U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-21-2011, 11:40 AM
 
192 posts, read 243,130 times
Reputation: 183

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoPro View Post
Seriously, why do the aggys continue to deny the fact that they were given an opportunity to join Texas in forming a Lone Star network?

Why do they and Nebraska continue to ignore the fact that they voted for the uneven revenue distributions in the first place?

Why are there no complaints about Kansas & others selling their Tier 3 rights for millions and not sharing it? Does A&M realize Florida has it's own TV network it doesn't share?

Who is stopping OU from forming their own Grapes of Wrath network? A&M with theirs?

Face it - When those tunnelvision programs saw how much $$$ Texas got for marketing it's brand, they were shocked and instantly developed a massive case of envy. And now OU is demanding a cut of all UT's hard work and UT's brand?
Good lawd, how petulant they can be!

And to reiterate - UT has only ONE vote in the Big 12-2.

As far as Beebe goes:
I've said in the past that Nebraska has its own dose of blame because of their support of unequal revenue sharing in the past. But its petty to blame the whole situation on Nebraska just as it is to solely blame it on Texas. When Nebraska decided to leave, they truly thought their decision would lead to greener pastures with the stability, academics and money that the Big 10 has to offer not because of jealously. You can choose to believe it or not, but I can assure you it wasn't because of jealously. As I mentioned, every member of the Big XII is at fault at this point. What has happened in the last 2 months, just shows how unstable the conference was with or without Nebraska. The lack of communication and trust amongst members really shows that. Just like you, I am perplexed on why everyone approved the Longhorn Network (after Nebraska and Colorado left), only to have everyone against it at this point. It could be the issue of high school footage, or showing conference games. Again, a lack of communication between the universities and some bit of envy here.

With the rejection of expansion by the Pac-12, I wonder what the remaining members of the Big XII do going forward. I imagine the relationship between them at this point is quite toxic. Do they try to patch up the Big XII and add BYU/Big East members or do some try to bolt for the SEC like the Aggies. Texas minus the LHN could still probably go to any conference while schools like OU are quite limited on what they can do now when paired with OSU.

Last edited by Fairlady Z; 09-21-2011 at 12:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-21-2011, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Abilene, Texas
8,746 posts, read 7,751,642 times
Reputation: 55865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bass&Catfish2008 View Post
Can't believe the Big 12 made it out this time! I'm glad the Big 12 is staying together....I'm a Southwestern Boy (Oklahoma/Texas) so I, for one, was not for the move to the Far West.

A few thoughts...
1) Larry Scott was dishonest with Boren (Scott had made it clear that OU/Oklahoma State would have been accepted with or without Tejas...that was wrong.) Texas was NEVER going to make the drastic revenue sharing changes the PAC would have required. I never bought the POD system with OU/OSU/Tech/Tejas. I did, as Boren appeared to assert, think that OU/OSU would be free to go to the PAC even after Tejas was turned down. Somewhere in the conversations it was leaked to Tejas (from the PAC?) that OU/OSU would not go to the PAC12 without Tejas. Tejas got the inside info on that front. Apparently, the PAC didn't want to share it's new TV deal with OU/OSU. Boren should have gotten all of Larry Scott's guarantees in writing before opening his trap. In other words, OU/Boren got played by the PAC (not Tejas, mind you).

2) The only card Boren has left to play as leverage is to threaten to go to the SEC with A&M, and the SEC would love to have OU, of course. That may mean that Oklahoma State gets left in the dust.

3) It is possible that Boren is crazy like a fox and wanted to STAY in the Big 12 all along. All this posturing and "we're not going to be a wallflower" business could have been double-speak to simply try to get make the Shorthorns to make some concessions to the LHN and the firing of commissioner of Beebe. This would seem a really silly and LONG drawn-out way of getting Tejas to move and budge some on its LHN.

