Question for Big 12 Fans

[Terry in Crapchester]

Why is it that the Big 12 is considered a new conference, rather than an expanded version of the Big 8? If the Big 12 were made up of, say, six teams from the Big 8 and six teams from the SWC, I would agree with you on that point. But all of the teams from the Big 8 are in the Big 12.

Granted, the Nebraska-Oklahoma rivalry was the signature game of the Big 8, and that's now gone (or at least not played every year). But that's due in part to the nature of expansion to 12 teams, and I might add, the Big 12, unlike some of the other conferences (e.g., ACC) is split into divisions in a manner that makes geographic sense. The one thing the Big 12 should have done is emulate the SEC and make one inter-divisional game an annual matchup for every team, which would have preserved the Nebraska-Oklahoma rivalry.

What's really striking to me is that the Big 12 is considered a new conference, whereas the two other BCS conferences that have expanded to 12 teams are not. Now, I suppose that the impact of expansion was less dramatic upon the SEC, where the two teams added (Arkansas and South Carolina) came from different places (Arkansas was an erstwhile member of the SWC, South Carolina an erstwhile independent). One cannot say the same about the ACC, however, in that all three of their new teams (BC, Miami and Virginia Tech) all came from the Big East. In fact, the impact of expansion upon the ACC has had, I would argue, a far greater impact upon that conference's culture than expansion had on the Big 12. Before expansion, the ACC clearly was a basketball-first conference, and along with the Big East, was the only BCS conference for which that was true (that's not saying that the other BCS conferences don't play good basketball, just that football is more important to those conferences). That's not necessarily the case anymore for the ACC.

There were also some similarities between the decisions of the Big 8 and the ACC to expand, IIRC. Florida State was threatening to bolt the ACC if it didn't expand. In the Big 8, there was a strong possibility that Missouri might consider joining the Big 10, and Colorado was also being courted by the Pac-10 around the same time. Both conferences made the decision to expand to keep some members who were iffy from leaving.

The most significant difference between the Big 12 and the ACC, in terms of expansion, is that the Big 8/12 expansion killed the SWC, but the ACC expansion apparently hasn't killed the Big East. In that regard, however, the SWC had been on borrowed time ever since Arkansas bolted for the SEC. It was no secret that both Texas and aTm wanted out (again, IIRC, both had negotiated with the Big 10 and the Pac-10 in addition to the Big 8) and when they did leave, that of course would spell the death knell for the SWC. For that matter, should a conference's post-expansion status be determined by the impact which it has on the conference it raids? I don't think so.

The name change is irrelevant imho, since the conference kept the "Big" part and merely changed the number associated with it to reflect the number of member teams. My understanding is that the Big 8 was formerly known as the Big 7 and before that, the Big 6, yet most college record books don't list those as separate conferences from the Big 8. But for some reason, they list the Big 12 as a separate conference. For that matter, many on this board insist on referring to the Big 10 as the "Big 11," but I don't think anyone would posit that the "Big 11" is a separate conference from the Big 10 (i.e., before Penn State joined).

I suppose the idea of the Big 12 as a separate conference could be some sort of deference to Texas and to the fact that there were no Texas teams in the Big 8. I don't know about that for sure, however, as I don't live in that part of the country, nor have I ever. That mindset would seem foreign to me in any event.

So tell me, why is/should the Big 12 be a new conference?

[SunCoastSooner]

Why is it that the Big 12 is considered a new conference, rather than an expanded version of the Big 8? If the Big 12 were made up of, say, six teams from the Big 8 and six teams from the SWC, I would agree with you on that point. But all of the teams from the Big 8 are in the Big 12.

Big 8 fans don't consider it a new conference the media and the old SWC schools who failed in their own endevour do.

Granted, the Nebraska-Oklahoma rivalry was the signature game of the Big 8, and that's now gone (or at least not played every year). But that's due in part to the nature of expansion to 12 teams, and I might add, the Big 12, unlike some of the other conferences (e.g., ACC) is split into divisions in a manner that makes geographic sense. The one thing the Big 12 should have done is emulate the SEC and make one inter-divisional game an annual matchup for every team, which would have preserved the Nebraska-Oklahoma rivalry.

Both Oklahoma and Nebraska supported this idea most of the other universities did not. I can understand why the other Universities did not agree though in all honesty. Who would the every year match ups be besides OU/Nebraska and Kansas State/Okie Light? The texass schools have no natural rivalries and vice versa.

What's really striking to me is that the Big 12 is considered a new conference, whereas the two other BCS conferences that have expanded to 12 teams are not. Now, I suppose that the impact of expansion was less dramatic upon the SEC, where the two teams added (Arkansas and South Carolina) came from different places (Arkansas was an erstwhile member of the SWC, South Carolina an erstwhile independent). One cannot say the same about the ACC, however, in that all three of their new teams (BC, Miami and Virginia Tech) all came from the Big East. In fact, the impact of expansion upon the ACC has had, I would argue, a far greater impact upon that conference's culture than expansion had on the Big 12. Before expansion, the ACC clearly was a basketball-first conference, and along with the Big East, was the only BCS conference for which that was true (that's not saying that the other BCS conferences don't play good basketball, just that football is more important to those conferences). That's not necessarily the case anymore for the ACC.

The SWC conference was dying long before Arkansas bolted. Texass single handedly killed the conference by hamstringing the other universities. Arkansas just wised up and decided they weren't going to be one of Austin's patsies anymore before anyone else did. The Big 8 schools saved Texass a lot of embarrassment because were about to be left holding the bag and all by themselves.

There were also some similarities between the decisions of the Big 8 and the ACC to expand, IIRC. Florida State was threatening to bolt the ACC if it didn't expand. In the Big 8, there was a strong possibility that Missouri might consider joining the Big 10, and Colorado was also being courted by the Pac-10 around the same time. Both conferences made the decision to expand to keep some members who were iffy from leaving.

Colorado has been holding that Pac Ten shit over the rest of our heads for years now TIC. They know better and we know better as well. The Big 12 would just bring in another regional team, most likely Colorado State if either of them left and if both I could see Utah, BYU, or even possibly the conference making a run at Arkansas. CU leaving would only hurt their program in the long run they and everyone else knows it. They open their door even wider for the California teams to go after Colorado prospects and it won't stop Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Kansas State from hitting the state. The biggest downer for them is that they know CSU is next in line and Colorado State being in a major conference (a real one) only creates even more headaches CU. Missouri is the only school of the two that could/could have bolted without too many major repercussions to their athletic programs.

