Octopus Overlords

by **GungHo** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:29 am

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1257714

I'm not sure either side knows what it's really getting in that deal.

by **rshetts2** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:37 am

They are getting away from Texas and their whole gestapo big swinging dicks we own this conference attitude. The sheer greed that Texas has shown has killed their conference and soon they too will have to either move on or start uplifting D-2 school to fill the Big 12. At least they can boast an undefeated conference record after theyve thumped the Austin School for the Blind for the 3rd time.

by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:45 am

A&M sources say the Aggies will do whatever they can to help the Big 12 find a replacement to help avoid any damage financially to the conference.

Big 12 = Hell. If you can find someone to voluntarily take your place, you're free to go...?

by **Scuzz** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:31 am

So...what is the next move in this game of switching conferences. I don't see why Arkansas would leave the SEC to go to the Big-12. And who joins TA&M in the SEC.

by **triggercut** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:10 pm

The first thing to understand about this is that conferences would prefer to move a little more slowly on expansion than we're seeing. There are two conferences that want to be aggressive on expansion. The Pac 12 is one of those...but Larry Scott knows that he has a very limited pool of schools to work with and if he wants to land the whales from the Big XII, he's going to have to be patient. The other conference that would like to be aggressive is the Big East. They have a TV contract problem and a basketball-school only problem. That said:

1. The Big 1G is happy for now at 12 schools. They want to see how their current TV contracts and revenue splits work out. They want to see how the research dollars hold up for the CIC with a 12th piglet feeding off that teat. If Notre Dame called 'em up, they'd listen...but for now, they're not.

2. The ACC has two schools facing severe NCAA retribution in UNC and Miami. Theyr'e fighting to hold onto one of their best TV revenue generators in Virginia Tech. If/when they expand, it'll almost feel like a merger with the Big East. They'd want to take on UConn, maybe Rutgers, and obviously Pitt and/or Syracuse if the Big 1G hasn't grabbed either of those schools.

3. The SEC didn't necessarily want to expand this soon, but A&M gave them the entree into the state of Texas they've long desired, so they jumped. All things being equal, they'd love Virginia Tech or North Carolina as team 14 in the conference. An eastern school like that would balance the western school in aTm. However, UNC isn't going anywhere, and I doubt NC State is, either. Virginia Tech is very much split on doing anything; right now they've got such a clear path to a BCS bowl every year that it becomes hard to justify giving that away....and then there's the matter of the Hokies not being able to play in another conference until 2013, and the matter of the Virginia Assembly being pretty dead set against them going anywhere and separating from UVA. I'll be very interested in seeing where the SEC goes for team 14. Right now it appears that they'll play 2012 with 13 schools and maybe try to wedge VaTech out for 2013.

4. The Big XII is the Ottoman Empire, circa 1914. It is a sick and dying conference, doomed by an unequal revenue-sharing model that ensures it to be a conference of Harlem Globetrotters (Oklahoma and Texas) and Washington Generals (everyone else, pretty much.) Texas Tech would LOVE to get out, and would love to join the Pac 12. Sadly, they need OU and OSU to make the first move. The Sooners and Cowboys are joined together as a matched pair of state universities. When the Big XII falls apart (not an "if"), they'll go to the Pac 12 and then Tech has to hope to ride over with them, and I think they will. (Of all the school administrators of the have-not schools in the Big XII, Tech seems to have the folks with the cajones and backbone and vision to see how this is playing out, and will act aggressively.) Texas is happy with the Bevo-10. They'll toss an invite to BYU who may take it, or Air Force who absolutely will, and whichever team joins will discover the fun of finally getting past the velvet rope to get into a club, only to find out that everyone's leaving and last call is in 10 minutes. KU needs to get their football figured out but they seem likely to get that Pac 12 invite if nothing else; they'll land on their feet. Iowa State, K-State, and Baylor? Uh...the Mountain West isn't *that* bad, is it?