4) I don't think there is any more stability now in the Big 12 than 2 months ago. So, we'll continue to have all these discussions for years to come. I think there are more unknowns now with the Big 12. The job of all of this realignment is to answer questions, but now I think there are many more questions than answers.
I'm glad that UT, OU, OK State and Tech aren't headed west as well! I agree, however, that the Big 12 conference is no more stable today than it has been in recent weeks. I also agree with OU president Boren on Beebe. He is a disaster as the commish, who apparently has no discernable leadership skills. IMO, he should be fired immediately. If he is replaced with a competent commish there may be a way to work out some of the instability in the Big 12. Without better leadership I don't see how anything could possibly improve. I just saw on ESPN that OU and Texas officials are meeting in the next few days to work out a deal to keep the Big 12 together for at least 5 years. It'll be interesting to see what comes out of those meetings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
8,409 posts, read 8,408,554 times
Reputation: 7042
Well, OU & A&M both look pretty foolish, and neither has any leverage left.

Personally, I'm disappointed UT isn't moving west, but at least we'll have time to develop the LHN before the next round of realignment hysteria.

If A&M insists on bolting and Mizzou skeedaddles, then the B12 will get BYU and another stand-in. However, it won't last more than 5 years tops until we get the 4 "superconferences" & a modified playoff.

Quite entertaining watching it all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
8,409 posts, read 8,408,554 times
Reputation: 7042
As far as A&M hatin' on Texas - this tells the truth about their plight:

Quote:
Baylor has absolutely no incentive to waive their rights, and much incentive not to. If the SEC really wants the Aggies, then they're going to have to remove this requirement and actually face any potential consequences of their actions. The Aggies say the grounds for any suit are extremely weak, so what does anyone have to fear?

Nobody is holding A&M hostage except the SEC. They have asked for something that has never before been asked in 100 years of conference realignment situations. If the SEC wants A&M, they're going to have to give them a full, real offer. If they don't really want A&M, then they will prove it by letting it stand as-is, or they will rescind the existing (non-commitable) offer.

It really is just that simple.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 03:26 PM
 
1,359 posts, read 4,385,936 times
Reputation: 771
I kind of agree that having them join the Pac would have been better both for them and for the Pac. I think the conferences that expand first are probably going to be in the best position later on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Austin, Texas
2,092 posts, read 3,022,063 times
Reputation: 869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bass&Catfish2008 View Post
Can't believe the Big 12 made it out this time! I'm glad the Big 12 is staying together....I'm a Southwestern Boy (Oklahoma/Texas) so I, for one, was not for the move to the Far West.

A few thoughts...
1) Larry Scott was dishonest with Boren (Scott had made it clear that OU/Oklahoma State would have been accepted with or without Tejas...that was wrong.) Texas was NEVER going to make the drastic revenue sharing changes the PAC would have required. I never bought the POD system with OU/OSU/Tech/Tejas. I did, as Boren appeared to assert, think that OU/OSU would be free to go to the PAC even after Tejas was turned down. Somewhere in the conversations it was leaked to Tejas (from the PAC?) that OU/OSU would not go to the PAC12 without Tejas. Tejas got the inside info on that front. Apparently, the PAC didn't want to share it's new TV deal with OU/OSU. Boren should have gotten all of Larry Scott's guarantees in writing before opening his trap. In other words, OU/Boren got played by the PAC (not Tejas, mind you).

2) The only card Boren has left to play as leverage is to threaten to go to the SEC with A&M, and the SEC would love to have OU, of course. That may mean that Oklahoma State gets left in the dust.

3) It is possible that Boren is crazy like a fox and wanted to STAY in the Big 12 all along. All this posturing and "we're not going to be a wallflower" business could have been double-speak to simply try to get make the Shorthorns to make some concessions to the LHN and the firing of commissioner of Beebe. This would seem a really silly and LONG drawn-out way of getting Tejas to move and budge some on its LHN.

4) I don't think there is any more stability now in the Big 12 than 2 months ago. So, we'll continue to have all these discussions for years to come. I think there are more unknowns now with the Big 12. The job of all of this realignment is to answer questions, but now I think there are many more questions than answers.
Where did you hear this information? First of all, Scott does not make the decision. He gathers information for possible deals and then talks with the presidents of the conference schools. Pac-10 presidents are very adament about specific things other than football. That is what happens when you have 5 top 20 schools that aparently value education a great deal. Now, of course the presidents are open to more revenue brought in by football, but the Pac-10/12 didn't bend over last time, and didn't this time.