The most significant difference between the Big 12 and the ACC, in terms of expansion, is that the Big 8/12 expansion killed the SWC, but the ACC expansion apparently hasn't killed the Big East. In that regard, however, the SWC had been on borrowed time ever since Arkansas bolted for the SEC. It was no secret that both Texas and aTm wanted out (again, IIRC, both had negotiated with the Big 10 and the Pac-10 in addition to the Big and when they did leave, that of course would spell the death knell for the SWC. For that matter, should a conference's post-expansion status be determined by the impact which it has on the conference it raids? I don't think so.

Texass just wanted to make sure it could move to the conference that they felt they could bully around, politically and monetarily not athleticaly, in the same manner they did the SWC.

The name change is irrelevant imho, since the conference kept the "Big" part and merely changed the number associated with it to reflect the number of member teams. My understanding is that the Big 8 was formerly known as the Big 7 and before that, the Big 6, yet most college record books don't list those as separate conferences from the Big 8. But for some reason, they list the Big 12 as a separate conference. For that matter, many on this board insist on referring to the Big 10 as the "Big 11," but I don't think anyone would posit that the "Big 11" is a separate conference from the Big 10 (i.e., before Penn State joined).

We just like to harrass the BIg Televeners is all ;). The Big 8 was the Missouri Valley Conference or something like that before it was the Big 6 as well ;). The Big 12 so as to pay homage to texass allowed for the conference to have three different record books; two from before the expansion (Big 8 and SWC seperate) and one from after the expansion. Mainly because most of texass "conference" records disappear when compared to the old Big 8 records.

I suppose the idea of the Big 12 as a separate conference could be some sort of deference to Texas and to the fact that there were no Texas teams in the Big 8. I don't know about that for sure, however, as I don't live in that part of the country, nor have I ever. That mindset would seem foreign to me in any event.

So tell me, why is/should the Big 12 be a new conference?

You answered your own question in the next to last paragraph. I put it in bold for you. ;)

[SunCoastSooner]

I think it should be noted that TExass needs to wise up that this conference is not the old SWC and we are not it's patsies. They were calm, though not overly calm, for the fist half of the Big 12's life but have since regressed to their old tricks. These Univesities aren't going to kiss UT's ass in the same manner that TCU, SMU, Rice, ect. did for decades. They are quickly pissing off the alumni and donors at Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, and Oklahoma. If they aren't careful what almost happened to them with the SWC conference could come into fruitation with the Big 12. What I mean by that is that they will be left in charge of a conferece where it is just them and aTm producing the revenue after the four us bolt. If they bolt Kansas in the very least follows and most likely KState and Okie lite. Nebraska and Mizzou fans seemed to be the most vocal at this point in the matters but Oklahoma and Colorado agree with them just aren't as bousterous about it.

[indyfrisco]

Semantics. Who cares what anyone calls it?

[Vito Corleone]

Both the Big 8 and the SWC were in dire straits.

Without the formulation of the Big 12 neither would have lasted til the year 2k. The Big 8 needed Texas more than the Texas schools needed the Big 8. Texas and a$m had standing offers to join the PAC 10 and SEC.

Financially the Big 12 was not the best option for the Texas schools, joining other conferences was a much better option, but the Big 8 offered other options that was more enticing like greater control over policy and the business. This is the main reason the Big 12 is a new entity and not the old Big 8. Texas was not going to join the Big 8 and live by their rules. Fact is it was a tradeoff that Texas gets its way in most everything while the Big 8 got to include all its members in the new conference.

BTW that lil tradeoff has made most of the Big 8 schools bitter towards the Texas schools.

[SunCoastSooner]

Both the Big 8 and the SWC were in dire straits.

Your kidding right? The Big 8 had one of the best bowl packages in all of college football longgggggggggggg before the texass schools were invited the conference. The old Big 8 schools were farrrrrrr more competitve in basketball and baseball as well before the texass schools were brought in. Does the big 12 make us more money than the big 8? Yes, it is that simple but in no way shape or form did the Big 8 need UT and aTm to survive in the same way that UT and aTm needed out of the SWC to become competitive again. Texass would have never joined the Pac 10 even for the money because they can't bully the Cali schools like they have all their other fellow conference members for the last 60+ years. In the decade before Texas and Texass A&M came into the conference the Big 8 had won national titles in all three of the major NCAA athletics: football, basketball, and baseball. The Big 8 was on firm finacial ground and if it had not been the texass schools coming into the Big 12 it would have been four other schools such as Colorado State, BYU, Utah, Air Force, possibly even Arkansas. You needed us and our bowl tie ins far more than we needed you. You brought the Cotton Bowl into the fold I don't think we need to be thanking you for that. Other than that you television markets are nice.

[Vito Corleone]

Both the Big 8 and the SWC were in dire straits.

Your kidding right? The Big 8 had one of the best bowl packages in all of college football longgggggggggggg before the texass schools were invited the conference. The old Big 8 schools were farrrrrrr more competitve in basketball and baseball as well before the texass schools were brought in. Does the big 12 make us more money than the big 8? Yes, it is that simple but in no way shape or form did the Big 8 need UT and aTm to survive in the same way that UT and aTm needed out of the SWC to become competitive again. Texass would have never joined the Pac 10 even for the money because they can't bully the Cali schools like they have all their other fellow conference members for the last 60+ years. In the decade before Texas and Texass A&M came into the conference the Big 8 had won national titles in all three of the major NCAA athletics: football, basketball, and baseball. The Big 8 was on firm finacial ground and if it had not been the texass schools coming into the Big 12 it would have been four other schools such as Colorado State, BYU, Utah, Air Force, possibly even Arkansas. You needed us and our bowl tie ins far more than we needed you. You brought the Cotton Bowl into the fold I don't think we need to be thanking you for that. Other than that you television markets are nice.

Revisionist history at its best.

The big 8 was done, Colorado was going to leave to the PAC 10 with Texas, Nebraska was moving to the Big 10, OU and a$m were headed to the SEC.

Sorry my friend but it was all about TV deals, the state of Texas had TV sets that every conference in the country wanted. The Big 8 had a few good bowl tie-ins but no TV deal worth a damn and as long as you didn't have Texas you were never going to get a deal.

The biggest winners in the formation of the Big 12 was the 5 other Big 8 schools along with Tech and Baylor, they are the ones that got to stay in a major conference.

