****The official NEW new conference realignment thread.****

[Saul Good]

the second thread has been pronounced dead.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

You said they "had a chance and didn't". That's not technically correct. Unless, of course, by chance, you mean only by Missouri's timeline. Missouri could have, but they didn't, or at least felt, that the offer came to late for them. But, Missouri was not "in" the SEC when the offers came in.

As far as Nebraska, wow. OK, Nebraska voted for the financial setup the same way OU and UT did. When they were good, they were all for it. Then, all of a sudden, they think they're getting this raw deal. Nothing was going to save the B12 as it stood at that time. Colorado was going to leave, everyone knew it, and most agreed it was a good move for them. Larry Scott didn't look at the CU thing and all of a sudden decide to offer a bunch of B12 schools. That planning happened well in advance. There was a lot more going on than just "Nebraska" at that time. The B1G decided to even out there numbers and took advantage of the unstable situation. Once the B1G let it be known it was interested in Nebraska, there was no way UT could bring Nebraska back in.

Let's also remember, that this time period, was the first real big conference realignment moves since the formation of the B12. Everybody was kind of feeling their way around the process as it was happening and the B12 had not yet inked their new contract. You guys put way too much emphasis on the Texas part of the equation. A major player no doubt, but UT is a convenient bogey man for you to heap scorn on. Not saying they are blameless, but we all know Missouri wanted out long before was not exactly the agent of cohesion during this time period.

I would agree with all of this.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

That makes it sound like you weren't lying at all. In fact, that looks like a direct quote from Larry Scott...

I asked him to post a link, which he just did.

I posted a link earlier that contradicts that link.

There are simply too many "sources" to clarify what exactly has happened over the last 18 months in my opinion.

One thing is for sure. Larry Scott may have tried to bring additional teams to the Pac-10 and he failed. But it's time to move on.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Ah, yes, KU fans never remember it right. They never remember the ADs of OU and Texas openly flirting with the PAC 12 the day after they assured the rest of the Big XII behind closed doors that they would not leave.

UT only made concessions after A & M and MU left, and after the PAC 12 publicly announced they would not accept the LHN in any form.

After A&M, not after Missouri, as Neinas was still trying to keep MU in the fold with the concessions.

Its always so black and white (or is that gold?) for you MU fans. UT never wanted to leave. OU did, for whatever silly reason, OU tried to play a power move against UT. The PAC didn't want OU and OSU, they wanted OU and UT. So, UT strung the process out, and when it became clear OU wasn't going to get in on its own merits, UT told the PAC they were no longer interested. Funny how this MU fan sees all the wrong in this, but nothing about their flirtations only the year before.

[ChiefsCountry]

Only reason Texas didn't go the PAC-12 was because ESPN threw the Longhorn Network in their lap. They had one foot out in the California sand ready to go.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

I asked him to post a link, which he just did.

I posted a link earlier that contradicts that link.

There are simply too many "sources" to clarify what exactly has happened over the last 18 months in my opinion.

One thing is for sure. Larry Scott may have tried to bring additional teams to the Pac-10 and he failed. But it's time to move on.

No, your link confirms everything that everyone but you has known for years.

For your sake, I hope you don't have a girlfriend. You could read accounts from 10 different dudes that banged her, have someone show you her diary entry talking about how great these dudes all were in bed, have her best friend say, "your girlfriend and I were in a gangbang together", and you would applaud her faithfulness. She wouldn't even have to deny that it happened. As long as she didn't come out and tell you, that would be all the proof you'd need to believe nothing happened.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

After A&M, not after Missouri, as Neinas was still trying to keep MU in the fold with the concessions.

Its always so black and white (or is that gold?) for you MU fans. UT never wanted to leave. OU did, for whatever silly reason, OU tried to play a power move against UT. The PAC didn't want OU and OSU, they wanted OU and UT. So, UT strung the process out, and when it became clear OU wasn't going to get in on its own merits, UT told the PAC they were no longer interested. Funny how this MU fan sees all the wrong in this, but nothing about their flirtations only the year before.

Not sure what kind of crack you have been smoking...but UT did not tell the Pac they were no longer interested...the PAC told UT they were no longer interested based on the structure of the LHN.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

There isn't going to be instability in the Big 12 for about the next 7 years or so, maybe longer. As the GOR clock starts to count down to five years or fewer, that's when things could get interesting again. I don't think it ever gets that far, though. IMO, the GOR will be dissolved or neutered before then as the conference brings new teams into the fold.

In the end, I think we see a Big East/ACC/Big 12 merger of sorts. It will all fall under the Big 12 umbrella, but it will essentially be a different conference.

Failing that, I think the clock runs out on the GOR, and Texas leaves for any one of the other conferences or even goes independent. I just don't see Texas standing pat in a conference where they don't have TLN and equally share revenue with Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, TCU, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and West Virginia. Why in the hell would they? They could walk into the Mountain West with Oklahoma, demand 50% of the revenue, and it really wouldn't feel that much different.

