The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[Viking]

In my view, the state of Texas will not "write off" Texas Tech. Tech does wield some political muscle in the state legislature. Since Tech is a public university, they will have their advocates in not letting it sink to C-USA. Basicially, it would amount to much less revenue for Tech and essentially giving that revenue over to Texas and A&M who are already the richest schools. And the gains made by UT and A&M may be more than offset by losses to Tech if they land in C-USA. Texas is investing in Tech right now trying to make it closer to UT and A&M because Texas is losing a lot of talented HS graduates who are attending college out of state because of enrollment limits at UT and A&M and they have better options than Tech.

I think Tech is hitched to UT stronger then most might think. Back when the Longhorns were exploring their options in the Big Ten, there was a memo made public that mentioned UT's "Tech problem". The problem was that while Texas and A&M were academically acceptable to the Big Ten, Tech was not. And that was a problem for Texas because all three are public schools. With A&M out of the Big 12 picture, I think the ties between UT and Tech are stronger not weaker.

The Nash equilibrium here is that the big east picks up TTU and takes smu thereby creating raucous, high class merriment throughout Highland Park.

[Babs]

They have done just fine.

That's how the song goes.

[Devildog]

I'll bet USC wouldn't be using that excuse. You don't see OU complaining how awful it is be in the same conference as Texas. They have done just fine.

Just came back from visiting USC's boards... want a link saying the same basic thing?

[Jarid in Cedar]

I'll bet USC wouldn't be using that excuse. You don't see OU complaining how awful it is be in the same conference as Texas. They have done just fine.

Personally, I like the idea of playing with the Texas Schools. Much of our success has been built on recruits from Texas, particularly the Houston area. I lament the lack of a regular game in Texas as I think it will hurt recruiting that area.

There is a way to make everyone happy about the scheduling. The pod rotation would work. The zipper plan would work.

In addition, if Utah wants to work up the totem pole of the college football world, you have to want to play the best and want to beat the best. I can't see Whittingham, Hill, et al backing down from the Pac-16.

[TripletDaddy]

Just came back from visiting USC's boards... want a link saying the same basic thing?

Which boards? WeAreSC is now dead.

[Devildog]

Which boards? WeAreSC is now dead.

Here's one I found interesting, and it lined up with my thinking.

http://usc.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fi...279482&style=1

[TripletDaddy]

Here's on I found interesting and lined up with my thinking.

http://usc.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fi...279482&style=1

This isn't to differ with the intent of your prior post. I'm sure some SC fans don't want a harder schedule. But Jeff Lebowski is right. SC has never run from tough schedules and is smart enough to see the advantages of a tougher conference, a la the SEC. In my opinion, if the PAC were to add OU and Texas it would pass the SEC as top dog...a little biased, I know.

Anyway, the main SC board is WeAreSC. Or was. Recently, GarryP, the Jefe of that mega board, finished the transition to ESPN and the site converted over to an ESPN site. In the process, it decimated it....everyone revolted and left. They are scattered to the winds. There are a few boards here and there, but by and large they are mostly hokum. It is unfortunate because WeAreSC was one of my fave sites. GarryP has some soul searching to do. Seriously, there were thousands if registered users. Now the new format is awful, the board is dead, and there is no good SC board.

[Devildog]

Well it seems that there are two main factors at work.

Conference-stability

Money

There is also academic prestige, and football field prestige.

Even Larry Scott (who I think is a genius) would have to sell any plan that materializes to the presidents.

[LA Ute]

Are you saying there is a reason Utah should fear being in Texas' conference and BYU should not?

I'll bet USC wouldn't be using that excuse. You don't see OU complaining how awful it is be in the same conference as Texas. They have done just fine.

OU loves it so much their president is talking about not being "a wallflower" in Texas' conference and bolting for the PAC-whatever. Surely you Texas fans must see that the misgivings of other schools' fans about being affiliated with you might be based on something other than UT's awesomeness.

Besides, it's not an excuse, it's just a preference. Still, Jarid's post has me thinking. Maybe it would be really great to be in the same conference as UT, and I'm just being provincial about liking Western schools and Western football.

[Babs]

Maybe it would be really great to be in the same conference as UT, and I'm just being provincial about liking Western schools and Western football.

Somebody help me out, here. What is western football?

[Devildog]

Somebody help me out, here. What is western football?

For instance, that's like where BYU comes in and beats Oklahoma, or Utah smashes Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.

[LA Ute]

Somebody help me out, here. What is western football?

Football played in stadiums (stadia?) located in the West, full of fans from the West. Don't you have some footnotes to check?

[Babs]

For instance, that's like where BYU comes in and beats Oklahoma, or Utah smashes Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.

So western football is a decennial upset of a marquee program?

[Gaffords]

Think of the compromised academics, Dude!

Texas #45
OU # 111
Utah # 129

and for reference. OkStU #132 vs. OSU #139

[Viking]

Somebody help me out, here. What is western football?

We call it grab-ass football in texas