Everything, I mean everything I have heard is completely opposite from your perspective. But then again, I'm a Pac-10 man. Larry Scott has specifically stated over and over that the Pac-12 is a revenue sharing conference. He said last year and this year that the deal killer was UT's unwillingness to share revenue. The presidents of the Pac schools were possibly open to looking at OU/OSU, but the prize was Texas. Sure, they took a long look at OU/OSU. However, just like last year, the Pac-12's concerns with adding just 2 were 1. Scheduling 2. Lack of TV market (Oklahoma ain't big)- compared to travel costs 3. Arizona schools- longtime members were not going for it at all- at all. Earlier today, Scott specifically stated that the Pac-12 would have likely rolled in an Oklahoma regional channel into the new Pac-12 network. They also wanted the LHN to be rolled into it as well- a sticking point that was never close to being remedied. In the end, it was clear that Texas wouldn't share s***.

Besides, at the end of the day, the Pac-12 has a far superior TV deal than the Big 12 and they know that if the Big 12 doesn't solve the revenue issue, it will crumble. OU is not going to go to the SEC. OU would have already tried to go. The Pac-12 is in the position of power and when all was said and done, the Pac-12 presidents felt that the Oklahoma schools were simply not worth it at this time. Now, if Texas wants into the confernce, they will share revenue and metaphorically submit to Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA.

On a side note- I was hearing from a source with knowledge from some Oregon higher ups that even lil' ol' Oregon voted against including Texas, but was willing to take the Oklahoma schools.

Just my .02. Probably worth a penny

Last edited by Acuda; 09-21-2011 at 10:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 10:34 PM
 
Location: OKIE-Ville
5,417 posts, read 7,726,331 times
Reputation: 3069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acuda View Post
Where did you hear this information? First of all, Scott does not make the decision. He gathers information for possible deals and then talks with the presidents of the conference schools. Pac-10 presidents are very adament about specific things other than football. That is what happens when you have 5 top 20 schools that aparently value education a great deal. Now, of course the presidents are open to more revenue brought in by football, but the Pac-10/12 didn't bend over last time, and didn't this time.

Everything, I mean everything I have heard is completely opposite from your perspective. But then again, I'm a Pac-10 man. Larry Scott has specifically stated over and over that the Pac-12 is a revenue sharing conference. He said last year and this year that the deal killer was UT's unwillingness to share revenue. The presidents of the Pac schools were possibly open to looking at OU/OSU, but the prize was Texas. Sure, they took a long look at OU/OSU. However, just like last year, the Pac-12's concerns with adding just 2 were 1. Scheduling 2. Lack of TV market (Oklahoma ain't big)- compared to travel costs 3. Arizona schools- longtime members were not going for it at all- at all. Earlier today, Scott specifically stated that the Pac-12 would have likely rolled in an Oklahoma regional channel into the new Pac-12 network. They also wanted the LHN to be rolled into it as well- a sticking point that was never close to being remedied. In the end, it was clear that Texas wouldn't share s***.

Besides, at the end of the day, the Pac-12 has a far superior TV deal than the Big 12 and they know that if the Big 12 doesn't solve the revenue issue, it will crumble. OU is not going to go to the SEC. OU would have already tried to go. The Pac-12 is in the position of power and when all was said and done, the Pac-12 presidents felt that the Oklahoma schools were simply not worth it at this time. Now, if Texas wants into the confernce, they will share revenue and metaphorically submit to Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA.

On a side note- I was hearing from a source with knowledge from some Oregon higher ups that even lil' ol' Oregon voted against including Texas, but was willing to take the Oklahoma schools.

Just my .02. Probably worth a penny
Acuda,

You haven't refuted me in the least.

1) Scott is merely a figurehead and it is assumed that he had contact with Boren/OU. If it wasn't Scott perhaps another university president from the PAC? Either way, Boren was misled by someone (or a group of people) in the PAC.

2) OU would have AGREED to revenue sharing. They did not get rejected because the PAC thought the Sooners were coming in to control everything and get a sweet deal. Actually and clearly, that was/is Tejas' role. Revenue sharing is not the issue for the Sooners = it's getting away from a unstable conference created primarily by the Horns' myopic overreaching and control, even against the Sooners, a far more tradition-laden superpower program in terms of actual championships and winning history.