And then there's my alma mater. Mizzou is like this blazingly hot chick who has abundant self-esteem issues. The revenue generating sport--football--has 40 wins over the last 4 seasons, had 2 guys drafted in the top 10 this year, and sits on the verge of breaking through into the elite programs in the country. They have some of the best practice facilities in the conference ($20 million state of the art training facility with tutors and monitored study halls), they've got a 71,000 seat stadium that's had $25 million in renovations done to it (luxury suites, diamondvision scoreboard, etc), as well as a plan to take it to 80k seats in 5 years. They've got three desirable TV markets, academic standing as an AAU school (with a fantastic graduation rate among athletes), and a billion dollar endowment. Sadly, last year's Big Ten fiasco left them feeling like a battered wife, and now with no vision and no spine and no aggressiveness, they cling to BeltBuckle University, happy to splash around in the kiddie pool with Iowa State and Baylor and Air Force or whomever ends up being weak enough to attach themselves to this weak-ass conference. When Texas decides to leave the party in 4 or 5 years, Mizzou had better hope there's a landing spot out there, but they seem to have missed a chance where some vision and brass ball would've given them a proactive chance to pick their spot.

by **Scuzz** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:36 pm

If pieces of the Big-12 end up in the MWC would that give that conference a claim to be made a BCS conference?

Why would VaTech leave the BCS heaven that is the ACC to go to the meat grinder that is the SEC?

by **Carpet_pissr** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:30 pm

Jesus, Game of Thrones politics much?

I never really ever gave conference strategy much thought, but just reading Triggercut's post makes me realize how naive I have been.

by **tru1cy** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:51 pm

Trig, I'm hearing rumblings that Clemson might be a target for the SEC... Thinking I heard it on ESPN radio

by **noxiousdog** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:59 pm

tru1cy wrote:Trig, I'm hearing rumblings that Clemson might be a target for the SEC... Thinking I heard it on ESPN radio

I've hear that as well as Florida State. However, neither South Carolina nor Florida want those to happen respectively. It also doesn't expand their geographic regions for the TV markets.

by **triggercut** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:23 pm

The same sources who have been dead-on accurate about the A&M realignment confirmed last week that the SEC conference presidents voted NOT to expand into any existing markets over the next few years.

There was already significant smoke that a consortium of schools in the SEC have a "Gentlemen's Agreement" to vote as a bloc to keep certain schools out. Those schools are Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, and South Carolina, and they're blocking Georgia Tech, Florida State, Louisville, and Clemson respectively. Additionally, Auburn is said to be very much against Florida State coming aboard--they recruit FLA pretty heavily and don't want the competition.

CBS and ESPN won't renegotiate their current SEC contracts unless the SEC adds new markets. TAMU is a new market. If Mizzou had one tiny bit of vision, they could easily slide in as a 14th, but for now it seems that ship has sailed.

by **theohall** » Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:18 pm

If Mizzou's AD would get off his ass and quit saying "No, we won't be going anywhere." Mizzou could still be in that SEC mix. Instead, he is going to sit there and twiddle his thumbs.

by **GungHo** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:51 am

rshetts2 wrote:They are getting away from Texas and their whole gestapo big swinging dicks we own this conference attitude. The sheer greed that Texas has shown has killed their conference and soon they too will have to either move on or start uplifting D-2 school to fill the Big 12. At least they can boast an undefeated conference record after theyve thumped the Austin School for the Blind for the 3rd time.

I assume you're referring to the 'unequal revenue distribution' that exists in the Big 12. Of course for that to really be A&M's motive for leaving the conference one would assume(naturally) that A&M voted against such "gestapo" tactics while a member of the Big 12, yes? Facts are they didnt. They also didnt have a problem with taking a larger slice of the pie from the monies left by both Colorado and Nebraska when they left the conference. No, A&M's problem isnt 'unequal revenue distribution'.

