Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

by **NickSMU17** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:47 am

Mizzu, KU, and Kstate have been talking with big east for months...

thats where they are headed if it all falls apart...thats why Houston and UCF to some degree were never invited...

We werent on short list...

by **reddevil** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:13 am

East Coast Mustang wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the B12 said after Nebraska and CU defected that any future expansion would be targeted towards expanding their footprint, i.e., not in Texas. Not sure if A&M leaving would change that mindset, but if they were to add 3, then I think teams like BYU and Air Force would get serious consideration, possibly Memphis for bball (probably not though, their football program is atrocious on all levels), and then the Texas schools: us, TCU, and UH.

Now I think we can all agree that TCU is the consensus #1 pick of those three. Between SMU and Houston, I would think the B12 would give the nod to UH for this reason: assuming A&M leaves, they already have Texas, Tech, and OU for their DFW marketshare. For Houston, they have Texas, Tech (not sure how many people from Houston matriculate to Tech) and that's about it. Adding UH would obviously give them a larger marketshare in Houston. And remember, Houston is closer than DFW to SEC territory already, so the B12 may feel more threatened by the SEC there than in Dallas.

SMU's only hope at a Big 12 w/o A&M might be the Big 12 expanding with three Texas teams, which I really don't see happening.

I agree that TCU is likely the #1 pick, but isnt there a real possible that TCU would turn down the Big 12, thinking that the BE is more stable right now. This seems more likely if the Mizzou, KU and KSU to the BE scenario comes to fruition.

The disbanding of Big 12 with Baylor and ISU (but the MAC, even though it is clearly inferior to CUSA, might make more sense to ISU) coming to the CUSA seems to be the more likely scenario. OU and OSU to the PAC makes sense (because OSU is likely chained to OU), but I am not sure that TT really adds much to the PAC, aside from opening the Texas recruiting door, but the moves are more about TV money than recruiting, right?

by **Pony_Law** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:14 am

I think that if the big 12 falls apart there is a good chance we are in when it comes to expansion. I don't think Texas wants TCU in their conference because if they do TCU is ready to step up and become a national power and a real rival to texas. They already have enough cred with the voters, they know the scene and with the added resources can keep their good coach. Plus it is easier to recruit t DFW then every other place in tx except Austin.
Houston would probably be invited but remember they don't get anyone at their games even when they are good.
I think we would be a good fit because one a lot of long horns live here and would follow an SMU team much closer if they were in the same conference as texas, we have a natural rivalry ready with Baylor (to private religious schools, 2 hours apart), we are in a major tv market (not that you need it), and we have a history with someof these teams. Finally I think Ut would feel safer at least in the short term competing against SMU.

by **East Coast Mustang** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:19 am

reddevil wrote:The disbanding of Big 12 with Baylor and ISU (but the MAC, even though it is clearly inferior to CUSA, might make more sense to ISU) coming to the CUSA seems to be the more likely scenario. OU and OSU to the PAC makes sense (because OSU is likely chained to OU), but I am not sure that TT really adds much to the PAC, aside from opening the Texas recruiting door, but the moves are more about TV money than recruiting, right?

Pac-12 won't take any Big 12 teams without Texas being in the mix. In reality, Texas is the only B12 school that fits into the Pac-12's institutional culture.

by **NickSMU17** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:20 am

Correct again...

by **reddevil** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:38 am

East Coast Mustang wrote:
reddevil wrote:The disbanding of Big 12 with Baylor and ISU (but the MAC, even though it is clearly inferior to CUSA, might make more sense to ISU) coming to the CUSA seems to be the more likely scenario. OU and OSU to the PAC makes sense (because OSU is likely chained to OU), but I am not sure that TT really adds much to the PAC, aside from opening the Texas recruiting door, but the moves are more about TV money than recruiting, right?

Pac-12 won't take any Big 12 teams without Texas being in the mix. In reality, Texas is the only B12 school that fits into the Pac-12's institutional culture.

I agree with this point and I also acknowledge that PAC, along with the Big 10, seems to place some priority on institutional culture compared to the other BCS conferences. It just seems that OU's athletic brand and the money that comes with it may ultimately trump a perfect institutional culture fit.

by **PonyPlayer4** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:53 am

So what was it about Colorado's institutional culture that was so attractive? I know Colorado is not considered to be an academic powerhouse. Guess it was all the green being smoked would fit right in with the Cali kids.

by **NickSMU17** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:56 am

Pretty sure Colorado is AAU

maybe they take oklahoma...

Just so you know there is massive disparity btw CU and OSU Tech ect....

by **Mexmustang** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:05 pm

The only people that will go will be Beebe, and the AD's at Baylor and Iowa State!

by **East Coast Mustang** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:11 pm

reddevil wrote:I agree with this point and I also acknowledge that PAC, along with the Big 10, seems to place some priority on institutional culture compared to the other BCS conferences. It just seems that OU's athletic brand and the money that comes with it may ultimately trump a perfect institutional culture fit.

Yeah, but what is the Pac-12's incentive to expand at this point? Remember, they are a conference that has historically been reactionary, not proactive. They stayed at 10 while other conferences went to 12 and a champ game for almost 20 years. Hell, they didnt even have a conference basketball tourney until somewhat recently.

Granted, Scott is a new commissioner and has ushered in a significant amount of changes in his short tenure there. And OU would undoubtedly be attractive to a number of conferences- but I think they'd fit better in the B10 or SEC. Not sure if (from a political standpoint) they can leave OSU behind, though

by **reddevil** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:29 pm

Living in Illinois, it seems pretty apparent that the Big 10 is done unless ND wants in. Mizzou, which seems to be a decent fit, wanted in bad during the last expansion talks, and they were rebuffed.

by **East Coast Mustang** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:34 pm

reddevil wrote:Living in Illinois, it seems pretty apparent that the Big 10 is done unless ND wants in. Mizzou, which seems to be a decent fit, wanted in bad during the last expansion talks, and they were rebuffed.

Perhaps, but if the SEC goes to 14 or 16, does the B10 feel compelled to respond accordingly? They could go to 14 and still leave room for ND for a future expansion to 16.

by **NickSMU17** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:45 pm

Big 10 not expanding just to expand...they grabbed a top 10 football program of all time...You better be bringing a major resume to the table or you wont get a look...

by **westexSMU** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:45 pm

If Texas doesn't go independent and I think they will, I can assure you that Texas still has issues with Houston and has said "they will not play UH again." So I wouldn't think UH is a big 12 option if Texas stays. Texas seriously would rather have Rice than UH.

by **East Coast Mustang** » Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:11 pm

westexSMU wrote:I can assure you that Texas still has issues with Houston and has said "they will not play UH again."

Why?

Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Re: Statesman: Beebe "12 is as high as we will go"

Who is online