PonyFans.com

East Coast Mustang wrote:Ummm, yeah, I called this several weeks ago. Shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who can read the tea leaves. Just call me the oracle or something, I guess. Stanford and Cal weren't about to break bread with the hillbillies in Lubbock, Stillwater, and Norman.

B12 will stay together now with Texas and OU. Texas would rather run their own conference than play second fiddle in a geographically isolated ACC. And OU is out of options- B10 and SEC won't take them since they have to have OSU tagging along.

Maybe people would have believed you had you been called WEST Coast Mustang?

Dutch wrote:well, the Dutch-in-laws are pretty content since Nebraska found a home already.

heh heh heh.

Part of me wants to be a little sad for OU, but they made their bed with Texas and now they have to lie in it. Shouldn't have run away from their real rivalry 15 years ago.

Turned down by the Pac-12? Bwahahahahaha! They took Colorado and Utah! Bwahahahahaha!

Have fun in the SEC Sooners!

East Coast Mustang wrote:Ummm, yeah, I called this several weeks ago. Shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who can read the tea leaves. Just call me the oracle or something, I guess. Stanford and Cal weren't about to break bread with the hillbillies in Lubbock, Stillwater, and Norman.

B12 will stay together now with Texas and OU. Texas would rather run their own conference than play second fiddle in a geographically isolated ACC. And OU is out of options- B10 and SEC won't take them since they have to have OSU tagging along.

The question is, who was #4?

It took 4 blocks to vote against expansion, right? Let's assume Stanford and Cal. We know Colorado was a No--they publicly stated as much. We also have to assume Arizona was a yes. Younger Stoops wouldn't have let Oklahoma run around running their mouth if he knew they didn't have the votes. And assume Utah is a yes as well, they are just happy to be there.

Gotta be Neuheisel or Erickson.

huskerpony wrote:

East Coast Mustang wrote:Ummm, yeah, I called this several weeks ago. Shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who can read the tea leaves. Just call me the oracle or something, I guess. Stanford and Cal weren't about to break bread with the hillbillies in Lubbock, Stillwater, and Norman.

B12 will stay together now with Texas and OU. Texas would rather run their own conference than play second fiddle in a geographically isolated ACC. And OU is out of options- B10 and SEC won't take them since they have to have OSU tagging along.

The question is, who was #4?

It took 4 blocks to vote against expansion, right? Let's assume Stanford and Cal. We know Colorado was a No--they publicly stated as much. We also have to assume Arizona was a yes. Younger Stoops wouldn't have let Oklahoma run around running their mouth if he knew they didn't have the votes. And assume Utah is a yes as well, they are just happy to be there.

Gotta be Neuheisel or Erickson.

Good question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these aren't the coaches voting, it's university presidents who typically serve at the leisure of their boards of trustees/regents/whatever. USC? Maybe HB Pony Dad can shed some light on their feelings towards the Pac-16. I could see UCLA as well.

Oregon? Washington? Maybe some of those NW schools weren't thrilled about sending all of their non revenue teams across three time zones...could have certainly been more than 4 schools against.

huskerpony wrote:Have fun in the SEC Sooners!

They won't get the invite, because they're attached at the hip with OSU. SEC doesn't want to take both.

Yeah, not the coaches voting, but they do have a good deal of influence on the decision--depending on the school.

This board gets more dillusional by the hour

StangCP wrote:This board gets more dillusional by the hour

You obviously weren't around during the coaching search.

huskerpony wrote:

StangCP wrote:This board gets more dillusional by the hour

You obviously weren't around during the coaching search.

Per ESPN, Pac12 could not get UT to agree to equal revenue sharing and that was why talks broke down. So, UT screwed OU out of going to the PAC12 in a pod and getting more revenue than they get in the Big12. What would make OU want to stay in the Big12? UT will not compromise as they believe they can garner plenty of revenue as a Big12 boss of what schools remain or possibly as an independent. This is going to be a wild ride.

OU (like half of the Big XII) wants to stay in the Big XII only because it can't get in the Big 10. For whatever reason, outside of A&M and maybe Baylor, the Big XII wants nothing to do with the SEC. Now that Texas has queered the deal between OU and the Pac 12 the Big XII will remain in some form.
According to ESPN, Texas is blackballing all Texas schools for political reasons.

I see BYU, Louisville, and Cincinnati as top targets if they decide to expand back to 12. TCU runs back West or BE backfills with ECU, UCF, and Houston.

That doesn't bode well for us.

What happened to 'VERY interesting' prospects ?

huskerpony wrote:Yeah, not the coaches voting, but they do have a good deal of influence on the decision--depending on the school.

In the Pac-12, few (if any) coaches have that type of influence in school matters.

It sounds like it never got to a vote: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... expansion/

The question is whether OU can drop their hillbilly brothers. If they could, they might be candidates for the Big Ten. They are AAU, I think. I know Nebraska would love to have their rivalry game back with the Sooners. Unless UT makes a deal with OU, OU is going to not be a happy camper in the Big XII. An offer from the Big Ten, and they're gone. KU-OU to the Big Ten is not far fetched, if they can both dump their little brothers. UT could hold out for the LHN with the PAC 12 knowing that they were not real keen on adding TT and OSU. Thus, in this negotiation unless there is another suitor out there for OU, UT holds all the cards.