These teams combined don't bring a fraction of what Texas brings to the table, plus GT already left and FSU turned down a formal invitation back in 92. Sankey would make it work, we aren't talking chopped liver here.
I don't see why LSU/Bama would want to vote us in. They're enjoying a really nice recruiting uptick in Texas right now.
Mizzou's roster was more than 50% Texas kids a couple of years ago. It looks like its down quite a bit now.
LSU would probably be more opposed to it than we would, but I think both schools are more than confident enough in themselves to allow something like that to happen. I assume LSU has always done ok in the Houston/East Texas areas, but our recruiting in Texas picked up significantly post A&M arriving, and I don't think that's a coincidence.
Yeah. They've shifted focus more to georgia and Florida. Sec Being more visible in Texas w two teams in it would help that pipeline a little more
i thought it was considered part of that group though even though i think there are like 40 schools which make that claim
At that point, it would seem that Mizzou felt the situation in the Big XII had become untenable. Had there been no overtures (regardless of whether Mizzou extended them or vice versa) from the Big Ten and the SEC, I think Mizzou would have sucked it up and stayed in the Big XII. They saw a better option than what their current situation--a situation they rightly or wrongly felt would never change and always remain unbalanced--and took it. I would hope my alma mater would look out for its interest before that of its rivals and geographical neighbors. None of that TSC bullshit. Also, citing an article from 20 years ago as proof Mizzou has always wanted to leave the conference is stupid. That was four athletic directors ago. We were in the Big 8 (or some variation thereof) for 85 years up until that point.
Texas was headed to the Big 10 and A&M was headed to the SEC when the SWC folded but good ole Baylor had to cry like the bitches they are and handcuff us together into a shitty alliance with the Big 8
The BTN would make money off of a KU playing 10-12 games on the network. The surprise for us has been that advertising is slightly more lucrative than subscription dollars, and a KU and their fans would bring that in basketball. It has gone from no part to a small part due to the way the numbers have broken out. KU would bring value to our conference network and bball contracts that an Oklahoma State wouldn't match in football.
Texas was going to the Pac 10 and you were like one. http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/co...s-completes-death-of-the-swc-feb.-25-1994.ece
if something does happen, hopefully it ends with FSU and Clemson leaving their loser-ass basketball conference and joining us in the best football conference in the country #Big12Bros also this thread title didn't get enough love
As I've already said, I don't think Missouri was wrong for accepting a bid from the SEC (or B1G had they received one) and each school has been looking out for their own best interests throughout the history of the Big 12. Also, I have no idea what TSC stands for. My point was that Missouri had been looking for a better option, in this case it was the Big Ten, prior to the formation of the Big 12 and definitely prior to conference realignment really kicking off. They were fighting for their own best interests and not white knighting for the interests of ISU, Baylor, etc. like another Missouri poster has implied (his name starts with a "T" and ends with a "ruman is a big gay b hole").
They sent out feelers 20 years ago. You're painting it like it's a pattern when it was an aberration from a completely different era. It's okay to admit it was a confluence of events that lead to Mizzou's departure and not instigated by some long-standing secret desire for Mizzou to leave the conference.
I think Missouri's desire (and not really a secret one), was to be in the conference that put them in the best position possible which isn't different than any other school. My whole point was that the equal revenue sharing wouldn't have made a difference (and it didn't) because the SEC is and was a superior conference and Missouri would have been stupid to not jump all over it.
the gayest. it was a great conf. still is tbh but it was better with all the big 8 schools. A&M can fuck off, I don't care about them
Yea...was sad when Nebraska stopped playing the teams that they were famous for playing more than a&m and Mizzou's irrelevant departures...loved the NU-CU hate
I just hope the B1G adds football/basketball powers the next suffle, I've got the feeling they're making so much off the east coast now that they'll add Pitt and another east coast team to make psu happy.
They do but have been bitter for the better part of 3 decades that Pitt didn't want to help them create an east coast power conference. No idea how deep the resentment lies now that Joe Pa is worm food.
I'll never really understand why "academics" is ever brought into the conversation of athletic conference affiliation. It makes no sense.
Both really. What difference does it make on the academic side who the football team plays on Saturday?
Believe it or not, some schools actually want to improve their academic programs through collaboration with other schools and whatnot. It's not about playing on Saturdays to a lot of people in leadership programs at major universities. The B1G has the athletic conference as well as the academic conference...the CIC.