3) Again revenue sharing was not the issue for the Sooners. OU (or Boren) was enthusiastic about being in a conference where all members are treated as equal (demonstrated through revenue sharing). Boren's leveraging power (his belief which was not actually the reality of the matter) was based on the fact that the PAC would take OU/OSU without Tejas. Everything that he said and did makes absolutely no sense if that is not true.

4) Now, as I listed in my other post, perhaps all this was simply a major swipe at Tejas to make some concessions within the Big 12. Boren and others did make it clear that they never formally applied to the PAC anyway. However, that is not how it looks on the surface. It appears that Boren truly believed the Sooners were going to the PAC with or without Texas and that was his leverage. I believe this made Boren/OU look like they were rejected....the same could be said of the PAC rejecting Tejas/Tech. The difference, of course, is that the Sooners actually wanted to leave. Tejas wanted to stay so it could keep its LHN and its self-imposed throne in the Big 12. Perhaps Boren wanted to make the Big 12 work from the start, however, the way he went about it is just bizarre = opening his mouth and throwing down the gauntlet before the move to the PAC without Tejas was an absolute slam dunk.

5) The only card Boren has left is the SEC West; and he could play it and be accepted tomorrow, but he won't because he's too hung up on academics. Honestly, it's kind of ridiculous because i think there are, along with Vandy, several public universities in the SEC that are ranked ahead of Oklahoma academically. Boren wishes OU to be some "Public Harvard of the Southwest." Never happening and just ain't right. We're a football school and always will be.

Last edited by Bass&Catfish2008; 09-21-2011 at 10:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2011, 07:36 AM
 
Location: OKIE-Ville
5,417 posts, read 7,726,331 times
Reputation: 3069
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoPro View Post
Well, OU & A&M both look pretty foolish, and neither has any leverage left.

Personally, I'm disappointed UT isn't moving west, but at least we'll have time to develop the LHN before the next round of realignment hysteria.

If A&M insists on bolting and Mizzou skeedaddles, then the B12 will get BYU and another stand-in. However, it won't last more than 5 years tops until we get the 4 "superconferences" & a modified playoff.

Quite entertaining watching it all.
I agree that OU/A&M look foolish and have very little leverage left with the sole exception of the Sooners playing the SEC card.....which they have, but probably won't because of Boren's academic fetish with the PAC.

I heard a very plausible explanation this morning for why OK/OSU were rejected along with Tejas/Tech which I had previously not considered and I had not listed in my other post.

A journalist here in Oklahoma heard from a undisclosed high ranking official close to barganing process with the PAC that Tejas threatened to sue the PAC if the PAC went ahead and decided to add the Sooners and Oklahoma State. This was after Tejas' proposal to keep their LHN without concessions within the the PAC framework was rejected, of course. Apparently, at least according to this source, Tejas DID want in the PAC but only with their LHN and clearly the Horns blew up their wishes with their continued zeal to keep/control every aspect of the LHN. That is surprising from my perspective.

Makes a lot of sense, and Dodds & Co. will get their way a few more years until they have to finally pony up and follow the Sooners or go Indy. At this point, honestly, I would just rather see 'em go Indy. Dodds, Shorthorn & Co. are just too much of a headache as Larry Scott and the PAC presidents learned (twice now). Nobody wants 'em, including On The Field Big Brother Sooner who has stuck by the Horns for a long time, even when their own Texas Brothers from A&M bailed on 'em.

In my book, Scott, PAC & Co. are still to blame, however, for being disengenous. Before Scott (or whoever else from the PAC) made promises to Boren, they should have been willing to pony up and anticipated legal action/litigation. If they weren't willing to go to the courtroom, Scoot & Co. should have never allowed this process to go on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2011, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Austin, Texas
2,092 posts, read 3,022,063 times
Reputation: 869
[quote=Bass&Catfish2008;20981918]Acuda,

You haven't refuted me in the least.

1) Scott is merely a figurehead and it is assumed that he had contact with Boren/OU. If it wasn't Scott perhaps another university president from the PAC? Either way, Boren was misled by someone (or a group of people) in the PAC.