Oh and looks like A&M's leaving might be put on hold a few more days http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1258387

:cry:

by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:03 pm

WaPo

The statement from Texas A&M University President R. Bowen Loftin after the school officially notified the Big 12 Conference on Wednesday that it will end its membership effective June 30, 2012, if it is accepted by another league:

“After much thought and consideration, and pursuant to the action of the (Texas A&M University System) Board of Regents authorizing me to take action related to Texas A&M University’s athletic conference alignment, I have determined it is in the best interest of Texas A&M to make application to join another athletic conference. We appreciate the Big 12’s willingness to engage in a dialogue to end our relationship through a mutually agreeable settlement. We, too, desire that this process be as amicable and prompt as possible and result in a resolution of all outstanding issues, including mutual waivers by Texas A&M and the conference on behalf of all the remaining members. As I have indicated throughout this process, we are seeking to generate greater visibility nationwide for Texas A&M and our championship-caliber student-athletes, as well as secure the necessary and stable financial resources to support our athletic and academic programs,” Loftin said. “This is a 100-year decision that we have addressed carefully and methodically. Texas A&M is an extraordinary institution, and we look forward to what the future may hold for Aggies worldwide.”

by **Pyperkub** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:20 pm

Trig - in your opinion (or your source's), why would the Pac-12 want Texas Tech? Would just a foothold in Texas be enough of a reason? Tech, IMHO is a third-tier school in Texas, barely ahead of Houston, though they're trying. I'd almost think that the Pac-12 would look at Houston first... but even then only as a partner with Texas.

by **triggercut** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:23 pm

Right now the entire Big XII seems to hinge on the decision of Brigham Young University.

Texas is in favor of BYU getting an invite to join the conference. The other schools in the conference would be ok with that.

If BYU comes to the Big XII, the conference survives for another year, perhaps.

Texas Tech and OSU would really like to get out right now, while they're in good shape to get out. Both schools feel like the Pac 12 is likely to invite 3 Big XII schools if it comes to it. Oklahoma will be one. The other two could be Tech, OSU, and Kansas. OU prefers OSU and Tech, but the KU basketball prestige does carry some weight here. It behooves OSU and Tech to have this be the year the Big XII collapses, just in case.

None of those schools will act, though, until/unless Mizzou does something. Mizzou's brain-damaged Chancellor, Brady Deaton, is slowly and gradually coming to the realization that a Big XII with Houston and/or SMU is not a a good outcome from this mess. Oklahoma has made that point to him. OSU has made it. Tech has made it. None of these schools want UH or SMU in the Big XII, and finally Deaton is starting to see why.

So. If BYU says no--and indications are there that they will do just that--then the fallback plan of Houston or SMU comes into play, and that may finally encourage Mizzou to find some vision and brass balls and kick this jenga puzzle of a conference onto the floor.

FWIW, a fellow with connections to a Texas State legislator has been posting some regular updates on a Mizzou board, and his predictions of "here's what's going to happen" have been both bold and startlingly accurate. He still believes that the ball is in Mizzou's court, and that they're likely to be the 14th team to the SEC. We'll see.

by **triggercut** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:29 pm

Pyperkub wrote:Trig - in your opinion (or your source's), why would the Pac-12 want Texas Tech? Would just a foothold in Texas be enough of a reason? Tech, IMHO is a third-tier school in Texas, barely ahead of Houston, though they're trying. I'd almost think that the Pac-12 would look at Houston first... but even then only as a partner with Texas.

Oklahoma recruits the state of Texas heavily. For them to go to the Pac 12, they'll want traditional foes from the Big XII to go with them. OSU is a given, but they'd like an actual Texas school to be part of the party. Tech fits that bill; they've got 31,000 student campus, good facilities, and for Oklahoma they bring the right mix of Texas rival/Texas school they can out-recruit. Not sure TTU would be Larry Scott's first choice all things being equal (I think he'd prefer Kansas), but Oklahoma is the big fish, and he'd take TTU to help land OU.