BTW this isn't about what schools did back then, no one cared how many titles Big 8 schools won, they only cared about money and TV sets, the Big 8 had neither.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Both the Big 8 and the SWC were in dire straits.

Your kidding right? The Big 8 had one of the best bowl packages in all of college football longgggggggggggg before the texass schools were invited the conference. The old Big 8 schools were farrrrrrr more competitve in basketball and baseball as well before the texass schools were brought in. Does the big 12 make us more money than the big 8? Yes, it is that simple but in no way shape or form did the Big 8 need UT and aTm to survive in the same way that UT and aTm needed out of the SWC to become competitive again. Texass would have never joined the Pac 10 even for the money because they can't bully the Cali schools like they have all their other fellow conference members for the last 60+ years. In the decade before Texas and Texass A&M came into the conference the Big 8 had won national titles in all three of the major NCAA athletics: football, basketball, and baseball. The Big 8 was on firm finacial ground and if it had not been the texass schools coming into the Big 12 it would have been four other schools such as Colorado State, BYU, Utah, Air Force, possibly even Arkansas. You needed us and our bowl tie ins far more than we needed you. You brought the Cotton Bowl into the fold I don't think we need to be thanking you for that. Other than that you television markets are nice.

Revisionist history at its best.

The big 8 was done, Colorado was going to leave to the PAC 10 with Texas, Nebraska was moving to the Big 10, OU and a$m were headed to the SEC.

Actually, I had heard Missouri was moving to the Big 10. I don't think the Big 10 thought Nebraska would meet their academic standards.

Never heard about OU and aTm moving to the SEC. Given that the SEC already had 12 members, that would have struck me as a little strange.

[peter dragon]

Your kidding right? The Big 8 had one of the best bowl packages in all of college football longgggggggggggg before the texass schools were invited the conference. The old Big 8 schools were farrrrrrr more competitve in basketball and baseball as well before the texass schools were brought in. Does the big 12 make us more money than the big 8? Yes, it is that simple but in no way shape or form did the Big 8 need UT and aTm to survive in the same way that UT and aTm needed out of the SWC to become competitive again. Texass would have never joined the Pac 10 even for the money because they can't bully the Cali schools like they have all their other fellow conference members for the last 60+ years. In the decade before Texas and Texass A&M came into the conference the Big 8 had won national titles in all three of the major NCAA athletics: football, basketball, and baseball. The Big 8 was on firm finacial ground and if it had not been the texass schools coming into the Big 12 it would have been four other schools such as Colorado State, BYU, Utah, Air Force, possibly even Arkansas. You needed us and our bowl tie ins far more than we needed you. You brought the Cotton Bowl into the fold I don't think we need to be thanking you for that. Other than that you television markets are nice.

Revisionist history at its best.

The big 8 was done, Colorado was going to leave to the PAC 10 with Texas, Nebraska was moving to the Big 10, OU and a$m were headed to the SEC.

Actually, I had heard Missouri was moving to the Big 10. I don't think the Big 10 thought Nebraska would meet their academic standards.

Never heard about OU and aTm moving to the SEC. Given that the SEC already had 12 members, that would have struck me as a little strange.

never heard the nebraska rumor either..

[King Crimson]

Your kidding right? The Big 8 had one of the best bowl packages in all of college football longgggggggggggg before the texass schools were invited the conference. The old Big 8 schools were farrrrrrr more competitve in basketball and baseball as well before the texass schools were brought in. Does the big 12 make us more money than the big 8? Yes, it is that simple but in no way shape or form did the Big 8 need UT and aTm to survive in the same way that UT and aTm needed out of the SWC to become competitive again. Texass would have never joined the Pac 10 even for the money because they can't bully the Cali schools like they have all their other fellow conference members for the last 60+ years. In the decade before Texas and Texass A&M came into the conference the Big 8 had won national titles in all three of the major NCAA athletics: football, basketball, and baseball. The Big 8 was on firm finacial ground and if it had not been the texass schools coming into the Big 12 it would have been four other schools such as Colorado State, BYU, Utah, Air Force, possibly even Arkansas. You needed us and our bowl tie ins far more than we needed you. You brought the Cotton Bowl into the fold I don't think we need to be thanking you for that. Other than that you television markets are nice.

Revisionist history at its best.

The big 8 was done, Colorado was going to leave to the PAC 10 with Texas, Nebraska was moving to the Big 10, OU and a$m were headed to the SEC.

Actually, I had heard Missouri was moving to the Big 10. I don't think the Big 10 thought Nebraska would meet their academic standards.

Never heard about OU and aTm moving to the SEC. Given that the SEC already had 12 members, that would have struck me as a little strange.

you are correct about Missouri/Nebraska. Vito is correct about media markets but wrong insofar as all these conferencement movement deals were anything more than speculation. the big 8 wasn't "done". it may have suffered without TV revenue (which was the future, obviously) but was still more than viable as a national contender "on the field" in both men's revenue sports. something the SWC could not say conference-wide.

[SunCoastSooner]

Your kidding right? The Big 8 had one of the best bowl packages in all of college football longgggggggggggg before the texass schools were invited the conference. The old Big 8 schools were farrrrrrr more competitve in basketball and baseball as well before the texass schools were brought in. Does the big 12 make us more money than the big 8? Yes, it is that simple but in no way shape or form did the Big 8 need UT and aTm to survive in the same way that UT and aTm needed out of the SWC to become competitive again. Texass would have never joined the Pac 10 even for the money because they can't bully the Cali schools like they have all their other fellow conference members for the last 60+ years. In the decade before Texas and Texass A&M came into the conference the Big 8 had won national titles in all three of the major NCAA athletics: football, basketball, and baseball. The Big 8 was on firm finacial ground and if it had not been the texass schools coming into the Big 12 it would have been four other schools such as Colorado State, BYU, Utah, Air Force, possibly even Arkansas. You needed us and our bowl tie ins far more than we needed you. You brought the Cotton Bowl into the fold I don't think we need to be thanking you for that. Other than that you television markets are nice.

Revisionist history at its best.

The big 8 was done, Colorado was going to leave to the PAC 10 with Texas, Nebraska was moving to the Big 10, OU and a$m were headed to the SEC.

Actually, I had heard Missouri was moving to the Big 10. I don't think the Big 10 thought Nebraska would meet their academic standards.

Never heard about OU and aTm moving to the SEC. Given that the SEC already had 12 members, that would have struck me as a little strange.

