Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Sportsfan101, Jun 6, 2010.
Doesn't mention which 6 teams in tweet....but could we really be left out?
i sure hope we don't end up screwed by ****ing baylor. baylor. that would be such BS. the p10 would be totally making a deal with satan himself... tech, okie state, and baylor? all so that they can get ut? what happened to their professed commitment to academics as well as athletics.
**** the whole state of texas.
This make no sense. Of the seven proposed candidates, we are the second best to UT. So how the hell are we on the fringe?
We are not on the fringe of this thing. Calm down. I can't believe for a half second that there's any validity to this stuff with Baylor. It's all smoke and mirrors. If the Pac can't see through that, then they will truly get a conference that is doomed to failure and we'll be going over this again in another 5-10 years. They aren't that stupid.
I think that could very well happen, regardless. For all of Deloss Dodd's huff and puffing and having the supreme "brand" in the marketplace, I think all of this caught the Horns by surprise a bit. Outside the normal arrogance, why does Dodd feel the need to remind everyone everytime he opens his trap that UT is the heavy? They may be the player in this situation, but they didn't create the situation insofar as they are the one's moving and reacting. Once this shakes out, I think UT starts angling to be the bedrock and not the traveler....in a more beneficial to UT (as in network, exploration of indie status) arrangement around the horizon. They don't like to share.
I can see a scenario where in a Pac 16, UT becomes such a divisive player that the rest of the league tells them to eff off. I believe the Pac needs unanimous consent to make any moves. If it comes about that UT and their minions (OU, Tech, OSU, A&M) are holding up the league, they'll get the axe before the rest of the schools allow the conference to go down in flames. Make no mistake, any conference with UT in it will eventually go down in flames. I really, really, really hope something can be worked out to keep those jackasses out of whatever conference CU ends up in.
This is probably also why they want Baylor instead of CU. CU won't be bullied by UT in the same way that Baylor would be. We won't toe the UT company line, so UT is trying to leverage CU out of the picture.
The invites from the Pac-10 will NOT be affected by whatever flap 15 Texas legislators raise.
The Pac-10 wants CU in the mix and they will invite them, if they unanimously decide to expand, of course.
The two questions that need to be answered:
1) Is the invitation to join the Pac conditional on ALL 6 teams accepting, or are there individual invitations that we can accept independently?
2) Depending upon #1, which programs will accept the invitation?
If Texas A&M is serious about exploring SEC options, then that is a bigger "kink in the hose" to the Pac's offer than Baylor rallying 15 dudes in 10-gallon hats to try and strong-arm Texas/A&M/Tech into declining the offer without Baylor.
If A&M declines the offer are the rest of us in limbo? Is Baylor the next replacement? Is Kansas? Utah? Will the offer still stand?
My personal thoughts, I think of the six teams invited, CU and Texas are the ones with solid invites. If CU chooses to go, the PAC will take them without any conditions. However, for the other schools (A&M, Tech, OU, OSU) I have to wonder if their offers are contingent upon Texas accepting. I just can't see the PAC taking any of them without UT accepting the invite. This is also scary. Perhaps those four other teams would be better off going to the PAC and Texas can use that as leverage to gain those schools votes on certain things with regards to revenue sharing, etc. This isn't fact, just my opinion, but if its true then Texas holds the biggest bargaining chip, and as another poster stated, the PAC would be making a deal with the devil himself.
the baylor thing may also be a smokescreen from ut and the b12 to scare CU into committing to stay in the b12.
ya know Scotty, I went and read Texags.com yesterday expecting to find a groundswell of "let's join the SEC" since i've seen them talk about it before....and get nostalgic for a series with LSU that seemed to epitomize "like" fan bases in terms of pure zealotry and the Ags "Southern" type fan mania. But, the Ags weren't real keen on any move, Pac (they'll be overrun by Liberal, Left Coaster types who will trick their kids into being gay, drug addicts, Leninists or probably all three) or the SEC. I was surprised the latter didn't have much fan support really.
that is strange.
I'm not surprised they aren't jumping for joy over a Pac-10 connection; but am surprised there isn't more "Let's take Baylor or TCU with us to the SEC" type feelings.
Maybe the SEC isn't concerned about what the Pac expansion scenarios are, as they are what the Big Ten scenarios are? (and therefore biding their time)
A&M in the SEC seems about as natural a fit as CU to the Pac-10 does, so I would support them in that endeavor, but not if it costs us a chance to be in the Pac.
I would hope getting A&M to join the SEC would also serve as catalyst for the Pac invitations to be accepted by the other schools and maybe allow Kansas to get in also. That could also eliminate the "Baylor must tag along" contingent in Texas since the major schools are going in two different directions.
Of course, with that many positives out of the move, it means it will never happen.
I sure hope the CU invite is "mutually exclusive" to any other Big 12's acceptance.
I personally think CU's invite is mutually exclusive. All the other school's invites, I think, are contingent on Texas accepting.
I'm trying to remember what a coworker told me about why Baylor got into the Big XII. It had to do with their private school status and how that somehow helped all the non-private Texas schools. It had something to do with financial disclosures or something. I'll try to find out tomorrow.
BS. It had to do almost exclusively with Ann Richards (Baylor Grad) being the Texas Governor at the time and her serious threats to sanction/tax/deny state funding to UT and A&M unless Baylor was included in the mix.
yes, but i think what DBT is pointing to is that it's conventional understanding that conferences need a private school member to keep the financial books closed. If it hadn't been BU, it would have Rice or TCU or (had they not imploded into the Death Penalty).....the no-brainer was SMU. good football, Dallas media market, private and academics comparable to BU, and had a nice run in hoops in the late 80's.
You hit the nail on the head.
It's too bad Kizla didn't write about how Denver could become the hub of the greatest football conference on the planet. Instead, he corraberated the Texas line to help DeLoss Dodds finish this thing UT didn't start.
I believe it is called a "Sunset provision" that allows the conference books to remain closed because at least one of the members is a private institution.
But, the reason Baylor was invited as opposed to say TCU, was the Texas politicos at the time (Richards and a few others).
As I already mentioned in another thread, the Baylor thing may not be just a smoke screen since the OrangeBloods source (assuming if true) cites that one of the possible expansion scenarios produced by Scott (Pac-10 commish) includes Baylor instead of Colorado. It may be just a coincidence that the expansion is feeling political pressure from Texas at the same time, which obviously doesn't help our case either way.
I'll quote the source again.
I wish one of those options was: Invite Colorado only at this time.
That is a valid statement, however the scenario that was leaked, and hence the scenario that was most likely to be approved is the scenario involving Colorado. Scott can present all the scenarios he wants at this weekend's meetings, but the plan going forward is already approved and probably has been by the Pac 10 higher ups for weeks. Baylor or CU (probably CU) there isn't anything, fan wise or politics wise, that's going to change which proposal gets the 'official' stamp of approval this weekend.
To believe that Scott is proposing scenarios for vote that will still require analysis is ludicrous. A decision this big has already been made and approved by the chancellors and presidents of the Pac 10.
Proposing scenarios and recommending them are entirely different. Any good business decision starts by also talking through the alternatives if for no other reason than to explain why they wouldn't work. Scott also allegedly proposed a full merger - does anyone in their right mind think that's even remotely likely to happen? No.
Frankly I'm a lot more concerned about Nebraska than I am about Baylor.
Separate names with a comma.