Houston's problem is that they just don't bring that much to the table for OU.

by **tru1cy** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:32 pm

Hell, I am just worried about the ACC and their conference championship. If the U gets the death penalty (I think they should, but I don't think the NCAA has to balls to do it)then the ACC is screwed

by **triggercut** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:40 pm

tru1cy wrote:Hell, I am just worried about the ACC and their conference championship. If the U gets the death penalty (I think they should, but I don't think the NCAA has to balls to do it)then the ACC is screwed

Rutgers and Pitt, come on down!

by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:44 pm

triggercut wrote:
Pyperkub wrote:Trig - in your opinion (or your source's), why would the Pac-12 want Texas Tech? Would just a foothold in Texas be enough of a reason? Tech, IMHO is a third-tier school in Texas, barely ahead of Houston, though they're trying. I'd almost think that the Pac-12 would look at Houston first... but even then only as a partner with Texas.

Oklahoma recruits the state of Texas heavily. For them to go to the Pac 12, they'll want traditional foes from the Big XII to go with them. OSU is a given, but they'd like an actual Texas school to be part of the party. Tech fits that bill; they've got 31,000 student campus, good facilities, and for Oklahoma they bring the right mix of Texas rival/Texas school they can out-recruit. Not sure TTU would be Larry Scott's first choice all things being equal (I think he'd prefer Kansas), but Oklahoma is the big fish, and he'd take TTU to help land OU.

Houston's problem is that they just don't bring that much to the table for OU.

Don't forget Tech's lazy river.

by **Carpet_pissr** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:31 pm

Why is it a 100-year decision?

by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:47 pm

Probably because they were independent in 1911, and have probably been tied to Texas ever since through all the years since then.

1912–1914: Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association
1913–1917: Texas Intercollegiate Athletic Association
1915–1995: Southwest Conference
1996–Present: Big 12 Conference

by **Peacedog** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:00 pm

triggercut wrote:FWIW, a fellow with connections to a Texas State legislator has been posting some regular updates on a Mizzou board, and his predictions of "here's what's going to happen" have been both bold and startlingly accurate. He still believes that the ball is in Mizzou's court, and that they're likely to be the 14th team to the SEC. We'll see.

I think he's right. I hear/read things, nothing concerete or that you can't see speculated on publicly. My opinion is that of some dude (but bear a few things in mind there; I'm not a crazy SEC person. Also, I can control tornadoes with my mind. In my dreams anyway. I also dodged one. As in "it was about to suck me in and I ninja dodged it". Uh, strange dream last night. Never mind).

As you note, UNC isn't coming and VaTech isn't likely to. The SEC will not rush for a 14th team. That is in Missouri's favor (in addition to various other factors). A 14 team SEC almost certainly leads to a re-working on the regular season conference schedule. There are going to be arguments against a 9 game conference slate but it seems likely. Mizzouri is not an ideal geographic fit from an East/West standpoint. In fact, the team best suited to slide over is Auburn (again, geographically). But Alabama is not giving up it's cross division rivalry game with UT and can't not play Auburn. So a 9 game slate with two fixed cross-division rivals seems possible. That allows Bama to play UT & Auburn every year. Georgia loses it's fixed game (was Auburn) but still has Auburn on the schedule every year. It picks up LSU due to the # of interesting and entertaining games between the two teams this decade and probably one of the new-comers (Ole Miss is a possibility, but I see them and Auburn as a fixed clash, filling Auburn's Georgia void and 1 of their 2). Everyone else keeps their current rival and adds a new one. I see Kentucky as one of Missouri's two fixed cross-divisional rivals in that format.

If Auburn stays in the west that is 3 teams with the nickname of "Tigers" (even if Tigers is just one of Auburn's 14 nicknames), which is something of a thermodynamic risk. Can't have that. Of course, Missouri could move into the East. Vanderbuilt (whoops) is not strictly speaking an "Eastern SEC school", though Missouri is farther still west,. But a 9 game conference slate still seems likely to me (critics will wonder if it hurts the SEC's overall bowl chances, in terms of # of teams going. But I don't think that is going to happen, because even if middle-pack SEC teams see their records move towards 6/7 wins, they're 6-7 win teams with great fan and TV draws).

