Stranger said:CTbruin said:
Woe is me!
The sky is falling!
I know you'd be happy to have the cows gone. I, too, would root for the Taliban against UT.
Maybe I'm missing something but doesn't it take just three SEC votes to queer this deal? I'd say it's not done yet.
ETXBear said:Stranger said:CTbruin said:
Woe is me!
The sky is falling!
I know you'd be happy to have the cows gone. I, too, would root for the Taliban against UT.
Maybe I'm missing something but doesn't it take just three SEC votes to queer this deal? I'd say it's not done yet.
But you still have an unhappy marriage that will blow up as soon as it can
10 out of the 14 schools have to approve. A&M and Mizzou are already rending garments.Stranger said:CTbruin said:
Woe is me!
The sky is falling!
I know you'd be happy to have the cows gone. I, too, would root for the Taliban against UT.
Maybe I'm missing something but doesn't it take just three SEC votes to queer this deal? I'd say it's not done yet.
And so you are correct, sir!Stefano DiMera said:
I thought it was 11 out of 14...4 no votes nixes the deal.
If the B1G wants a Texas team and Texas and Texas A&M are off the table, they're getting Texas Tech. However, the B1G is more likely to add Missouri - who prefers the B1G - plus Kansas or raid the ACC for two of GaTech/UVA/UNC.Robert Wilson said:
There is a chance B10 doesn't want Iowa State (how many schools do you need in Iowa?) and would want a Texas school. B10 has gone crazy trying to touch various TV and recruiting markets by adding schools like Rutgers (NY) and Maryland (DC). Not being Tier 1 research hurts, but we have been building there and fake it pretty well. We should be back channeling with B10 and ACC hard. They are both hail marys but you might as well throw them at this point.
Maybe. But compare Tech's academic ranking to the Big 10 rankings. Baylor is the only one left that fits. I know they value AAU membership, but Tech is also not AAU.Aberzombie1892 said:If the B1G wants a Texas team and Texas and Texas A&M are off the table, they're getting Texas Tech. However, the B1G is more likely to add Missouri - who prefers the B1G - plus Kansas or raid the ACC for two of GaTech/UVA/UNC.Robert Wilson said:
There is a chance B10 doesn't want Iowa State (how many schools do you need in Iowa?) and would want a Texas school. B10 has gone crazy trying to touch various TV and recruiting markets by adding schools like Rutgers (NY) and Maryland (DC). Not being Tier 1 research hurts, but we have been building there and fake it pretty well. We should be back channeling with B10 and ACC hard. They are both hail marys but you might as well throw them at this point.
Why would anyone trust UT?Osodecentx said:We trusted UTAliceinbubbleland said:LOL. I was one who said UT would NEVAH go to SEC. It looks like I may have been wrong. All those horns on their web page who mocked aggy and the SEC are suddenly really excited they can **** Baylor at last.Osodecentx said:
The most important thing is we've spent the last 2 years ferreting out all of the slave owners and Confederates in our past and removing all signs of them
I don't expect the LHWokeBand segment to play Dixie but who knows. Money talks and ethics walk.
I agree. The old SWC reconstitutedblackie said:
I have read a lot on this thread and others concerning what Big XII teams would be picked up by this conference or that conference. But realistically outside of UT and OU what does any of the remaining teams bring to the other P5 conferences that would warrant me as a TV partner being willing to up the contract I have with that particular conference that would result in the current conference members not having to take a pay cut in doing so?
It seems to me that for any conference, the only reason to add members is to either make the conference more stable or cause TV networks to increase the conference payout such that the existing members get more than what they are getting now. I don't think any of them adding any of the remaining Big XII teams makes any of them more or less stable. So I think that reason can be ignored.
So, look at the TV contract perspective. If the money under the existing contract is currently divided 12 or 14 ways, adding two to four more teams is going to have the have that contract raised considerably to account for the more mouths to feed. From a TV network perspective, I just don't see the remaining teams, any of them, being worth enough to do that. For adding an OU or UT makes sense, but not for the others.
I suspect the Big XII's remaining teams, best bet, is to bring more teams in that might provide at least some appeal such that the net drop in revenue is held to a minimum. There is no reason for a TV network to pay more just because you have more teams unless those teams really bring a net positive effect to the package. I don't think the Big XII teams do that for these other conferences. So, if a conference requests that I pony up for more teams by bringing in orphaned teams from the Big XII, my answer is no.
ScrappyPaws said:
My take - our best bet is for the B12 to immediately expand. We'll no longer be "P5" in the traditional sense but neither will anyone else once the SEC is done building their semi-pro league. We can remain relevant in terms of the playoffs and build something better than a current G5 option with expansion.
