Richard Justice: Big 12 Looking to Add Houston, SMU, or TCU

[skyscraper]

Does anybody know what States the LHN is availiable. Here's a streach but say its only in Texas-then UT might be willing to add multiple Texas teams until it gets off the ground

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/08/12/30 ... ghorn.html

If a television network launches and no one can watch it, does it make a sound?

That's the philosophical question of the day. The Longhorn Network is scheduled to launch in less than two weeks, and not a single cable, satellite or telecom carrier in the state has signed on.

Can LHN launch as scheduled on Aug. 26 if no one can watch it?

Let's begin by saying it is likely that some carrier will add the network to its buffet menu of offerings before launch. Two weeks is an eternity in the game of chicken that ESPN and the University of Texas are playing with the likes of Time Warner Cable, DirecTV and AT&T.

[StallionsModelT]

Do we? Dodds has gone public saying they could go to 12. Yes 10 is their desired # but if for some reason the CCG issue ensured them more money why not think about it? Also, I'm still not sold that Houston is above SMU in these discussions. They probably are but not by much.

[Dwan]

UT wants to be independent. If not, they will go to the Pac-12. They match up with the Pac-12 with regards to academic standards and non revenue sports. The Pac-12 plus Oklahoma and Texas could rival the SEC for football, but also would have no rival in the non reveunue sports like vollyeball, swimming, and track. Dwan sees the Pac-12 adding Texas, OU, Oklahoma State, and BYU to go 16. Tech, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State and Missouri will be left of the Big 12....and I imagine Kansas, Kansas State, and Missouri will go to the Big 10. So that would leave Tech, Baylor, and Iowa State to join up with the best of the rest of the MWC and Conf USA

[StallionsModelT]

Another theory I've heard is UT-ND firming their own conference. OU and OSU will do what Texas does so add them in. Also Texas Tech. You could probably throw in BYU also. So if that league wants to get to 10 would this work?

Texas
ND
BYU
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
Houston
SMU
Boise State
Air Force

Highly unlikely but the UT-ND alliance is a possibility. Also as an ND alum I would hope Orsini would help us a bit there.

[StallionsModelT]

No way will PAC 16 add BYU. Religious angle and Utah will crush any chance if that.

[Stallion]

Dwan you really think BYU to Pac-I don't know about that

[StallionsModelT]

They would take Tech before BYU. And Tech's academics will be a very touchy subject for Stanford-Cal-UCLA. I could see PAC 16 with Texas, OU, OSU, and Tech. Baylor and Iowa State to CUSA.

[Stallion]

That's what I'm thinking too. That's one reason I think SMU could actually end up in a better situation that it currently has but not BCS. I'm so sick of Bayllor stealing DFW recruits it could be significant. SMU/Baylor to me a a significant rival-a Classic historical rival for SMU fans over 40. In the last 40 years there have been about 8 SMU/Baylor games better than any SMU/TCU game. Great Roadtrip.

[Charleston Pony]

Obviously Texas and OU will dictate whether the Big XII stays together as a 9 member group. Not a bad deal for those two, with the red river rivalry game probably determining the conference champion in most years. Scheduling gets easier with 9 members and from a basketball standpoint, I don't think Kansas, KSU and Missou will necessarily miss CU, Nebraska and A$M

I just don't see much value added by bringing in the 3 mentioned in the heading of this thread. Too many mouths to feed and going to 12 members would put Texas and OU in opposite divisions, potentially jeopardizing the annual rivalry game or setting up a "rematch" in the title game

[couch 'em]

The only thing we could add to big 12 is getting to 12 or to keep another conference out to DFW.

Not sure they really want 12 and nobody BCS is beating down our door. A true test for Orsini

[PonyKai]

The only thing we could add to big 12 is getting to 12 or to keep another conference out to DFW.

Not sure they really want 12 and nobody BCS is beating down our door. A true test for Orsini

I hope the big-time alums are having a "come to Jesus" meeting with Orsini. This is the worst possible time for an absentee AD (by absentee, I mean an AD with a wandering eye for a new gig).

I'd argue that's an unfair statement at this point. Even if SO is connected to other jobs, there is nothing, nothing to suggest he's having wool pulled over his eyes ala Pye with the breakup of the SWC, or that he's busy photoshopping his LinkedIn photo instead of doing his job. Maybe we have a couple cards to play, maybe we don't have a darn thing and are forced to sit by the phone at 10PM on a Friday night hoping to be rescued by a pretty girl.

Regardless, we know about 0.05% of what is actually going on, but hey, it's fun to use this place for conjecture and possible scenarios...that's what it's here for...some might even call it a form of therapy for our demented fandom

SMU, in my opinion, ends up with the best possible outcome when we shut up, stay off the news pages, and focus on the best possible outcome for our own interests without press ink. Hopefully that's exactly what's happening now, and SMU won't be forced to sleep in the bed it made for twenty years on a mattress made of apathy, sham pledges, gutting the revenue programs, misappropriated resources, terrible personnel decisions, and fans unwilling or unable to cut through the BS for two decades.

Small sample size, but liken it to the Jones coaching search and the W library. I don't care about peoples' opinions on either subject, but in both cases the vast majority of SMU's work was done away from the bright lights of the media and press, and in both instances SMU achieved great tangible success in the outcome.

[Stallion]

Only Sherwood Blount and Bill Clements could set us back 20 years to 1991

[PonyKai]

It's funny, because the University, like many other groups of people, is comprised of smaller interest groups...athletics, arts, business, etc. Each one of those groups thinks they're right, thinks they're the group that deserves the lion's share of attention and resources, and thinks their group is the most integral part of helping the University achieve the highest level of success.

See our lovable doofus of a Spanish professor who was adamant that the private funding of a football coach without a dollar of University funding was a terrible waste of money when Hyer Hall and its foreign language classrooms so badly needed rennovating. It's cute when things like that happen. Boy, I bet if we had those new classrooms in Hyer, SMU would be shooting up the US News and World rankings, I tell you.

In the case of collegiate athletics, it's the ONLY area where significant change is occurring that has the distinct possibility of doing direct, tangible, potentially irreversible harm to the school's interests in both the near and long-term future.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of engineering...it's just not my forte or where my interests lie; there's no harm in that. But, I'm not stupid or arrogant enough to think that a strong, vibrant engineering program isn't integral to SMU achieving its highest level of success possible as a University. I hope someone has sat down with people who make decisions and explained the very simple fact that athletics is the only area with a narrowing window of opportunity and there is the risk of significant consequence should the school not capitalize it.

You can always fund raise.

You can always build more buildings.

You can always endow more chairs.

You can always hire a higher level of faculty.

You can always take direct action to improve the standing of a specific area of the school- save for athletics.

[Stallion]

After this shakeout-TCU could become a charter member of the new Big East Football Conference. By the time they get there-nobody maybe home

[Mexmustang]

You can always replace a president--well not in our case, 10+ years on the job, the only school executive on the board, been around so long personally approved almost every board member...do you think CALPERS would permit such a situation at GE, or Boeing?