That is because Vito is full of shit on this issue. It isn't even revisionist history he is just making shit up.

Nebraska couldn't get into the Big 10 for exactly the reason you pointed out. The Big 10 considers NU an inferior academic university. Wheather or not this is true is debatable but that is the perception on their part. Mizzou to the Big Ten has been talked about for over three and a half decades but has never happened and it certainly wasn't about to happen.

The SEC made its run at aTm when they went after Arkansas and aTm turned them down, I've never understood why but that is what happened. Oklahoma being courted by the SEc has never occured to my knowledge, though there is a ground swelling now amongst message board fans urging the University to "explore" our options with the SEC, now but certainly not a decade ago. Vito gets the bullshit card for this thread.

[Adelpiero]

i heard the nebraska and MU rumor

A lot of unhappy boosters,programs, fans with the TV contract they have. Worst contract by any bcs conference. And from what i heard, some of the Big8 schools not very happy with Texas pretty much trying to run the Big12, force their views,etc!

[Vito Corleone]

Remember it was the ACC that opened up the flood gates when they added FSU.

Before USC and Arkansas joined the SEC, their goal was for the SEC to move into Texas by taking both Texas and a$m. Texas laughed at the idea because of the SEC's low academic standards. a$m laughed at the idea of moving to the Pac 10 because of the distance. So they were set to part ways. OU became the 2nd school on the SEC hit list. Both of them ended up sticking with their conferences and the SEC took USC and Arkansas. So instead of expanding into Texas they ended up in Arkansas and South Carolina.

When the SWC lost Arkansas they tried to lure OU and LSU but neither was interested in being the only teams outside the state. At the same time the Big 10 added Penn State and wanted Notre Dame but hell they are Notre Dame. So their next choice was either Nebraska or Missouri. Either school would have given them what they wanted, it was Nebraska that would have brought more prestige to the Big 10 and that is why most thought they would be the ones to go, but Missouri brought more TV sets.

Of all the Big 8 schools it is Colorado that was really motivated to leave the Big 8, they really view themselves as a West Coast school more than a Midwest school. They were the key, if they had left with Texas to the Pac 10 and I'm 99% sure they would have, the Big 8 would have been gone. There was too much money to be had in other conferences.

[Vito Corleone]

That is because Vito is full of shit on this issue. It isn't even revisionist history he is just making shit up.

Nebraska couldn't get into the Big 10 for exactly the reason you pointed out. The Big 10 considers NU an inferior academic university. Wheather or not this is true is debatable but that is the perception on their part. Mizzou to the Big Ten has been talked about for over three and a half decades but has never happened and it certainly wasn't about to happen.

The SEC made its run at aTm when they went after Arkansas and aTm turned them down, I've never understood why but that is what happened. Oklahoma being courted by the SEc has never occured to my knowledge, though there is a ground swelling now amongst message board fans urging the University to "explore" our options with the SEC, now but certainly not a decade ago. Vito gets the bullshit card for this thread.

Sorry dipstick but the truth is that there is no Big 8 because Texas would have never joined the Big 8, the only reason there is a Big 12 is because Texas knew that in a new conference they could make the rules. Like I said the Big 8 was done just like the SWC. Texas turned down more money (Being in the Pac 10) in order to gain more power within the Conference. I could care less if you believe me or not, prove me wrong! Go back and prove to me that Texas would have never moved to the Pac 10 with Colorado. Hell Colorado still wants to go right now.

[King Crimson]

Of all the Big 8 schools it is Colorado that was really motivated to leave the Big 8, they really view themselves as a West Coast school more than a Midwest school. They were the key, if they had left with Texas to the Pac 10 and I'm 99% sure they would have, the Big 8 would have been gone. There was too much money to be had in other conferences.

this is just speculation and far from ever having been a majority opinion. I've lived in Colorado for 20 years and worked at CU in some capacity for 7. Yes, some CU fans prefer to see CU and Boulder as out of place in the Big 8/XII...and fancy pants that they belong in the "West" and not "Midwest"--due to a variety of social positions and accurate and in-accurate self-visions.

However, there are an equal number of CU people who are Big 8 people--they don't want to lose the NU rivalry, etc. Many of these people are former AD Eddie Crowder, oilman Jack Vickers and others who have some ties to the Wilkinson Sooners....and until recently, have a SAY in what happens in a less than public way at CU with their checkbook.

and, personally, the Denver TV market on it's own is not reason enough for the pac-10 to be THAT interested in CU. CU is NEVER on. Oklahoma or Texas are on the network game far more often than CU. Denver doesn't care about CU....except as a means to scapegoat as a "cover" for the lack of "hard hitting" sports journalism about the pro teams and to continue sucking off the Broncos. CU is also entirely uncompetitive in basketball. what do they bring? Colorado turns out some good players but opening Cali recruiting to CU would be FAR more beneficial to CU than the other P-10 members gaining access to COlorado--blue chip CO players leaving state is more the norm than exception anyway.

[King Crimson]

Hell Colorado still wants to go right now.

show me ONE shred of evidence from any administrator, planning team, proto-planning team on campus at CU that supports this assertion.

[SoCalTrjn]

UT is as close to the Atlantic as it is to the Pacific

[Vito Corleone]

Hell Colorado still wants to go right now.

show me ONE shred of evidence from any administrator, planning team, proto-planning team on campus at CU that supports this assertion.

Most of the talk about CU wanting to go to the PAC 10 comes from CU boosters living in California. I don't know how the current administration feels but I know when McCartney was there he was very much in favor of moving to the Pac 10, so was neweasel.

I have not seen any new articles talking about it so I have no idea who within the University is for or against a change of conferences.

[Dinsdale]

Hell Colorado still wants to go right now.

show me ONE shred of evidence from any administrator, planning team, proto-planning team on campus at CU that supports this assertion.

Well, a guy once posed a hypothetical question to Sporting News asking what would have happened if CU went to the PAC10. All the evidence I need.

-Vito

[SunCoastSooner]

That is because Vito is full of shit on this issue. It isn't even revisionist history he is just making shit up.

Nebraska couldn't get into the Big 10 for exactly the reason you pointed out. The Big 10 considers NU an inferior academic university. Wheather or not this is true is debatable but that is the perception on their part. Mizzou to the Big Ten has been talked about for over three and a half decades but has never happened and it certainly wasn't about to happen.

