I'd like to add SMU to the Pac12 because I live in Dallas and Lady Mango is an SMU grad and it'd be nice to prove we're the superior school before 2030
Would SMU bring up that pony to Boulder to get run over by Ralphie?
I'd like to add SMU to the Pac12 because I live in Dallas and Lady Mango is an SMU grad and it'd be nice to prove we're the superior school before 2030
My analysis is separate from the sovereign immunity ideas - as BuffsNYC points out, no one would ever contract with a TX school if that theory holds actual water.it seems important to me that you can't sue according to legal analysis in OP. Is this unique to Texas? or is this the case in other states?
If this more broad that Texas, that's really important.
I have always understood GOR to be handcuffs. They don't seem to be, at least in Texas.
Am I getting this right, ski?
What drove expansion to 12 was the conference championship game.Dude. Again. A&M isn’t leaving the SEC for the PAC 12,
and why does everyone insist this means very conference is going to 16? Sec is adding the two of the 3 best available schools in the country. What’s does adding Iowa st and KU do for the Big 10? Nothing. Adding Texas tech to the office 12? Again nothing. We’re past the era of adding just to add.
Thank you good Manhattan, I'm a lucky fella and hit the jackpotConsidering the general attractiveness of the co-eds at SMU, I’d like to congratulate you, good mango.
TCU, Okie Lite, Houston, SMU, TTU, Baylor, are all programs I’d be interested in taking a deeper dive into adding. All have had success, some in both FB and MBB, and all would at least be an attempt for the Pac 12 to solidify a strong Texas presence and obviously get into the CTZ.Since there are no fits like CU and Utah were (national athletics profiles, good & growing media and recruiting locales, AAU, Carnegie R1, state flagships, regionally aligned, etc.), I think if you're going to take a flyer on someone who falls short you check as many boxes as possible with schools that at least have the trajectory and potential to grow into the complete package.
If going to go a bit outside while looking at trying to check a good number of boxes & looking to the future:
I'd break some of the research intensity requirements to take a long, hard look at San Diego State. I think with their Mission Valley stadium & research campus projects underway coupled with the market, cultural fit and athletics success they check a ton of boxes despite not quite being there yet. A few others with similar cases to be made.
SDSU + UNLV both deliver a lot I like and we're also talking about the 17th and 27th largest US metros, respectively.
Then pair with Houston + TCU if 16 is the magic number. 5th & 4th largest metros, respectively.
All of the above are universities that have been investing a ton in their campuses and have very bright futures for a number of reasons.
Hrmmm..... You obviously never met my smu regret.Considering the general attractiveness of the co-eds at SMU, I’d like to congratulate you, good mango.
Doing something for the sake of doing something isn’t the right approach. If the Pac12 is going to expand, it needs to be smart about it…not just make a panic decision.
TCU, Okie Lite, Houston, SMU, TTU, Baylor, are all programs I’d be interested in taking a deeper dive into adding. All have had success, some in both FB and MBB, and all would at least be an attempt for the Pac 12 to solidify a strong Texas presence and obviously get into the CTZ.
New Mexico, UNLV, SDSU, do nothing for the conference to gain any competitive advantage whatsoever.
As I said, there are no good options, but trying to add multiple programs, possibly multiple current P5 programs, in all important Texas, would be the best bad option.
What about them? I included them in my postWhat about Tech, Okie Lite, and the Metroplex schools?
What about them? I included them in my post
Agree…Ohio, PA, New Jersey, DC suck as far as recruiting goes.Advantages
1 Money
2 Get to beat NU every year
Disadvantages:
1. No games in good recruiting grounds
2. ****ty road trips
If you start from the premise that our ceiling is playing in the conference championship game once a decade, the extra money would probably be enough to overcome the distant recruiting grounds.
WeAdvantages
1 Money
2 Get to beat NU every year
Disadvantages:
1. No games in good recruiting grounds
2. ****ty road trips
If you start from the premise that our ceiling is playing in the conference championship game once a decade, the extra money would probably be enough to overcome the distant recruiting grounds.
We also aren’t in ****ing Lincoln Nebraska.That's why we're playing Houston, TCU, SMU, North Texas, and Oklahoma State, guys. We have those opportunities because we have an AD who was smart enough to tell little brother its 4-6 games a decade or nothing.
I've seen a lot of arguments against the B1G that involve ****braska's struggles. That argument doesn't work in my view-and its because of the way they schedule. Its always one power 5 game OOC (Us, Oklahoma, Us again) and two buy games (Fordham, Buffalo, North Dakota, and Georgia Southern). We schedule differently-We're playing two power 5s OOC the next three years.
That hate goes back a long ass time, too. I'd be surprised about the money part. Money talks, bull**** walks.The razorbacks hate Texas. For good reason. But I'd still be surprised if they turned down the money
I could see Arkansas, Mizzou, A&M and LSU as possible no votes in theory but doubt all needed end up doing so in fear of what it would look like in their future standing in the SEC.The razorbacks hate Texas. For good reason. But I'd still be surprised if they turned down the money
It’s like looking at national recruiting rankings vs conference rankings when you are in the SEC. Yes we have a top 30 class but we are also second to last in our division. Yes Arkansas makes more money than the rest of the country but that doesn’t matter when your whole conference makes the same amount. They just spend the money on stupid **** anyways.The razorbacks hate Texas. For good reason. But I'd still be surprised if they turned down the money
I could see Arkansas, Mizzou, A&M and LSU as possible no votes in theory but doubt all needed end up doing so in fear of what it would look like in their future standing in the SEC.
What schools represent such great options on athletic reputation and revenue potential that the Pac-12 is wrong not to change its values for them?
The size of TV markets mean nothing anymore
I would take Rice, Texas Tech, OSU, and Houston. If I was being selfish about CU's bowl chances, I would take UNM, UNT, UTEP, and UNLVAs expected:
Report: Iowa State and Kansas are talking to the Big Ten
The losers of this whole debacle are the other eight Big 12 schools. At least two schools are being proactive, reaching out to the Big Ten.longhornswire.usatoday.com
Simplest way this rolls is:
SEC to 16 thru OU & UT
B1G to 16 thru ISU & KU
ACC to 15/16 thru WVU & sorta ND a member
That leaves the B12 with BU, TTU, TCU, OSU and KSU.
That also leaves the most valuable non-Power Conference schools as UCF, Houston, BYU, USF, SMU, Temple, USF, Cincinnati, San Diego State, Memphis and Boise State. Drops off from there with service academies, lack of national profile/market, lack of facilities, lack of size/resources and/or big schools too late to the party.
I'm not sure what the Pac-12 should do.
But if it does anything, I'd be shocked if it allowed any university that isn't currently D1A in football, isn't at least Carnegie Tier 1 on research intensity or any university East of the I-35 corridor states.
Here's the list of remaining Big 12 and non-Power Conference schools that would fit that profile if things break the simple way I started this post with for the SEC, B1G and ACC:
Colorado State
Hawaii
Houston
Kansas State
Nevada - Las Vegas
Nevada - Reno
New Mexico
North Texas
Oklahoma State
Rice
Texas - El Paso
Texas Tech
If you had to pick from the above 12 schools, which 4 would you take?