BYU is the obvious choice. Despite Method Man's lack of clarity on this topic, BYU is massive and wealthy. They have policies in place prohibiting homosexual behavior which is a non-starter Pac 12 and probably for the B1G as well. From a state school perspective, revenue sharing with such an institution is akin to sponsoring hate. BYU back in the LaVell Edwards days (late 70's through mid 90s?) finished in the top 20 nearly every season and won a "national title" in 1984 (finished #1 in both polls).
Beyond BYU there are a bunch of schools that make sense but beggars can't be choosers at this point. We should be picking up 4-6 of the best we can get immediately and setting ourselves up to be something like the least of the P5 (till the Pac finishes falling apart) or a clear step above the rest of the G5 leagues.
Money/TV matters most so off the top of my head I'd say BYU, UH, Colorado State, Memphis, Cincy, + 1. It keeps us out of the American.
If we can't land in the ACC this is a MUST.
At least someone is doing somethingPartyBear said:boognish_bear said:
State rep from north Texas areaThe lack of transparency by our flagship institution is wrong. Such a monumental economic and educational decision impacting the entire state must not be made in a bubble on the forty acres. Working on legislation requiring legislative approval for UT to bolt the BIG XII. #txlege
— Jeff Leach (@leachfortexas) July 22, 2021
How ? It is not on the agenda of the special session which is dead anyway.
Osodecentx said:I agree. The old SWC reconstitutedblackie said:
I have read a lot on this thread and others concerning what Big XII teams would be picked up by this conference or that conference. But realistically outside of UT and OU what does any of the remaining teams bring to the other P5 conferences that would warrant me as a TV partner being willing to up the contract I have with that particular conference that would result in the current conference members not having to take a pay cut in doing so?
It seems to me that for any conference, the only reason to add members is to either make the conference more stable or cause TV networks to increase the conference payout such that the existing members get more than what they are getting now. I don't think any of them adding any of the remaining Big XII teams makes any of them more or less stable. So I think that reason can be ignored.
So, look at the TV contract perspective. If the money under the existing contract is currently divided 12 or 14 ways, adding two to four more teams is going to have the have that contract raised considerably to account for the more mouths to feed. From a TV network perspective, I just don't see the remaining teams, any of them, being worth enough to do that. For adding an OU or UT makes sense, but not for the others.
I suspect the Big XII's remaining teams, best bet, is to bring more teams in that might provide at least some appeal such that the net drop in revenue is held to a minimum. There is no reason for a TV network to pay more just because you have more teams unless those teams really bring a net positive effect to the package. I don't think the Big XII teams do that for these other conferences. So, if a conference requests that I pony up for more teams by bringing in orphaned teams from the Big XII, my answer is no.
Who do you prefer?fadskier said:Osodecentx said:I agree. The old SWC reconstitutedblackie said:
I have read a lot on this thread and others concerning what Big XII teams would be picked up by this conference or that conference. But realistically outside of UT and OU what does any of the remaining teams bring to the other P5 conferences that would warrant me as a TV partner being willing to up the contract I have with that particular conference that would result in the current conference members not having to take a pay cut in doing so?
It seems to me that for any conference, the only reason to add members is to either make the conference more stable or cause TV networks to increase the conference payout such that the existing members get more than what they are getting now. I don't think any of them adding any of the remaining Big XII teams makes any of them more or less stable. So I think that reason can be ignored.
So, look at the TV contract perspective. If the money under the existing contract is currently divided 12 or 14 ways, adding two to four more teams is going to have the have that contract raised considerably to account for the more mouths to feed. From a TV network perspective, I just don't see the remaining teams, any of them, being worth enough to do that. For adding an OU or UT makes sense, but not for the others.
I suspect the Big XII's remaining teams, best bet, is to bring more teams in that might provide at least some appeal such that the net drop in revenue is held to a minimum. There is no reason for a TV network to pay more just because you have more teams unless those teams really bring a net positive effect to the package. I don't think the Big XII teams do that for these other conferences. So, if a conference requests that I pony up for more teams by bringing in orphaned teams from the Big XII, my answer is no.
SMU can't fill a stadium. It's embarrassing.
.Osodecentx said:At least someone is doing somethingPartyBear said:boognish_bear said:
State rep from north Texas areaThe lack of transparency by our flagship institution is wrong. Such a monumental economic and educational decision impacting the entire state must not be made in a bubble on the forty acres. Working on legislation requiring legislative approval for UT to bolt the BIG XII. #txlege
— Jeff Leach (@leachfortexas) July 22, 2021
How ? It is not on the agenda of the special session which is dead anyway.