Mizzou has a pretty good athletics program. If the SEC judges it as a program that is ready to "make the leap", it seems likely they will be #14. The SEC gets serious entry into several entirely new football markets. I don't even want to think about the potential TV contract #s after they get reworked. So I guess the questions are: how strong is college football in the Mizzou TV markets? Is the recent football attendance a number that can improve with a move to the SEC, and stay good? Besides hoops, what else can the "Other Tigers bring to the table? Or can Virginia Tech be swayed, rendering this moot?

Honestly, I think I might prefer Missouri to VaTech. VaTech is good looking, but you've known her for a long time and you also know she's a little high maintenance. Why didn't you ever get together/hook up in highschool? Whenever you ask yourself this, you start to remember (alternately, you did hook up but you never dated, and there's a reason for that too). Mizzou, OTOH, is the mysterious friend your close gal-pal brings home from college over Christmas break sophomore year. So many unknowns there, and she's a ringer and she knows it and your gal-pal knows it and you know it. But there is an allure there, and you find yourself at that familiar fork, the road not taken beckoning.

by **GungHo** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:05 pm

Pyperkub wrote:Trig - in your opinion (or your source's), why would the Pac-12 want Texas Tech? Would just a foothold in Texas be enough of a reason? Tech, IMHO is a third-tier school in Texas, barely ahead of Houston, though they're trying. I'd almost think that the Pac-12 would look at Houston first... but even then only as a partner with Texas.

I didnt think TTU was an option for the PAC-X until they got AAU standing...? Has that changed(hell they might have even gotten into the AAU already...I dont know, though I do know they've been 'efforting' the situation)?

INteresting wording on that statement from the Aggies...doesnt actually say they're withdrawing until June of 2012 or whatever. Im assuming the SEC has given them the word that they(the SEC) have the 9 votes they need to accept A&M but that for legal reasons they cant make the offer yet...?

by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:16 pm

If we're talking Association of American Universities, then no, Tech isn't a member.

by **Pyperkub** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:26 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:If we're talking Association of American Universities, then no, Tech isn't a member.

Neither is Utah, ASU, WSU, or Oregon St. Neither of the Oklahoma schools are either. The Pac-12 does pride itself on academics, but superconference $ will make a difference. However, I just don't see Tech as a serious option unless they bring OU and/or UT, and OU/OSU without Texas is pushing it.

Houston is at least a Tier 1 research institution, and with the population base may be a better long term option than Tech, even if Tech has a better endowment currently.

by **triggercut** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 9:53 pm

Pyper, there is just no way that Houston would interest *anyone* as far as a BCS conference goes when we pare down to 64 teams in the coming years.

Here, take a look:

THAT is the "stadium" where the Cougars play home football games. Realize a couple of things here:

1. There are high schools in the DFW area with nicer stadiums than that, and
2. If they're playing in that 32,000 seat bandbox, that means that there isn't a lot of pressure due to fan overflow and excitement to expand.

Houston is a commuter school with prospects. That single picture should close the book on them.

Ok, now for some latest tidbits:

1. Virginia Tech says "No, not even, no way" to the SEC. Sounds pretty firm. They're staying, as I've been saying all along.
2. Ditto NC State. Not goin' nowhere.
3. West Virginia could be a late dark horse to be the 14th team to the SEC.
4. SEC is very likely to be ok with playing 2013 with 13 teams.
5. BYU is signaling that they may not want to be in the Big XII.
6. Pitt may be next in line to get an invite to the Big XII. Would they take it?

