Horns247 Board

Good points, but another unknown that you claim is a strength is that we allow independent tier 3 deals. The lack of a conference network is why the Big XII isn't in a hurry to expand. The existence of the conference networks for others is both their current appeal to potential members and their motivation for expanding.

The question is - are these models going to be more like Robin Hood with the big programs subsidizing the weak ones, or will combining all result in a "sum is greater than the parts" result?

If it's the former then how can these huge conferences be viable over the long haul? At some point Ohio State will get sick of subsidizing programs like Purdue and Maryland and want to keep more of what they contribute.

A&M is not the Texas footprint like Texas is the Texas footprint.

Darren Rovell pointed out that the game story on Rutgers going to 9-1 was the 19th story on the NY Post sports page. They are an also-ran that no one cares about. I guarantee you that utsal and I follow Rutgers a lot more than anyone else on this board.

No one has answered my question. Has anyone's opinion actually changed by yesterday's events? The answer, of course, is no. Those that were unhappy with Texas in a 10 team conference with no aspirations for immediate expansion two days ago are still unhappy today and have a new talking point.

I personally don't feel strongly either way, but certainly don't think the landscape has changed dramatically this week. What I do feel strongly about is anyone that thinks they know for sure that bigger is necessarily better is kidding themselves. It's all speculation at this point. If superleagues were the only way to go, why hasn't Notre Dame joined a conference?

The answer is quite obvious. ND has not joined a conference, because they know they will have a spot in almost any scenario. They are the prettiest girl in school and can wait until the day before prom to pick their date.

I think things are not mutually exclusive. I've been a proponent of expansion for the "right" schools all along. I understand the underwhelming nature of the Big 12's geographic and institutional footprint. I just feel we, as a conference, are going to be in a weak position sometime in the short to medium term if we stand still. At the same time I do think the move by the Big 10 provides new info. One, there is a desire by the richest conference to expand and two, the ACC is still highly vulnerable, especially if the exit fee is reduced. These details tell me (1) what the Big 12 will be competing against (large conference up north with a lot of money) and (2) the weak position of a competitor.

I would respectfully ask for you not to tell me what the hell to post. Don't like my post, there are two options for you. Downvote it or ignore me, but don't tell me what I can and can't post in a particular thread. Besides that, it was a response to someone else who brought up Mack.

Was directed at both of you, and more at the original post than yours. You just happened to be the last one so it quoted you. You're right, I should have quoted the first guy. That said, you can feel free to ignore my request as I'm not a mod or the board police. If you want to take the thread in a different direction, feel free to try, and I have just as much of a right to attempt to keep the conversation that everyone else is having going.

Luckily the rest of the people responding on the thread have had the sense to realize that this issue has nothing to do with Mack and talking about him here is counterproductive to the reasonable conversation that is taking place related to the issue of conference expansion and Texas' future. I got a number of upvotes for my suggestion because many people are tired of every thread turning into the pro-mack vs. anti-mack crowd.

That's the point of a GOR, so there's not a way to back out. If it's signed, they're going to have to make the Big 12 work for a decade-plus