Clayton Williams had a similar attitude as you toward rain.....PartyBear said:.Osodecentx said:At least someone is doing somethingPartyBear said:boognish_bear said:
State rep from north Texas areaThe lack of transparency by our flagship institution is wrong. Such a monumental economic and educational decision impacting the entire state must not be made in a bubble on the forty acres. Working on legislation requiring legislative approval for UT to bolt the BIG XII. #txlege
— Jeff Leach (@leachfortexas) July 22, 2021
How ? It is not on the agenda of the special session which is dead anyway.
Actually that is really stupid and is t doing anything. It isn't in the special session agenda and the special session is dead.
This is like a divorce it can't be stopped really. Just let it go and we do our best going forward. But don't fight this. You can't and it is stupid trying. Texas and OU are gone if they want to be gone.
Weeks Ranked in Top 10 Since 2010
— Chris Fallica (@chrisfallica) July 22, 2021
Texas A&M 47
TCU 47
Baylor 40
Michigan St 40
Boise St 32
Oklahoma St 32
Washington 31
South Carolina 22
Nebraska 19
Arkansas 16
Texas 14
You never know. Baylor doesn't have Bullock, Herb, Sibley and Tech doesn't have Laney, Junell and Montford.PartyBear said:.Osodecentx said:At least someone is doing somethingPartyBear said:boognish_bear said:
State rep from north Texas areaThe lack of transparency by our flagship institution is wrong. Such a monumental economic and educational decision impacting the entire state must not be made in a bubble on the forty acres. Working on legislation requiring legislative approval for UT to bolt the BIG XII. #txlege
— Jeff Leach (@leachfortexas) July 22, 2021
How ? It is not on the agenda of the special session which is dead anyway.
Actually that is really stupid and is t doing anything. It isn't in the special session agenda and the special session is dead.
This is like a divorce it can't be stopped really. Just let it go and we do our best going forward. But don't fight this. You can't and it is stupid trying. Texas and OU are gone if they want to be gone.
Also provides further explanation as to why Coach Kim Mulkey got out when she did. Not only is Mack an unbearable ego-maniac, she got to the SEC (i.e. super conference) pronto once she learned of this move last year. She ain't got time to be associated with a second-tier school nor rinky dink administration.Robert Wilson said:Bowlsby's contract, signed years ago, expired at the end of the grant of rights. He never expanded the conference because UT and OU always wanted a way out. Bowslby was never looking out for the conference or its life beyond the GOR. He was working for UT and OU. We all just played along with it knowing this was the likely end. Baylor did a horrendous job of looking out for itself throughout this process, unless we have a safe landing spot already lined out that has not yet been announced.BearFan33 said:A good commish would be proactive, not reactive. He/she would talk the ADs into expansion (at least back to 12) and grab solid P5 lv schools when available (like FSU and Clemson). He would adopt a SEC like schedule and not promote idiotic things like "one true champion." He would have turned our conference into a hunter instead of prey. That is of course if he was looking out for all conference members.TeamPlayer said:What was he supposed to be doing? This conference never needed a commish. It's Joe and Chris running the show. This was destined to happen once Texas drove A&M east. Nobody was keeping those programs in against their will when they've always had options.BearFan33 said:I feel so much better now. I wonder if the left out ADs now realize that Bob Bowelsby has never looked after their interests.jack.fuller said:Big 12 athletic directors & CEOs meeting at 5 p.m. today to discuss Texas & Oklahoma, sources told @Stadium. 1st reported by @dennisdoddcbs
— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) July 22, 2021
Welp.. Mack's beach vacation is over
That's what happened to Arkansas their last couple of years, and, to a lesser extent A&M.JustWinBears said:
Fingers crossed we have a magical year and beat Texas and Oklahoma. Embarrass them, the SEC for taking them, and give us some clout to hopefully get us a raft to safety to another conference.
