OMG, not this stupid, pathetic and useless argument again among posters who so want to be right and put others down for their opinions. smh
1 Like
Hang on now. I think weâre pretty close to everyone coming to an agreement. 
8 Likes
I canât help it if I was right,1927 was wrong, and he keeps making up scenarios that never existed and were never plausible/possible in order to try and cover up being wrong.
SometimesâŠ.people simply need to admit when they are wrong and take the L.
1927âs âOption Aâ was simply never on the table, never discussed, and never a plausible reality.
And the fact that he kept saying that we should look to join the PAC even AFTER we had already joined the Big 12 makes him even more wrong.
We all saw what happened to the PAC AFTER we joined in the Big 12, at a time when 1927 was still campaigning for it.
Now youâre being hypocritical
3 Likes
Campaigning- NO!
Statiing, we, the University of Houston, should keep our head on a swivel in case a Block of the Big 12 decided to move over to the PAC- YES!
I still, to this day, say we should keep our head on a swivel and consider what is best for the University of Houston.
How many times do i have to tell you this?
We should be considering ALL possible options all the time!
3 Likes
Get serious now.
You were the biggest PAC stumper on this board. EVERYBODY saw and knows that.
You even said, AFTER we had accepted a Big 12 invite, how we should be looking to join the PAC as soon as we could, claiming that the Big 12 was the least stable conference, that the PAC was more stable, and then you rattled off a list of reasons why you thought the PAC was better, one of which was âleft wing politics.â
And then, after all that was proven to be FALSE, and all my criticisms of your PAC preference completely VINDICATEDâŠyou started coming up with various implausible, never on the table scenarios about how you could have been right in order to cover up being wrong.
As I said BroâŠsometimes you simply need to admit you were wrong and take the L.
I had to do it on B1G expansion outside their contiguous geographical area.
Why shouldnât you have to do it here?
Hardly.
Iâve admitted being wrong on B1G expansion.
The problem isâŠ1927 HASNâT admitted being wrong on the PAC.
Instead, he tries to come up with implausible, never on the table scenarios about how he could have been right, in order to cover up being wrong, as you just saw in the posts above.
See the difference?
8 Likes
NO!
I was the biggest âWhatâs best for the university of Houstonâ pumper.
At the end of the day, neither the Big 12, PAC, or ACC are at the P2 level.
Whatever outcome that included the University of Houston and DECREASED the highest TOTAL # of Power # teams while eliminating ONE of those 3 sub P2 conference was going to be the best outcome for us because it made the Power # MORE EXCLUSIVE!
The Big 12 adds FOUR G5s then raids the PAC then somehow creates a path for SMU to become promoted to a POWER Conference was the WORST outcome for making the Power # Club more exclusive.
We added FIVE G5 schools ( UH, BYU, UC, UCF & SMU) while ONLY demoting TWO ( WSU & OSU).
Plus it added TWO new Power members in OUR OWN STATE!
The current format INCREASES our P# competition
The PAC raiding the Big 12 would have resulted in more carnage and more exclusivity.
I donât have blind loyalty to any of those conferences and I was never swayed by the "but we can take a roadie to Baylor " narrative as an end all, be all.
As last season proved, we played them in a half empty stadium.
We ended up Adding 25% of the PAC conference anyway so who cares if 3-6 Big 12 members headed west or 4 PAC members headed east!
1 Like
Why wont you admit the Big 12 raiding the PAC resulting in a net of Three new Power 4 members was the worst result?
5 added - 2 demoted
The club became LESS EXCLUSIVE. Not MORE EXCLUSIVE!
Not really.
If the ACC loses its four biggest brands to the P2, and four others to the Big 12, which is widely considered to be whatâs going to happen in the future, then SMU, as Iâve said before, will be left behind in a devalued ACC, effectively having purchased a LEMON.
Itâs all speculation at this point, but that seems to be a near consensus from the talking heads about the future.
SMUâs addition in no way makes the P4 âless exclusiveâ simply because other power conference members look down upon and frown on them. Theyâre considered the loser friend that gets to tag along with the cool kids by agreeing to take no money. Hell, at one point, the CFP didnât even want to give them a share of playoff money. That should tell you something. By contrast, that did NOT happen to the teams added to the Big 12. That should show you the difference in how such teams are perceived as members of the âclub.â
Forget about demoting and promoting. This is about you being wrongâŠand more importantlyâŠbeing wrong about wanting to put us in a conference that was a VERY bad fit.
In my own lifetime, Iâve seen us draw 20K for USC, 19K for Oregon, and 18K for Washington at home, and those are three of the four largest brands in the PAC. Think about how bad the crowds for Oregon State, and Califord would have been, by comparison.