I agree to a point. We don't really know what will settle from the new college playoff system. Maybe the format makes getting bigger less desirable? We don't know the new B1G contract or the nature of its alignment. In fact, we don't know what large alignment conferences will be allowed to do yet. For instance, can they have semi finals before a CCG?

Its too far into the future to accurately predict the success and/or failure of what is now taking form. What if the B12 does really well in the new format, winning a few NCs, and getting paid handsomely with fewer mouths to feed? Its not out of the realm of possibility. What if the Big 4 decide to withdraw from the NCAA and form their own basketball post season tournament? Probably not, but you never know. Too much to look that far down the line and be able to predict success or failure for any conference.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

No, your link confirms everything that everyone but you has known for years.

For your sake, I hope you don't have a girlfriend. You could read accounts from 10 different dudes that banged her, have someone show you her diary entry talking about how great these dudes all were in bed, have her best friend say, "your girlfriend and I were in a gangbang together", and you would applaud her faithfulness. She wouldn't even have to deny that it happened. As long as she didn't come out and tell you, that would be all the proof you'd need to believe nothing happened.

I can see how you and Larry Scoot see eye to eye. Both are used to failure.

Texas ain't going to the Pac-12. Never were. Get over it.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

After A&M, not after Missouri, as Neinas was still trying to keep MU in the fold with the concessions.

After Nebraska, Colorado, and A&M, you mean. By the time Neinas was talking about concessions, the decision to move to the SEC had been made. If Mizzou had been willing to do everything they could to hold the Big 12 together, they could have still stayed, but why should they have? By then, Neinas had already talked shit all over Mizzou, and we'd been screwed out of bowl slots numerous times. **** that noise. Enjoy the Mountaineers and TCU.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Not sure what kind of crack you have been smoking...but UT did not tell the Pac they were no longer interested...the PAC told UT they were no longer interested based on the structure of the LHN.

Incorrect. Again.

http://ucla.ocregister.com/2010/06/1...ank-you/16451/

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

After Nebraska, Colorado, and A&M, you mean. By the time Neinas was talking about concessions, the decision to move to the SEC had been made. If Mizzou had been willing to do everything they could to hold the Big 12 together, they could have still stayed, but why should they have? By then, Neinas had already talked shit all over Mizzou, and we'd been screwed out of bowl slots numerous times. **** that noise. Enjoy the Mountaineers and TCU.

What about the Big 12 is "not together"?

When did the media deals the Big 12 have lose value?

Your departure meant nothing. The dollars prove it. Enjoy the SEC basement.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Not sure what kind of crack you have been smoking...but UT did not tell the Pac they were no longer interested...the PAC told UT they were no longer interested based on the structure of the LHN.

Yes, because a voting bloc rose up against it. Scott wanted UT, it was his only chance to expand into the Central Time Zone. But, four schools were convinced that their access to California would be severely diminished, and THEN Scott, who no longer had the votes, "told" UT they were no longer interested. UT was only there as a counter move to OU, knowing full well the LHN would be a chip most of the PAC would not swallow. Sorry, I didn't know you needed crack to figure out things beyond what the official "line" is.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

I agree to a point. We don't really know what will settle from the new college playoff system. Maybe the format makes getting bigger less desirable? We don't know the new B1G contract or the nature of its alignment. In fact, we don't know what large alignment conferences will be allowed to do yet. For instance, can they have semi finals before a CCG?

Its too far into the future to accurately predict the success and/or failure of what is now taking form. What if the B12 does really well in the new format, winning a few NCs, and getting paid handsomely with fewer mouths to feed? Its not out of the realm of possibility. What if the Big 4 decide to withdraw from the NCAA and form their own basketball post season tournament? Probably not, but you never know. Too much to look that far down the line and be able to predict success or failure for any conference.

It's impossible to say for sure, but if you think there's a chance that 10 teams with 2 pillars and 8 others turns out to be the best formula, I think you're crazy.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

That's going to happen in any conference, though. The question is why you would want to be one of two pillars out of ten when you could join the PAC and have Oklahoma, Texas, Oregon, USC, UCLA, etc. to help balance the load.

No question, the duo carries more water in the Big 12 than they would in the SEC or the PAC. As you say, they'd still be providing welfare no matter where they went. It might not be fun handing out goodies to Baylor or Iowa State but it's probably not fun doing so for Wash State or Utah.


In my proposal, only 1/2 of the BCS schools would be in the upper division of football anyway. That would solve the welfare issue. You could do an English Premier league where you relegate dogs and promote up & comers (KSU, Vandy, etc) on an annual basis. Plus, it'd be hilarious watching Tennessee get sent down to the minors

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

What about the Big 12 is "not together"?

When did the media deals the Big 12 have lose value?

Your departure meant nothing. The dollars prove it. Enjoy the SEC basement.

I'm not sure about your 3rd point. Mizzou was certainly a chip the Big 12 wanted to keep. There wasn't a school in the league that was ok watching them walk. (Dodds' comments this week bear that out). I would argue it was far different from Colorado leaving which most people didn't even notice. Mizzou is a very good school in an important state with a valued history with several legacy members.