The SEC made its run at aTm when they went after Arkansas and aTm turned them down, I've never understood why but that is what happened. Oklahoma being courted by the SEc has never occured to my knowledge, though there is a ground swelling now amongst message board fans urging the University to "explore" our options with the SEC, now but certainly not a decade ago. Vito gets the bullshit card for this thread.

Sorry dipstick but the truth is that there is no Big 8 because Texas would have never joined the Big 8, the only reason there is a Big 12 is because Texas knew that in a new conference they could make the rules. Like I said the Big 8 was done just like the SWC. Texas turned down more money (Being in the Pac 10) in order to gain more power within the Conference. I could care less if you believe me or not, prove me wrong! Go back and prove to me that Texas would have never moved to the Pac 10 with Colorado. Hell Colorado still wants to go right now.

Vito I know that texass just won the national title but that doesn't mean the rest of your little fantasy world has come to fruition. The SEC/Oklahoma bullshit is just that bullshit. The SEC never targeted Oklahoma as possibly going to the SEC. I know this for a fact. Both my father and grandmother are amongst the top 300 donors, period, towards the University of Oklahoma, my father is a member of the Sooner Foundation (the Sooners here will know what that is but for the rest it is an association of former Oklahoma letterman), my father is also close personal friends with both Donnie Duncan and Steve Owens. Donnie Duncan was a client of my father's when he was in private practice in OKC. The Big 8 never offered texass more "power" or sold its soul for texass to join the conference; the Big 8 did offer to make some concessions towards conference tournament locations, Baylor being accept as a member institution, and JUCO elgibility within the conference but that was it. If anyone laid down the ultimatum it was the Big 8, and this comes straight from Donnie Duncan's mouth to mine and my father's ears; they were told that the Big 8 would work with them but if they didn't want to come to the Big 8 we would be more than happy to simply just offer Texass A&M and Texass Tech and then we wouldn't be saddled with Baylor's sorry ass athletic program and would bring in two more willing Universities from the region from amongst the names I mentioned earlier. Seeing as though Donnie Duncan is no longer the AD at Oklahoma and now the Director of Operations for the Big 12 I tend to think he knows what the hell he was talking about. The SEC made it's run at aTm and the reason aTm probably didn't immediatly jump at it had as much to do with the Big 8 talks already ongoing, unbeknownst to arkansas, as it did with not leaving Texass behind. I know that my father had inside information pertaining to the OU AD at the time because he told me and a superior officer, who had invited us with him, about the possibility of the texass schools coming to the Big 12 during Arkansas' last season in the SWC at an Arkansas/Texass A&M game.

The Big 8 had plans to bring in larger television markets with or with out the T sippers. Texass A&M and Tech were in the works with or without texass, we preferred for texass to come along but in no way was texass the deal breaker. If anyone was the deal breaker in 1992 & 1993, when the talks began and before the media caught wind of them, it was Texas A&M. With Texas A&M and Tech Texass markets were going to be available to us with or without you and as a matter a fact probably better off with out you because without you and your lackies from Waco we could have brought in Utah, BYU, or even both and opened the Salt Lake City and Las Vegas markets to the Big 12.

The reason the deal took three years was because texass' power trips with the Pac 10 and Baylor threatning with all its power in the state legislature to block aTm and Tech from ditching your crying asses and leaving you in the cold.

Colorado's situation is just as Crimson explained and just as he said you need only go to Eddie Crowder, OU alum, former CU coach, and CU AD to conffirm this.

Your attitude is exactly why in another decade texass is likely to be left holding the bag and the odd man out when the other real revenue schools in the conference bail out on your power obsessed asses and go there own ways or form a new conference without texass. texass may like to believe that they are a Notre Dame but if the last decade of the SWC conference didn't open your eyes to the reality that without some help texass isn't the stinky shit like they think they are nothing ever will. Only at the point all this occurs and texass returns to being a mediocre football and pathetic basketball team without the exposure that the Big 12 provides as a conference will reality finally set in.

I doubt you have any proof of anything you have stated in this thread.

[Left Seater]

Suncoast, I am not sure where you are hearing that OU and Texas are at odds on matters regarding the Big12. In fact it seems that Texas and OU are driving the Big 12 together.

If you remember back to the early discussions when the Big 12 was still just being discussed one issue that almost prevented the conference from taking shape was prop 48 athletes. Texas and A&M didn't want any prop 48 athletes and Nebraska wanted an unlimited number. They settled on one male a year and one female a year regardless of sport. For a number of years most of the schools including OU didn't take any prop 48s. Then just last year OU and Texas led a movement to rid the conference of all prop 48s.

Further just where would OU, NU, etc bolt too? And what exactly is Texas doing to piss off the donors and such at these schools? Winning?

The bottom line is that on most issues regarding the Big 12 Texas has at least 4 votes in its favor everytime they go to the table. A&M and Texas are a package on damn near everything and they can get Baylor and Tech to follow along. However, OU and OSU tend to side with the Texas group often. OU and Texas are driving the Big 12 together from what I have seen.

Terry,

The reason there are new records is because it was a new conference. The agreement was that the conference was so radically different than either of the previous two that they should start clean. The prop 48 example above being proof.

If they had it to do all over again, they would likely have included TCU and dropped ISU, or let CU go west. TCU would bring the DFW TV market and CU and ISU have dropped a number of sports.

[SunCoastSooner]

Suncoast, I am not sure where you are hearing that OU and Texas are at odds on matters regarding the Big12. In fact it seems that Texas and OU are driving the Big 12 together.

If you remember back to the early discussions when the Big 12 was still just being discussed one issue that almost prevented the conference from taking shape was prop 48 athletes. Texas and A&M didn't want any prop 48 athletes and Nebraska wanted an unlimited number. They settled on one male a year and one female a year regardless of sport. For a number of years most of the schools including OU didn't take any prop 48s. Then just last year OU and Texas led a movement to rid the conference of all prop 48s.

Further just where would OU, NU, etc bolt too? And what exactly is Texas doing to piss off the donors and such at these schools? Winning?

The bottom line is that on most issues regarding the Big 12 Texas has at least 4 votes in its favor everytime they go to the table. A&M and Texas are a package on damn near everything and they can get Baylor and Tech to follow along. However, OU and OSU tend to side with the Texas group often. OU and Texas are driving the Big 12 together from what I have seen.

Terry,

The reason there are new records is because it was a new conference. The agreement was that the conference was so radically different than either of the previous two that they should start clean. The prop 48 example above being proof.