So even if the PAC had held togetherâŠand we were a memberâŠwe would NOT have experienced the massive rise in attendance (one of the largest in the FBS, actually) that we experienced with the âBig 12 effect.â Donât try and argue that point. Our fans want to see us playing other teams that are located nearbyâŠNOT West Coast teams. If we were in the PAC, rather than the Big 12, then we would NOT have seen that big attendance jump.
It is what it is, regardless of whether youâd prefer to acknowledge it or not.
As for SMUâŠthey ainât competition. If you think they are, then you are SADLY mistaken.
They had a whole year to recruitâŠand STILL finished behind in recruiting compared to our staff which only had a few weeks to recruit.
And thatâs after having their best season in FORTY years. That should tell you all you need to know.
Sorry, but if you truly believe that SMU is âcompetition,â in the face of those FACTS, then youâve got issues.
SMUâs addition was so badâŠthat itâs KILLING the ACC. FSU listed their addition as one of the proofs of lack of fiduciary duty by the ACC to its members in their lawsuit.
I correctly predicted that FSU would NOT stand for having to play them in conference, and once againâŠI was RIGHT. See their latest lawsuit, which was filed not long after I posted that, and not long after the schedule release that forces FSU to go play sucky arse SMU.
Im sorryâŠdid i miss something?
Isnât SMU joing the ACC in a few months and, as of today, ZERO members have left the ACC
I donât understand the point youâre making.
UT/OU left to the SEC and now make triple what they were making in the Big 12. Youâre acting as if UH, Cincy, UCF and BYU somehow are worth more than UT & OU.
Regarding your second point, Iâm still struggling to understand your argument. When both the PAC 12 (with Oregon & Washington) and the Big 12 (without UT & OU) were both alive at the same time, the PAC12 undeniably was the better conference⊠or at least more value.
Keep in mind that ESPN & FOX are paying the Big 12.
ESPN was the PAC12âs sole partner.
Didnât the Big 12 contract INCREASE after UT/OU left and UH, UC, BYU & UCF joined?
Pretty much every conference saw a jump in annual payouts when they signed media rights deal in the current wave of media deal negotiations
REALLY?
The PACs deal didnât happen and the rumor, according to LAW, is the ACCâS value is going to plummet after 2-4 ACC schools leave.
The only non P2 that âactuallyâ went up was the Big 12 and that was after they replaced 2 Bluebloods with 4 G5s
STAY TUNED!!!
Itâs coming. I think youâre about the only person out there that believes that the ACC will remain intactâŠother than maybe the ACCâs delusional administration.
It is going to plummet, but youâre trying to compare conference media rights like for like, when it really is Apples to Oranges
No. There will be schools that leave the ACC EVENTUALLY but letâs see how many leave and if panic sets in.
For the millionth billionth gazillionth timeâŠI look at EVERY single plausible option that could happen, or not happen, to understand how it best serves the ONLY school i care about, the University of Houston.
Itâs called a bird eye/ global view of the possible scenario, from a brainstorming standpoint
Iâve made posts on all of the following:
-
UH joins the ACC pre UT/OU departure
-
UH joins the PAC after the PAC raids the Big 12 post UT/OU departure
-
The AAC raids the Big 12 leftovers (yes this was once a possible outcome)
-
UH joins the Big 12 post OU/UT departure
-
UH accepts an invite to the Big 12 but be prepared IF the PAC raids the Big 12, post USC/ UCLA departure. (Similar to TCU to the Big East/ Big 12)
-
The Big 12 raids the PAC for the 4 Corners and "tries " to land Oregon and Washington even if they know they will leave eventually
-
The P2 slowly forms a 2 x 24 and the B1G wants a Texas member
-
The Big 12 adds 4 ACC schools AFTER the 2-4 leaves and the ACC implodes
-
The Big 12 somehow convinces ACC bluebloods to join
-
the Big 12 should NOT add Basketball only schools.
Iâve made NUMEROUS posts on ALL of these scenarios to remind everyone we need to be prepared no matter which way the wind blows.
Doesnât mean I think they will happen, just that we need to consider them from all angles.
The ONE scenario Iâve NEVER posted about because there is ZERO likelihood of it ever happening is UH to the SEC.
Iâve never even entertained that scenario because UT & TAMU will NEVER allow it
1 Like
It was timing as we know bc if the pac fell apart before we got the invite, they might have taken the 4 and stopped to wait. We could have been screwed if not for the timing of having the pac fall apart after we got invited. BY might have passed on us bc he now only wants former p5 schools.
Timing saved us and not having BY on board yet.
BY is great now that weâre already in