That I'm starting to hear Pitt's name come up more and more tells me that the Big XII movers and shakers (namely, Texas) know that inviting Houston or SMU is probably the catalyst that kills the conference.

by **theohall** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:48 am

Peacedog wrote:... Mizzouri is not an ideal geographic fit from an East/West standpoint. ...

Arkansas-Mizzou could build into a pretty good rivalry considering they are border states.

by **noxiousdog** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:06 am

triggercut wrote:Pyper, there is just no way that Houston would interest *anyone* as far as a BCS conference goes when we pare down to 64 teams in the coming years.

Here, take a look:

THAT is the "stadium" where the Cougars play home football games. Realize a couple of things here:

1. There are high schools in the DFW area with nicer stadiums than that, and
2. If they're playing in that 32,000 seat bandbox, that means that there isn't a lot of pressure due to fan overflow and excitement to expand.

Houston is a commuter school with prospects. That single picture should close the book on them.

Houston is getting a new stadium within the next 5-7 years. Funding is nearly in place.

That being said I agree with you to a point. It will really depend on Houston's next coach. Sumlin can't be staying much longer, so if whomever follows him continues to improve the program, they'll be a valid school. If they can't attract a good coach, they are back to square one.

The important thing to note about that picture is 3 years ago, it would have barely been half full.

by **Peacedog** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:38 am

theohall wrote:
Arkansas-Mizzou could build into a pretty good rivalry considering they are border states.

While true, this has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was talking about.

by **Pyperkub** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:23 pm

triggercut wrote:Pyper, there is just no way that Houston would interest *anyone* as far as a BCS conference goes when we pare down to 64 teams in the coming years.

Here, take a look:

THAT is the "stadium" where the Cougars play home football games. Realize a couple of things here:

1. There are high schools in the DFW area with nicer stadiums than that, and
2. If they're playing in that 32,000 seat bandbox, that means that there isn't a lot of pressure due to fan overflow and excitement to expand.

Houston is a commuter school with prospects. That single picture should close the book on them.

I understand, but, Oregon State wasn't much bigger until they started renovating in 2005 (even now they're only around 46k). My thought is that the Pac-12 cachet would be enough to elevate them (that and the TV contract $) past the position of a Texas Tech, which in the new world order is rather geographically undesirable (particularly from a Pac-12 travel standpoint). Additionally, Houston's tier one research status is pretty recent. Anyhoo, it was just a thought from the media market side (if TTU were in San Antone, I wouldn't even be thinking about this).

by **triggercut** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:20 pm

Pyperkub wrote:I understand, but, Oregon State wasn't much bigger until they started renovating in 2005 (even now they're only around 46k).

Oregon State isn't applying for membership to a BCS conference; they, along with Wazoo, are fairly damned lucky to be in the Pac 12 already.

by **Scuzz** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:33 pm

I don't see the Pac-12 going to 16 unless they get both Oklahoma and Texas. Then it would be well worth it. That would mean OSU would get in and ????. Texas Tech?

by **triggercut** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:20 pm

Scuzz wrote:I don't see the Pac-12 going to 16 unless they get both Oklahoma and Texas. Then it would be well worth it. That would mean OSU would get in and ????. Texas Tech?

Well, duh.

Every scenario has OU as part of the mix. Not sure why you'd think there were other scenarios out there for the Pac, because they certainly haven't been mentioned in this thread.

by **Scuzz** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:23 pm

triggercut wrote:
Scuzz wrote:I don't see the Pac-12 going to 16 unless they get both Oklahoma and Texas. Then it would be well worth it. That would mean OSU would get in and ????. Texas Tech?

Well, duh.

Every scenario has OU as part of the mix. Not sure why you'd think there were other scenarios out there for the Pac, because they certainly haven't been mentioned in this thread.

Which pre-supposes that Missouri would end up in the SEC?

by **msduncan** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:25 pm

triggercut wrote:Pyper, there is just no way that Houston would interest *anyone* as far as a BCS conference goes when we pare down to 64 teams in the coming years.