2) OU would have AGREED to revenue sharing. They did not get rejected because the PAC thought the Sooners were coming in to control everything and get a sweet deal. Actually and clearly, that was/is Tejas' role. Revenue sharing is not the issue for the Sooners = it's getting away from a unstable conference created primarily by the Horns' myopic overreaching and control, even against the Sooners, a far more tradition-laden superpower program in terms of actual championships and winning history.

3) Again revenue sharing was not the issue for the Sooners. OU (or Boren) was enthusiastic about being in a conference where all members are treated as equal (demonstrated through revenue sharing). Boren's leveraging power (his belief which was not actually the reality of the matter) was based on the fact that the PAC would take OU/OSU without Tejas. Everything that he said and did makes absolutely no sense if that is not true.

4) Now, as I listed in my other post, perhaps all this was simply a major swipe at Tejas to make some concessions within the Big 12. Boren and others did make it clear that they never formally applied to the PAC anyway. However, that is not how it looks on the surface. It appears that Boren truly believed the Sooners were going to the PAC with or without Texas and that was his leverage. I believe this made Boren/OU look like they were rejected....the same could be said of the PAC rejecting Tejas/Tech. The difference, of course, is that the Sooners actually wanted to leave. Tejas wanted to stay so it could keep its LHN and its self-imposed throne in the Big 12. Perhaps Boren wanted to make the Big 12 work from the start, however, the way he went about it is just bizarre = opening his mouth and throwing down the gauntlet before the move to the PAC without Tejas was an absolute slam dunk.

5) The only card Boren has left is the SEC West; and he could play it and be accepted tomorrow, but he won't because he's too hung up on academics. Honestly, it's kind of ridiculous because i think there are, along with Vandy, several public universities in the SEC that are ranked ahead of Oklahoma academically. Boren wishes OU to be some "Public Harvard of the Southwest." Never happening and just ain't right. We're a football school and always will be.[/QUOTE

I wasn't refuting all your points. I was stating what Scott has said all along and there are enough interviews that support this. It is that simple. Where you got this mystery Pac-10 contact that led Boren to believe the Pac was all ready to take OU/OSU is just that, a mystery. You obviously only heard a rumor that happened, but frankly, Boren assumed way too much. Talk of a mystery contact leaking information is pure speculation and if Boren believed it he's an idiot. Even the casual fan knows half of those rumors are smoke and mirrors, created by the media, or just pure b.s. Heck, I would say most Duck fans and a sneaking suspicion that OU was using all this to gain leverage despite what an OU fan claims. Was that what happened? Who knows, but I'm not willing to go all in on a rumor. At no point did the Pac ever say they were ready to take the Oklahoma schools- and IMO, was created to save face. The Pac-12 looked at it and decided to only look to expand if Texas was a part of the deal with assurances that UT would share.

Besides, this whole did OU use the Pac as leverage is certainly not out of the realm of possibility:

http://newsok.com/article/3606281

Is that an OKC paper?

I agree with your other points and specifically stated it was Texas' infexiblility on revenue sharing- not OU's- that turned about half the Pac-10's presidents off on expansion. It's funny what other people hear on their end. I for one would have loved for OU/OSU to come to the Pac. I think both schools bring in some academic programs that would add to the conference and both schools have great teams. It's too bad, but I hope it will still happen in a year or two. Oh well, life goes on...

Last edited by Acuda; 09-22-2011 at 10:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2011, 10:53 AM
 
Location: OKIE-Ville
5,417 posts, read 7,726,331 times
Reputation: 3069
[quote=Acuda;20987085]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bass&Catfish2008 View Post
Acuda,

You haven't refuted me in the least.

1) Scott is merely a figurehead and it is assumed that he had contact with Boren/OU. If it wasn't Scott perhaps another university president from the PAC? Either way, Boren was misled by someone (or a group of people) in the PAC.

2) OU would have AGREED to revenue sharing. They did not get rejected because the PAC thought the Sooners were coming in to control everything and get a sweet deal. Actually and clearly, that was/is Tejas' role. Revenue sharing is not the issue for the Sooners = it's getting away from a unstable conference created primarily by the Horns' myopic overreaching and control, even against the Sooners, a far more tradition-laden superpower program in terms of actual championships and winning history.

