Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Ask yourself

So OU might just be looking out for our interests, but only because they see this as an opportunity to "stick it in & break it off" on Texas?

I would be OK with that. Especially if OU gives the knife an extra twist or two for us.
 
Die4Cy said:
A Post from the OU board tonight:
...Despite Orangebloods reporting OU's board will vote to (leave) the Big 12, I don't believe that is what OU wants to do. If they can settle down the instability, OU stays.

The instability appears to be about to be addressed. Suspect OU will sit down with UT and work out structural and revenue sharing changes. UT appears much more willing on both fronts than in the past.

The only other real outstanding issue is expansion. UT wants to replace A&M and remain a ten-school league. President Boren said that if the Big-12 survived he thought it needed to go back to being a 12-school league.

The real issue is who comes in. Texas only wants one school to avoid adding any schools in Texas (SMU, Houston, perhaps TCU) which can grow and compete against Texas on and off the field. See BYU. Suspect Boren wants to go back to 12 teams in part to dilute the inter-conference power of Texas. Smart idea.

BTW doesn't mean Big-12 doesn't lose another team. Still a chance Missouri decides to go the SEC. Big-12 can survive that if OU and UT negotiate the changes that need to be made.

OU the only school left in the conference that can do this. If and when it's done (likely between now and the OU-UT game in Dallas) Baylor will announce it believes its concerns have been addressed and no longer expects to have the need to litigate any issues with any current Big-12 school. That lets A&M off the hook to head east.

One other thing: It's entirely possible that the SEC making A&M entry contingent on liability waivers was done to assist OU in its efforts to save the Big-12. Just as the SEC helped Texas A&M save the conference 15 months ago (and possibly OU as well which may have been working with A&M behind the scenes) it's possible SEC is willing to help OU now as long as it is committed to stabilizing the conference long term. Would have been simpler and smarter, last week, for the SEC to tell A&M "get your exit from the Big-12 hassle free and then come see us." Didn't do that.

The liability waiver requirement of the SEC effectively created a log jam and added pressure to force Big-12 to deal with issues it's never been willing to deal with before. And as this has gone on, the options available to Texas have shrunk. Big Ten now says it's not adding teams as a result of current events. Texas has been telling everybody the SEC only wants A&M in order to get Texas into the league. Clearly that is not correct. Pac-12 appears firm in requiring Texas to make major changes in the Longhorn Network (share on-air programming with another school and share profits equally will all conference teams) which UT doesn't want to do. And last week an unnamed UT official said Texas did not want to go independent.

No Big Ten, no SEC, no Pac-12, no going independent. There's only one thing left. Suspect President Boren has been waiting for this. OU is now the key school in the Big-12. It has more power and influence than UT and both OU and UT know it. Good time to negotiate if you want to force the changes necessary to allow the Big-12 to survive long term.

RebecaCy's theories are being discussed openly elsewhere...
Click to expand...

What OU Board is this? Is it their Rivals one?
 
Rebacacy, one question about the plan, not questioning or attacking. Is the whole ACC thing coincidence or was something like this thought about? I guess another one then, could this possibly change anything within the plans?
 
Judoka said:
Please let that just not be a dream...

It just makes to much sense (well, other than the SEC playing a role part) to be true. But hey, it's something to cling to for tonight.
Click to expand...

It makes so much sense that it's crazy. Crazy enough to work.
 
BCClone said:
Rebacacy, one question about the plan, not questioning or attacking. Is the whole ACC thing coincidence or was something like this thought about? I guess another one then, could this possibly change anything within the plans?
Click to expand...

my guess is that if Rebecacy is right, the ACC panicked, or just saw an opportunity to stabilize their conference and get their pick of the cream while it was available, figuring now one can see the future you might as well do what you can.
 
I think OU is bluffing to get Texas to even out the playing field in the Big 12. No other conference offers Texas as much control as the Big 12, so why give up more control than they need to by switching? I don't see why the PAC-12 would want Texas anyway, or if they did, not at the price that Texas would certainly demand.
 
I really hope Rebecacy is right. If you are right Rebecacy, I am going to invite you to come drink and eat at any tailgate I put on for the rest of my life.

That post on the OU board is interesting and somewhat validates what Rebecacy has said. Whether we go to 10 or 12 teams doesn't matter to me as long at ISU stays at the AQ/BCS table. However, if we would go to a 12 team conference I would like to see non-geographical divisions. I think it is a positive for the football team to get extra games in the south each year for recruiting purposes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajk4st8
isufan said:
I really hope Rebecacy is right. If you are right Rebecacy, I am going to invite you to come drink and eat at any tailgate I put on for the rest of my life.

That post on the OU board is interesting and somewhat validates what Rebecacy has said. Whether we go to 10 or 12 teams doesn't matter to me as long at ISU stays at the AQ/BCS table. However, if we would go to a 12 team conference I would like to see non-geographical divisions. I think it is a positive for the football team to get extra games in the south each year for recruiting purposes.
Click to expand...

That post on the OU board wasn't posted tonight it was posted 9/12. So much has changed since then.
 
everyyard said:
my guess is that if Rebecacy is right, the ACC panicked, or just saw an opportunity to stabilize their conference and get their pick of the cream while it was available, figuring now one can see the future you might as well do what you can.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Get your pick before the Big 12 or maybe even the Big 10 goes after them. As bad as the Big 12 has been the past two years, the Big East has had an element of instability since its conception.
Plus, the ACC has slipped in the past decade. Living in the mid-Atlantic some of the comments coming from the ACC hint at a power struggle that had emerged between the two conferences. The ACC did not like being 2nd fiddle on the east coast in basketball and even in football. By poaching the Big East, they now own the east coast.
 
swarthmoreCY said:
Agreed. Get your pick before the Big 12 or maybe even the Big 10 goes after them. As bad as the Big 12 has been the past two years, the Big East has had an element of instability since its conception.
Plus, the ACC has slipped in the past decade. Living in the mid-Atlantic some of the comments coming from the ACC hint at a power struggle that had emerged between the two conferences. The ACC did not like being 2nd fiddle on the east coast in basketball and even in football. By poaching the Big East, they now own the east coast.
Click to expand...

sad thing is, I think we could have had Pitt, but OU and Texa$ dicked around so long that now they aren't available. Good for the ACC for being aggressive and shoring things up.
 
It's interesting that CFB has become more WWE than the WWE.

Somewhere Vince McMahon is either very proud, or very jealous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back