If they had it to do all over again, they would likely have included TCU and dropped ISU, or let CU go west. TCU would bring the DFW TV market and CU and ISU have dropped a number of sports.

Lefty UT and OU are driving the ship on the smaller issues as you pointed out with prop 48s, record books, ect. but the big issues OU and UT are at odds on. The biggest issue are the venues UT is pushing for conference tournaments and title games. UT has acted like they are "giving" us the baseball tournament in OKC save the fact that the Ball park in Arlington does not want the Big 12 Tourny to return because they lost money hosting the event the first time they did. Frisco, Texass, and Round Rock Texass are being pushed by UT as a rotation. OU and the other old Big 8 schools are not in favor of this because there is no reason for the state of texass to get two or three years hosting the baseball tourny in a three or four year rotation. It appears that the Old Big 8 schools have won out and OKC will be the foremost venue for the tourny. The other is the basketball tournies which the conference believes should remain like it has always been with the women and men playing in the same city so that the women's tournament can make a larger profit. OKC should be in the rotation along with Kansas City where texass has been trying to push both off the table in favor of a rotation of Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. Sorry but the new venue being built in Kansas City and the Ford Center in OKC are nicer venues than either the venue in San Antonio or Houston, I know I have been to all of them other than the Kansas City venue which isn't complete and not even sure if it has begun being built.

Lefty the DFW market is in the Big 12 hands with or wothout TCU. Iowa State would not get dropped if for no other reason than the fact they were one of the original members of the Missouri Valley conference where it all started.

[King Crimson]

Suncoast, I am not sure where you are hearing that OU and Texas are at odds on matters regarding the Big12. In fact it seems that Texas and OU are driving the Big 12 together.

If you remember back to the early discussions when the Big 12 was still just being discussed one issue that almost prevented the conference from taking shape was prop 48 athletes. Texas and A&M didn't want any prop 48 athletes and Nebraska wanted an unlimited number. They settled on one male a year and one female a year regardless of sport. For a number of years most of the schools including OU didn't take any prop 48s. Then just last year OU and Texas led a movement to rid the conference of all prop 48s.

Further just where would OU, NU, etc bolt too? And what exactly is Texas doing to piss off the donors and such at these schools? Winning?

The bottom line is that on most issues regarding the Big 12 Texas has at least 4 votes in its favor everytime they go to the table. A&M and Texas are a package on damn near everything and they can get Baylor and Tech to follow along. However, OU and OSU tend to side with the Texas group often. OU and Texas are driving the Big 12 together from what I have seen.

Terry,

The reason there are new records is because it was a new conference. The agreement was that the conference was so radically different than either of the previous two that they should start clean. The prop 48 example above being proof.

If they had it to do all over again, they would likely have included TCU and dropped ISU, or let CU go west. TCU would bring the DFW TV market and CU and ISU have dropped a number of sports.

CU has dropped no sports that i'm aware of since the formation of the Big XII. ISU dropped baseball a few years ago. CU dropped baseball and wrestling in the late 70's (maybe early 80's). CU was never going west, I'm telling you. that's just stuff people talk about on message boards after the football season is over.

There is no doubt that OU/OSU/the South division have been a unified front insofar as lobbying for the conference hoops tournament to be in Dallas and in a couple years OKC. but, that was a major bee in the bonnet of Billy Tubbs back in the mid 80's. playing the conference tournament in KC/Kemper Arena was a de facto home game for KU, MU, or KSU--comparable to playing OU or OSU in OKC--hardly a neutral site. Tubbs got no where with it except piss off the KC area schools and league office by saying the "unsayable". and the same thing occured 4-5 years ago....but the political means for a sensible rotating set of sites was there and it's fairness undeniable.

[SunCoastSooner]

Colorado dropped wrestling in the early 80s, KC. I vaguely recall CU still having a wrestling program in the early 80s when my father was still heavily involved with the OU wrestling program.

[the_ouskull]

The Big 12 Conference is considering a "new" conference because it's offices changed locations, and they got new a new commish, etc...

Also, what is all of this crap about the Big 8 needing Texas as much as Texas needed the Big 8? If that's so, why didn't the SWC just take in a few more schools and leave OU or Nebraska out in the cold...? Dipshit.

the_ouskull

[Vito Corleone]

The Big 12 Conference is considering a "new" conference because it's offices changed locations, and they got new a new commish, etc...

Also, what is all of this crap about the Big 8 needing Texas as much as Texas needed the Big 8? If that's so, why didn't the SWC just take in a few more schools and leave OU or Nebraska out in the cold...? Dipshit.

the_ouskull

The SWC was dead, and the Big 8 was on life support. Had the Texas schools not come to the rescue of the Big 8. One of two things would have happened, either the Big 8 would no longer exist just like right now with all the teams going their seperate ways, or the major powers of the Conf would have bolted and the Big 8 would have added teams like TCU SMU UH Tech and Baylor.

This isn't about the product on the field, this was about money and nothing more.

[OUMO]

Bill, you've been run.

That means stop.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Good info here. I've learned some things about the Big 12 that I did not know. However, none of you addressed one of the points I made -- namely, that a comparison to the ACC is valid. I would argue that the impact of expansion has changed the culture of the ACC to a far greater degree than expansion changed the Big 8. Before expansion, the ACC was a basketball-first conference, and that is no longer the case, at least arguably. I get Skull's comments about new headquarters, new commish, etc., but I'm looking at it more from the standpoint of the on-field product than what goes on off the field. Also, in that regard, C-USA provides a valid comparison as well. C-USA underwent a radical transformation in the wake of the realignment triggered by ACC expansion. Inter alia, they added five new members, lost eight previous members (including four that did not play football), dropped their hybrid format, added a football championship game, and moved their conference headquarters. Yet nobody considers C-USA a "new" conference at this point, either.

Vito,

I think your timeline is wrong. You said that Florida State joining the ACC opened the floodgates. If my memory serves (and it usually does in these situations), Penn State first joined the Big Ten and then Arkansas jumped to the SEC. Following that, the SEC had targeted Florida State, but the ACC, fearing further eclipse from the SEC, got into the act, and Florida State ultimately chose the SEC (you may remember that following that announcement, the SEC publicly, and unanimously, voted not to extend an invitation to Florida State). Then the Big East got into the act by adding Miami and adding football to its roster of sports (the Big East did not previously play football, but feared that its members who did play football as independents -- Pitt, Syracuse, and BC -- would get poached by another conference that did play football). Having been spurned by both Florida State and Miami, at that point the SEC added South Carolina.