Obviously one year probably doesn't mean much in the eyes of the overall picture, but it certainly couldn't hurt. And if anything at least we can say we went out with a bang.
boognish_bear said:
From the "The Bear" from College Game Day broadcastsWeeks Ranked in Top 10 Since 2010
— Chris Fallica (@chrisfallica) July 22, 2021
Texas A&M 47
TCU 47
Baylor 40
Michigan St 40
Boise St 32
Oklahoma St 32
Washington 31
South Carolina 22
Nebraska 19
Arkansas 16
Texas 14
And ALL of Baylor's fell under Coach Art Briles.boognish_bear said:boognish_bear said:
From the "The Bear" from College Game Day broadcastsWeeks Ranked in Top 10 Since 2010
— Chris Fallica (@chrisfallica) July 22, 2021
Texas A&M 47
TCU 47
Baylor 40
Michigan St 40
Boise St 32
Oklahoma St 32
Washington 31
South Carolina 22
Nebraska 19
Arkansas 16
Texas 14
And I bet the majority of the 14 weeks UT was in the Top 10 fell between Aug-Sept when they came in that way.
I think A&M, Tech, Baylor, and TCU alumni out number UT alumna in the Texas Lege house. The house sets the budget. That gives Jeff and others a fighting chance.Osodecentx said:At least someone is doing somethingPartyBear said:boognish_bear said:
State rep from north Texas areaThe lack of transparency by our flagship institution is wrong. Such a monumental economic and educational decision impacting the entire state must not be made in a bubble on the forty acres. Working on legislation requiring legislative approval for UT to bolt the BIG XII. #txlege
— Jeff Leach (@leachfortexas) July 22, 2021
How ? It is not on the agenda of the special session which is dead anyway.
Wrong, 2019 was Coach Rhule. Baylor was Top 10 for 4 or 5 weeks that seasonZerooreo said:boognish_bear said:boognish_bear said:
And ALL of Baylor's fell under Coach Art Briles.
Yes, had we kept killing it in football since 2016 we'd have a legit shot. We straight up boned ourselves.Zerooreo said:And ALL of Baylor's fell under Coach Art Briles.boognish_bear said:boognish_bear said:
From the "The Bear" from College Game Day broadcastsWeeks Ranked in Top 10 Since 2010
— Chris Fallica (@chrisfallica) July 22, 2021
Texas A&M 47
TCU 47
Baylor 40
Michigan St 40
Boise St 32
Oklahoma St 32
Washington 31
South Carolina 22
Nebraska 19
Arkansas 16
Texas 14
And I bet the majority of the 14 weeks UT was in the Top 10 fell between Aug-Sept when they came in that way.
Man, the BOR really screwed the school, and us all, with the scapegoating of CAB.
Zerooreo said:And ALL of Baylor's fell under Coach Art Briles.boognish_bear said:boognish_bear said:
From the "The Bear" from College Game Day broadcastsWeeks Ranked in Top 10 Since 2010
— Chris Fallica (@chrisfallica) July 22, 2021
Texas A&M 47
TCU 47
Baylor 40
Michigan St 40
Boise St 32
Oklahoma St 32
Washington 31
South Carolina 22
Nebraska 19
Arkansas 16
Texas 14
And I bet the majority of the 14 weeks UT was in the Top 10 fell between Aug-Sept when they came in that way.
Man, the BOR really screwed the school, and us all, with the scapegoating of CAB.
Also....technically....Grobe had them there. It was obviously a "Briles team"....but Grobe was HC in 2016 when we entered the ill-fated WSJ leak UT game ranked #8.MrGolfguy said:Wrong, 2019 was Coach Rhule. Baylor was Top 10 for 4 or 5 weeks that seasonZerooreo said:boognish_bear said:boognish_bear said:
And ALL of Baylor's fell under Coach Art Briles.
Still can't believe a bunch of Boomers did that to a bunch of 18-22 yo kids getting ready to play UT. Unconscionable.boognish_bear said:Also....technically....Grobe had them there. It was obviously a "Briles team"....but Grobe was HC in 2016 when we entered the ill-fated WSJ leak UT game ranked #8.MrGolfguy said:Wrong, 2019 was Coach Rhule. Baylor was Top 10 for 4 or 5 weeks that seasonZerooreo said:boognish_bear said:boognish_bear said:
And ALL of Baylor's fell under Coach Art Briles.
Hearing that audio of Mack and the coaches before that game made me sick. That team was doomed with that kind of funk hanging around it.Robert Wilson said:Still can't believe a bunch of Boomers did that to a bunch of 18-22 yo kids getting ready to play UT. Unconscionable.boognish_bear said:Also....technically....Grobe had them there. It was obviously a "Briles team"....but Grobe was HC in 2016 when we entered the ill-fated WSJ leak UT game ranked #8.MrGolfguy said:Wrong, 2019 was Coach Rhule. Baylor was Top 10 for 4 or 5 weeks that seasonZerooreo said:boognish_bear said:boognish_bear said:
And ALL of Baylor's fell under Coach Art Briles.
