I really believe the SEC would take Iowa State over West Virginia. The reason is AAU membership.
I really believe you shouldn’t be calling people morons–for several reasons.
All it will take is ONE DOMINO … one domino!!! … to FALL … and it could come from several sources …
Yepp DivIA right now is like sitting on the San Andreas fault … with all the tremors occurring … the BIG ONE could come …
Any moment …
I do believe we’ll have an opportunity to get into a major league, but unfortunately, we don’t control the trigger for that to happen. If you remember, we did make it to a BCS league- albeit for just one year before it dissolved. BCS happened twice for Khator - at USF and UH.
Our administration has made a commitment to place us in the most favorable position possible when realignment happens. All the activity, IPF, stadium, etc., was never to become the best G5 - It was always to be in a big time league. I do think there’s a chance we get there, but there will never be a guarantee.
Great basketball and a good football program, is a goid combination to be wanted.
Couple this with a very good baseball program and an elite track program makes us desirable.
As I’ve always said…“I’ll believe it when it happens”
Had a relative who went and met with upper echelons at UH when Herman was here and what they had told him had him convinced we’d be in the Big XII this time the next year. My reply to him was “I’ll believe it when it happens”
Looks like I made the right choice.
The problem is that all the political pressure from Texas politicians to add us may have actually worked against us. WVU, OU, even KU would sooner see the Big 12 collapse than appear to given in to blackmail from Texas politicians. It would have been so much better if the pressure had been applied quietly. By making a public show of it, it just backfired. I hope a lesson has been learnt here.
I think Texas went public with support for UH for that very reason. They knew that it would sabotage the expansion process.
Their “support” for UH was some vague, non-committal tweets. It was posturing to avoid any blowback from the state legislature and governor. Tweets or no tweets, expansion was over before it began since there was never a school that could have garnered a super-majority of votes.
Didn’t the gov or lt.gov tweet something about Big 12 expansion being a nonstarter without Houston?
Yeah, and I remember the UT pres and others being very specific about their support for UH to the B12, but I think we’re saying the same thing. It was all subterfuge
I can think of six pitiful schools in that league that have absolutely no reason to want UH to share
in their fabulous revenues.
They only “supported” us because they were coming after our coach and recruits. C’mon, buddy.
In the first 5 or 6 years, we won’t get that much money, so it’s not an issue of revenues, those 6 teams are afraid of the competition on the field and competition for recruits.
Assuming a 6 years buy in periods, the current 10 programs will make about an average of $3 - 4 million a year, until we get full shares. After that unless our shares are unequal and low (or adding us results in an increase in that overall media deal), they won’t make anything extra.
According to the article, that shift has been in effect in the months since. Now, instead of letting Scott dictate policy like a monarch, the athletic directors are setting the tone and direction of the conference, along with the backing of their chancellors and presidents.
Previously, Scott would have separate conversations with ADs and with chancellors and presidents, which gave ADs the feeling they were being pushed to the side. Now, they’ve made it clear that they dictate to Scott what will happen, either specifically on the conference’s media advisory relationship with The Raine Group or generally when it comes to the rules of the league and network-related decisions.
If I remember right, the idea of atm and UH both going to the SEC occurred several years before the creation of the Little-12 Conference, and before UH was admitted to the old SWC. Could be wrong (my memory is not quite as good as it used to be), but I am pretty sure about that.
That’s what I recall as well.
It was more than that. I was actually in Austin the week they surprisingly decided to “support” our efforts. On the cover of the sports page, IN Austin, they ran a whole feature story about the University of Houston. Personality, I think it had more to do with them trying to get leverage for the UT-Houston than UH to the B12.
Speaking of “UT-Houston,” did they ever sell that land? Thought not.
Regardless of what they say, believe me, they do intend to build that school - on that land they already own or somewhere else! When they say otherwise, THEY ARE LYING! As usual.