My recollection is that the SEC was looking to add one team in the western part of its conference and one team in the eastern part of its conference, and that seems to be borne out by the divisional alignment the SEC ultimately adopted. Having already gotten its western team (Arkansas), it then looked east (FSU, Miami and ultimately South Carolina) rather than to another western team (Texas, aTm or OU). Adding two western teams would have required the SEC to split Auburn and Alabama, which it did not want to do. Also, Texas and aTm, although both were making noise about leaving the SWC, did not actually leave until a few years later, in any event. Like I said previously, my recollection was that they had negotiated with both the Pac-10 and the Big 10 in addition to the Big 8. I suppose it's possible that they also negotiated with the SEC, but I don't think either was seriously considered in the first wave of SEC expansion.

[SunCoastSooner]

The Big 12 Conference is considering a "new" conference because it's offices changed locations, and they got new a new commish, etc...

Also, what is all of this crap about the Big 8 needing Texas as much as Texas needed the Big 8? If that's so, why didn't the SWC just take in a few more schools and leave OU or Nebraska out in the cold...? Dipshit.

the_ouskull

The SWC was dead, and the Big 8 was on life support. Had the Texas schools not come to the rescue of the Big 8. One of two things would have happened, either the Big 8 would no longer exist just like right now with all the teams going their seperate ways, or the major powers of the Conf would have bolted and the Big 8 would have added teams like TCU SMU UH Tech and Baylor.

This isn't about the product on the field, this was about money and nothing more.

Vito you are on drugs, that is the only explanation I can come up with. Texass A&M and Tech were going to be members of the Big 12 with or without you Vito. TCU, SMU, Houston, Rice, ect. were never options for the Big 8, we didn't even want Baylor but Texass conviced us to take them. We wanted BYU or Colorado State before Baylor. The major powers in the Big 8 were never about to bolt. Missouri and Colorado leaving have both been going on for decades from radio/internet/bar stool fan forever.

TIC I believe that Florida State and Arkansas moved at the same time followed by Penn State to the Big Televen. The major powers in the Big 8 were never about to bolt.

[Left Seater]

Suncoast, I would say that OU Texas are together on the bigger issues and disagree on the smaller issues. I disagree with you on what you label large and small issues. I consider championship sites to be small and conference by laws and makeup to be the large issues.

I think that these site issues will work themselves out rather quickly. OU and Texas will get the basketball tourney on a north south yearly rotation just like the football title game. Of the sites in the south part of the league there are really only 4 viable sites. Yes, 3 of the 4 are in Texas, but that has more to do with the size of the state than anything else.

The baseball tourney is a different story and maybe that should be in OKC every other year and then travel in the odd years. But with two of the northern teams not even playing baseball it should be held in the southern area more often than in the northern.

Finally, are you really trying to sell that OU, NU, etc would walk away from the Big 12 just because Texas doesn't want the conf baseball tourney in OKC each year? If so, the donors at OU need to check themselves. Further again, where would they go?


Terry,

It all comes down to how the semantics worked out. The ACC did expand, the Big 8 did not. The ACC offered FSU a former independent a home in their conference. The Big 8 did not extend 4 invitations to 4 SWC teams. Rather 2 SWC teams and 4 Big 8 teams got together and created a completely new league. You have also said that the on field Big 12 doesn't look all that different than the on field Big 8, and while that is true, the major differences are off the field. The conference by laws and such are totally different.

In the case of CUSA they extended invitations to schools to join their conference. These schools saw that as a move up or a better geographical fit. (RICE is a good example.) But these new schools had to accept the rules and by laws of CUSA and didn't have any ability to rewrite them. Not the case when the Big 12 was formed.

Also for what it is worth the remaining 4 SWC teams that didn't go to the Big 12 should have stayed in the SWC and extended invitations to other schools. The SWC of then members RICE, TCU, SMU, and Cougar High, could have added UTEP, North Texas, and UTSA (doesn't play football) to the conference. Then for next season they could have picked up ATM Corpus Christi who is going to the Southland and adding football in 5 years. That would be a very good mid major conference and the travel expenses would be low for these schools.

[SunCoastSooner]

Suncoast, I would say that OU Texas are together on the bigger issues and disagree on the smaller issues. I disagree with you on what you label large and small issues. I consider championship sites to be small and conference by laws and makeup to be the large issues.

I think that these site issues will work themselves out rather quickly. OU and Texas will get the basketball tourney on a north south yearly rotation just like the football title game. Of the sites in the south part of the league there are really only 4 viable sites. Yes, 3 of the 4 are in Texas, but that has more to do with the size of the state than anything else.

The baseball tourney is a different story and maybe that should be in OKC every other year and then travel in the odd years. But with two of the northern teams not even playing baseball it should be held in the southern area more often than in the northern.

Finally, are you really trying to sell that OU, NU, etc would walk away from the Big 12 just because Texas doesn't want the conf baseball tourney in OKC each year? If so, the donors at OU need to check themselves. Further again, where would they go?


Terry,

It all comes down to how the semantics worked out. The ACC did expand, the Big 8 did not. The ACC offered FSU a former independent a home in their conference. The Big 8 did not extend 4 invitations to 4 SWC teams. Rather 2 SWC teams and 4 Big 8 teams got together and created a completely new league. You have also said that the on field Big 12 doesn't look all that different than the on field Big 8, and while that is true, the major differences are off the field. The conference by laws and such are totally different.

In the case of CUSA they extended invitations to schools to join their conference. These schools saw that as a move up or a better geographical fit. (RICE is a good example.) But these new schools had to accept the rules and by laws of CUSA and didn't have any ability to rewrite them. Not the case when the Big 12 was formed.

Also for what it is worth the remaining 4 SWC teams that didn't go to the Big 12 should have stayed in the SWC and extended invitations to other schools. The SWC of then members RICE, TCU, SMU, and Cougar High, could have added UTEP, North Texas, and UTSA (doesn't play football) to the conference. Then for next season they could have picked up ATM Corpus Christi who is going to the Southland and adding football in 5 years. That would be a very good mid major conference and the travel expenses would be low for these schools.

There are other issues that every school has with the conference north of the red river but I really don't want to get into that with you lefty, mainly because you would be biased and I don't want the bad blood that may come of it.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Terry,

It all comes down to how the semantics worked out. The ACC did expand, the Big 8 did not. The ACC offered FSU a former independent a home in their conference.

