: "We are pleased Oklahoma State University has opportunities and we believe it is a reflection of the strength of our overall athletic and academic programs...."

https://www.rockmnation.com/2010/6/13/15...2010tm-the
And a Mizzou blog which lists a dozen sources saying the same thing.

Bullet...once again you are correct on all of this.

However, I would like to add a little known sidebar to the story, regarding the $100 million gift to the UT System in 2007 by Boone Pickens.

IIRC the UT system Medical Branch suddenly developed a serious immediate cash flow problem. Pickens personal attorney was on the UT Board of Regents and he approached Pickens about the situation and Pickens made the $100 million donation almost immediately.

Then when the realignment rumor broke that OSU might be left out of the PAC expansion, supposedly UT reassured OSU that UT would not go to the PAC without OSU. They remembered what Mr. Pickens had done for them.

The next time UT played OSU in Stillwater, the OSU AD invited the Texas team and coaches to dine with the OSU team instead of dining at the local motel where they were staying. OSU had hired a world class chef (compliments of Mr. Pickens) and the players were treated to fantastic food.

Mack Brown said it was one of the nicest gestures they had ever received.