Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Quattro, Jun 26, 2011.
Dave Sittler: Big 12's Forlorn Four must produce this*fall
I think that statement is accurate....
The Pac-10 never had any interest in adding Baylor. That's fact. Won't change the spin coming out of Texas, though.
True...but they would have taken Baylor if these dumb asses demanded that it was a package deal with UT....
Yeah but CU was never going to not be picked in favor of Baylor as we were granted a unconditional invite to the Pac 10.
i think it was a legit concern if (IF) the Pac 16 came to be. however, i think it's pretty clear that outside grabbing UT, ATM, and OU (with Tech, OSU along for the ride)....CU was clearly the Pac's #1 choice for expansion. i think if the awesome power of BU's political lobby (within Texas) was "all that", Tech had more to fear than CU....even though we were the virtuous and erudite targets of Kenny Starr's idiotic media ad hominems.
Sittler is despised by both OSU and OU fans on their boards. Kizla-esque in that regard.
**** those schools, The former Big 8 saved their asses. All those Texas schools were in deep **** and probably would have been irrelevant in the college football world today if it hadn't been for the Big 8 saving their sorry asses.
I find myself caring less and less about that conference every day. I will watch the games because I am college football fan, but I no longer have to listen to their BS. Pretty nice.
Says the chick to the left.
Seriously, though, I have read nothing out of any of the writers who cover the Pac-10 that suggests there was any interest in Baylor under any circumstances. The university presidents were simply not going to have Kenneth Starr in the room, among other things.
More revisionist history out of the Lone Star State. I think it sticks in their craw that they couldn't blow up the whole deal and force us and the nubs to stick around under their thumb.
Could be...I am going off of memory of what these ass clowns down her were saying about the ultimate outcome....could be complete BS.
It IS. You are brainwashed down there. The Pac wanted nothing to do with Baylor and Colorado was their first choice over anybody. Colorado to the Pac has been a work in progress for them for many years.
If Scott could have landed UT, and the requirement was to bring Baylor along, then you are fooling yourself if you believe that Scott would have not seriously considered throwing us overboard.
A&M was going to the SEC if they went anywhere.
Baylor was never an option for the PAC-10. NEVER.
This guy must get his story notes from ol' Chipper.
Agreed. It never got to that point.
Sorry, you're wrong!
No need to be sorry....but you are wrong.
There is reason CU got its invitation before Texas made their decision, Scott didn't want deal with the conditioanl politics that Baylor was trying to force down his throat.
This is the troof.
The blogger speaks of CU "bolting"--but CU's decision had been made six months prior (look back to PB's cryptic posts, and they make a lot more sense now). It's not as if CU's decision was forced in any way--our administration knew what they wanted, so it would have been silly to not take the opportunity as soon as it was extended.
But what the blogger missed, is picked up nicely by 13 Buff above. CU did not act unilaterally in this move. The PAC had to make an offer--otherwise there would have been nothing for CU to accept--and that offer was extended and accepted before this other silliness reached fruition.
I'm not denying that UT brings a lot to any conference--they do. However, if you read the quotes from the PAC after negotiations fell through, it was apparent they'd had enough of Texas and what they considered to be their questionable dealings. Perhaps those remarks were the byproduct of sour grapes, but for whatever reason, The Pac seemed to reach the conclusion that everything Texas seemed a little slimy.
Legendary ???? Give me a ucking break! The crackhead that wrote that article must be related to Tim Griffin. And the thought of the remaining B12 north schools needing to pay homage to the south schools for sticking around still tells us all whose in charge in that conference. It's been said by many of us here and elsewhere that the B12 will probably implode in 2 -3 years. If that happens, Sittler and every other B12 beat writer will try to blame Colorado & the Butthuskers for all the problems they created. Their on the outside looking in with no real future.
Had UT made inclusion of Baylor a condition of UT's acceptance of a bid, the Pac would have said either A: "Thanks, but you can kiss my ass", or B: "Fine, but that means Tech gets left off the bus. Your choice".
Not involving CU was never an option. CU was getting the invite under every scenario.
The PAC had wanted CU for many years. They considered CU to be a very good fit for the conference not only athletically but academically and politically. The PAC also wanted the media market that CU influences.
The PAC would have loved to have Texas, not only is Texas the one school out of the remaining Big XII that fits the PAC academic profile but they are strong in multiple sports and most importantly dominate the media market in a huge market including the state of Texas and much of the southwest.
As much as the PAC would have liked to have Texas they also had seen how Texas handled their business in both the SWC and the Big XII. The PAC was not going to bring in Texas with Texas bringing their little brothers and running the show like they are accustomed to doing. Baylor would have added virtually nothing to the media footprint of the PAC, same with Tech. The other schools of value in the Big XII are OU which would have been part of the deal (along with OSU which has marginal value) and aTm which would have gone elsewhere.
To let Texas demand Baylor as a part of the deal would have meant that the PAC was willing to accept Texas demands to have a greater say in the conference than the other schools, something that the PAC is not willing to do. Texas would be welcome but on PAC terms, not on Texas terms, and PAC terms include no Baylor.
Texas was (is) certainly the prize. I don't think the Pac-10 was quite willing to give up everything they had built to get Texas, though.
Texas is a supermodel with AIDS. She looks so good, but she infects and kills everybody she sleeps with. I, personally, don't view that as much of a prize.
A supermodel who single-handedly brings $300 million to the table. You can buy a lot of condoms for $300 million.
Not to mention Texas is the crown jewel in the league television deal which is worth about $130 million per year.
While you, personally, may not consider Texas much of a prize, I am quite confident that there are conferences around the country who would love the (significantly) increased revenue that would come by adding the University of Texas. The only question is how much headache is required to get it.
You only get the condoms if the girl lets you use them. I'm not sure that would be the case, here. She's dangling that $300MM out there, but once you sleep with her, she tells you that you can't have it, and oh, by the way, you might want to get tested.
Separate names with a comma.