Actually, when I mentioned the ACC I wasn't talking about the ACC adding Florida State in the early 1990's, but rather, their more recent expansion with Miami, Va Tech and BC. Adding FSU allowed them to move into college football's upper echelon, but didn't really change the conference dramatically otherwise. Adding Miami, Va Tech and BC (all from the Big East, similar to Texas, aTm, Taco and Baylor all joining from the SWC), however, did at least arguably change the ACC from a conference that emphasizes basketball first to one that emphasizes football first.

The Big 8 did not extend 4 invitations to 4 SWC teams. Rather 2 SWC teams and 4 Big 8 teams got together and created a completely new league. You have also said that the on field Big 12 doesn't look all that different than the on field Big 8, and while that is true, the major differences are off the field. The conference by laws and such are totally different.

In the case of CUSA they extended invitations to schools to join their conference. These schools saw that as a move up or a better geographical fit. (RICE is a good example.) But these new schools had to accept the rules and by laws of CUSA and didn't have any ability to rewrite them. Not the case when the Big 12 was formed.

Like I said, I'm looking at it from more of the fan's perspective.

As to C-USA, while it's true that the new teams did not have the ability to change the conference's bylaws, the conference itself did choose to change, if not its bylaws, then its makeup and style of organization drastically. Some of this, of course, was forced upon them by virtue of the decision of Cincinnati, Louisville and USF, along with non-football schools DePaul and Marquette, to bolt for the Big East. But C-USA could have chosen to retain the hybrid format, for example, and kept Charlotte and Saint Louis in the fold -- that didn't happen. I suppose the decision to go to a playoff game was motivated, at least in part, to try to stave off a future raid by the Big East, but imho, as long as the Big East is part of the BCS or whatever system is in place to crown a national champion, that will trump a conference championship game.

[the_ouskull]

Uh... see below.

[the_ouskull]

Look, he's sticking to his pro-Tejas story, no matter how wrong it is, so I'm just gonna nod my head and smile. Just remember, the Big 8 was doing just fine, having just won back-to-back National Championships, and the SWC was falling apart...

...but we needed it. Yep.

• We needed their bowl package...
  
  ...'cause NOBODY watches the Orange Bowl.
• We needed their TV markets...
  
  ...'cause Denver, Kansas City, St Louis, OKC, et al... lived for Texas athletics...
  
  (This one is the only halfway legit argument... We wanted bigger shares of the TV market in Dallas, and Houston...)
• We needed the extra schools because we needed to improve our competition...
  
  ...like I said, already won back-to-back championships, and, at the time, NONE of the schools we took in were great programs, A&M probably being the best of the bunch.

But, you keep telling yourself what you want to believe. It's already true in your mind, and there's something to be said for that, right?

the_ouskull

[SunCoastSooner]

TiC I gave you the fans perspective. The Big 8 fans feel that we are the same conference with four new members. The texass school fans think we are "new" conference because they are in a new conference.

[the_ouskull]

Yeah, basically, I don't give a shit either way... It was OU's conference before, and it's OU's conference now.

...take that how you will. :D

I just don't want to hear Tejas tell us how bad we (the Big 12) needed their John Mackovich-led, head barely above water, getting their asses kicked by A&M, school...

[A New Level Of Bitter] If it weren't for the SWC, we would have still had the rule that doesn't allow refs to ref a game in their home state, and then OU would have been playing in the Cotton Bowl instead of the Holiday Bowl. [/Bitter]

the_ouskull

[Left Seater]

Suncoast, you really think you and I can't have a difference of opinion with it becoming bad blood. Hell, if we can discuss religion and still respect each other, I am guessing this would be fine. :)

[SunCoastSooner]

Suncoast, you really think you and I can't have a difference of opinion with it becoming bad blood. Hell, if we can discuss religion and still respect each other, I am guessing this would be fine. :)

:D In that case.

Oklahoma and everyone else would like some officials who aren't from texass. We're not opposed to having officials from texass but we would like for the state to have less influence over in the officiating department and I'm not just talking football.

[Vito Corleone]

Look, he's sticking to his pro-Tejas story, no matter how wrong it is, so I'm just gonna nod my head and smile. Just remember, the Big 8 was doing just fine, having just won back-to-back National Championships, and the SWC was falling apart...

...but we needed it. Yep.

• We needed their bowl package...
  
  ...'cause NOBODY watches the Orange Bowl.
• We needed their TV markets...
  
  ...'cause Denver, Kansas City, St Louis, OKC, et al... lived for Texas athletics...
  
  (This one is the only halfway legit argument... We wanted bigger shares of the TV market in Dallas, and Houston...)
• We needed the extra schools because we needed to improve our competition...
  
  ...like I said, already won back-to-back championships, and, at the time, NONE of the schools we took in were great programs, A&M probably being the best of the bunch.

But, you keep telling yourself what you want to believe. It's already true in your mind, and there's something to be said for that, right?

the_ouskull

There is no way around it skull you are stupid MF, you need to start drinking again, you left your brain in the bottle.

1. I said, this was never about the one the field product. Who gives two shits about how many championships the Big 8 won. This is about money and TV contracts.

2. I have never said you needed our Bowl package, no one cared about the Bowl package. There is more than one sport at stake when it comes to joining a conference.

3. Again you keep going back to one the field crap. If the on-the-field product was so damn important why did you take in Texas? Money you dumbass!

Why is there a Big 12 and not a Big 8? Money you dumbass! Texas would never join the big 8 with all their screwed up rules. Texas would never join the SEC with all their screwed up rules, the big difference is that the SEC wouldn't roll over for Texas like the big 8 would.

Why do you think the Big 8 rolled over? Because they knew that without Texas they had no shot at a decent TV deal. And the reason Baylor is in the Conf is not because of Texas but because of ex-Texas govenor Ann Richards who made sure that Texas or a$m could not join any conference without Baylor.

At the time the Big 12 was created every conference was looking at expansion in order get a larger TV deal.


Suncoast, the reality is the Big 12 is a new conf, you can paint the picture any color you want, but the sunset will always be burnt orange.

Skull do I need to remind you that at the time your puss bucket ass was lead by jon blake.

[the_ouskull]

Why do you think the Big 8 rolled over?

So that when OU owned Tejas, it'd be a conference win.

Skull do I need to remind you that at the time your puss bucket ass was lead by jon blake.

Isn't this "on the field" stuff...? Dipshit.

the_ouskull