3) Again revenue sharing was not the issue for the Sooners. OU (or Boren) was enthusiastic about being in a conference where all members are treated as equal (demonstrated through revenue sharing). Boren's leveraging power (his belief which was not actually the reality of the matter) was based on the fact that the PAC would take OU/OSU without Tejas. Everything that he said and did makes absolutely no sense if that is not true.

4) Now, as I listed in my other post, perhaps all this was simply a major swipe at Tejas to make some concessions within the Big 12. Boren and others did make it clear that they never formally applied to the PAC anyway. However, that is not how it looks on the surface. It appears that Boren truly believed the Sooners were going to the PAC with or without Texas and that was his leverage. I believe this made Boren/OU look like they were rejected....the same could be said of the PAC rejecting Tejas/Tech. The difference, of course, is that the Sooners actually wanted to leave. Tejas wanted to stay so it could keep its LHN and its self-imposed throne in the Big 12. Perhaps Boren wanted to make the Big 12 work from the start, however, the way he went about it is just bizarre = opening his mouth and throwing down the gauntlet before the move to the PAC without Tejas was an absolute slam dunk.

5) The only card Boren has left is the SEC West; and he could play it and be accepted tomorrow, but he won't because he's too hung up on academics. Honestly, it's kind of ridiculous because i think there are, along with Vandy, several public universities in the SEC that are ranked ahead of Oklahoma academically. Boren wishes OU to be some "Public Harvard of the Southwest." Never happening and just ain't right. We're a football school and always will be.[/QUOTE

I wasn't refuting all your points. I was stating what Scott has said all along and there are enough interviews that support this. It is that simple. Where you got this mystery Pac-10 contact that led Boren to believe the Pac was all ready to take OU/OSU is just that, a mystery. You obviously only heard a rumor that happened, but frankly, Boren assumed way too much. Talk of a mystery contact leaking information is pure speculation and if Boren believed it he's an idiot. Even the casual fan knows half of those rumors are smoke and mirrors, created by the media, or just pure b.s. Heck, I would say most Duck fans and a sneaking suspicion that OU was using all this to gain leverage despite what an OU fan claims. Was that what happened? Who knows, but I'm not willing to go all in on a rumor. At no point did the Pac ever say they were ready to take the Oklahoma schools- and IMO, was created to save face. The Pac-12 looked at it and decided to only look to expand if Texas was a part of the deal with assurances that UT would share.

I agree with your other points and specifically stated it was Texas' infexiblility on revenue sharing- not OU's- that turned about half the Pac-10's presidents off on expansion. It's funny what other people hear on their end. I for one would have loved for OU/OSU to come to the Pac. I think both schools bring in some academic programs that would add to the conference and both schools have great teams. It's too bad, but I hope it will still happen in a year or two. Oh well, life goes on...
>>>>>
Heck, I would say most Duck fans and a sneaking suspicion that OU was using all this to gain leverage despite what an OU fan claims.
<<<<<

^^^
THIS. Quite plausible and probably accurate. Boren is a former Governor/Senator and very close to Pres. Obama. He's no dummy for sure and legally he's VERY shrewd.

The whole deal could have been a ruse from the get-go to try to make Texas look like a puppet and then make concessions within a revamped Big 12.

In the Oklahoman today, Stoops came out and said that Boren had consulted him on many of the ins/outs pros/cons of conference expansion. It would be hard to argue with Stoops' success in the Big 12 = 7 conference championships to Tejas' 3. Stoops may have ultimately asked, "Why destroy something/conference we've been incredibly successful in?" Along with Constiglione, Boren/Stoops & Co. may have just decided it would be better to put up with Tejas' junk and just keep winning as long as the Big 12 can hold together.

I'm sure we'll never get the whole story.

P.S. Don't hold your breath on the Big 12 ending anytime soon. It's gonna be here for the long haul now that Tejas can never go to the PAC. The only thing that would throw another wrench in this whole realignment mess is if OU finally decided (which many Sooner fans [I'm not one of 'em] want quite honestly based on regional culture/geographical proximity) to apply to the SEC. About 100 to 1 shot it happens, but it's out there and available nonetheless.

Last edited by Bass&Catfish2008; 09-22-2011 at 10:57 AM.. Reason: Addition
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top