Here, take a look:

THAT is the "stadium" where the Cougars play home football games. Realize a couple of things here:

1. There are high schools in the DFW area with nicer stadiums than that, and
2. If they're playing in that 32,000 seat bandbox, that means that there isn't a lot of pressure due to fan overflow and excitement to expand.

Houston is a commuter school with prospects. That single picture should close the book on them.

Ok, now for some latest tidbits:

1. Virginia Tech says "No, not even, no way" to the SEC. Sounds pretty firm. They're staying, as I've been saying all along.
2. Ditto NC State. Not goin' nowhere.
3. West Virginia could be a late dark horse to be the 14th team to the SEC.
4. SEC is very likely to be ok with playing 2013 with 13 teams.
5. BYU is signaling that they may not want to be in the Big XII.
6. Pitt may be next in line to get an invite to the Big XII. Would they take it?

That I'm starting to hear Pitt's name come up more and more tells me that the Big XII movers and shakers (namely, Texas) know that inviting Houston or SMU is probably the catalyst that kills the conference.

Photo from inside Bryant Denny for a comparison:

by **Scuzz** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:27 pm

I think there is a high school football stadium being built in the Plano area of Texas that will sit 45,000.

by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:50 pm

I highly doubt that number, as it would be almost double of the leader as of last year, and can find no sources to corroborate, and Plano ISD built Kimbrough Stadium in 2004 as a secondary location, still using John Clark Field as their primary.

10 Largest High School Football Stadiums (10/15/10)

Alamo Stadium (San Antonio, TX) - 23,000
Fawcett Stadium (Canton, OH) - 22,375
Memorial stadium (Mesquite, TX) - 20,000
Ratliff Stadium (Odessa, TX) - 19,302
Eagle Stadium (Allen, TX) - 18,000
San Angelo Stadium - 17,500
Stallworth Stadium (Baytown, TX) - 16,500
Paul Brown Tiger Stadium (Massillon, OH) - 16,392
Stadium Bowl (Tacoma, WA) - 15,000
Bazemore and Hyder Stadium (Valdosta, GA) - 10,349

And after comparing the numbers, that list should include Clark Field if the numbers are right.

by **Scuzz** » Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:57 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/sport ... wanted=all

I don't know where I got the 45,000 figure.......this is the stadium I was thinking about though.
An 18,000 seat $60 million high school stadium in Allen, Texas.

by **triggercut** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:56 pm

Scuzz, I apologize for being unnecessarily douchy above. I was cranky about something else and damned near jumped down your throat. Sorry about that.

At any rate, get ready for conference realignment fun! It. Is. On.

From the Houston Chronicle's David Justice tonight:

“My experience is that, in these kinds of things, it might be a matter of 72 hours, it might be a matter of two weeks,” OU President David Boren said Friday. “I don’t really think this is something that’s going to linger on beyond two or three weeks, from the outside.”

Boren left zero doubt that the Sooners are gauging their options, which almost certainly means that conversations with the Pac 12 have begun.

“The Big 12 is not the same Big 12,” Boren said. “I was extremely disappointed when Nebraska departed. Disappointed when Colorado departed.”

He said he attempted to persuade Texas A&M not to leave.

Boren said the Sooners want a strong, stable conference. Bob Stoops has all but said he has no interest in being part of a diminished Big 12.

“I don’t think OU will wind up being a wallflower on this in the end,” Boren said. “I do not know with certainty what our final decision will be. … There’s no school in the Big 12 more active than we are.”

Translation: BYU said no. Air Force said no. Obviously Notre Dame and Arkansas said no. Pitt asked why they'd jump off the Titanic for a ride on the Lusitania.

Shit just got real, yo.

Big XII endgame is now on. Larry Scott, Jim Delany, and Mike Slive, the next move is yours.

Sounds like they can stop negotiating

by **noxiousdog** » Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:37 pm

Richard Justice, or David Barron?

Octopus Overlords

Who is online