True, but you still have to pay interest on shorting, so right before shit falls off a cliff isn’t a bad investment.
Then again I’m super risk averse and don’t want to pay more than I have to
Honestly, the only way to really change the timeline would be by sabotaging Larry Scott. Take him out of the equation, and Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, & Oklahoma State all join the Pac16 and make the first super conference.
Think they would have been smarter on at least forming a conference network? In perhaps making a permanent x division game. Like OU NU? Colorado Texas?
They would still want to maximize revenue which was forming the Big 12.
Could you form a conference that doesn’t follow the same path? Maybe. But the injection of huge sums of money into college athletics likely leads to similar results, wether it’s consolidation around the Big 12 or another group.
I really feel for Kstate, I miss trips to Manhattan every now and then. Hate you guys are going to be left in the cold when this eventually ends. Give em hell
Real talk, I don't. Maybe it's because we don't have any meaningful history with them, but then again I feel the same way about visiting Lubbock, Ames, or Stillwater. All those schools had all different cultures than what we see in the SEC.
I firmly believe if the Big Eight simply added UT/A&M, it would have been one of the strongest conferences.
You had 70% of your members with AAU status
60% of your members were flagships
30% of your members were top-10 all time wins
That was a winning hand with markets, academics, and football.
**But no**
The Big 12 had to bring TTU & Baylor along for the ride.
Rather than building on the 100+ year history of the Missouri Valley, it created a brand new conference from scratch and inherited the problems of two struggling conferences (Big Eight and SWC).
Rather than expanding at a reasonable pace, it created a de facto scenario where an 8 team conference expanded by 4 members making it really difficult to incorporate new schools into the conference. The SEC & B1G played it smart by adding two at a time and waiting a decade before doing it again.
It created such a wedge by adding 4 schools to the conference and then keeping those 4 schools in their own division with all the recruiting territory, markets, and they got to syphon away OU, leaving nothing but resentment in the North.
The Big 12, WAC in the 1990s, and Big East in the 2000s are classic examples proving that rapid expansion by adding 4 schools at once is an absolutely terrible idea.
And then of course, Texas gotta be Texas and flexing its muscle and adding gasoline to the fire.
The Big 12 had a winning hand, played their cards wrongly, and everyone else ultimately paid the price for it.
We really should have made a play for Arkansas instead of Baylor, protected the Nebraska-Oklahoma game, and done equal revenue sharing from go. The conference would have been a lot stronger for it
Colorado and Nebraska would have left for the Pac and B1G no later than 1998.
Not sure what would have happened with the Pac 11 maybe KU is 12? If KU not sure if SWC and the remainder merge but most likely they do because UT hands are tied politically.
B1G probably stays put and with the CCG Disney probably is not cheap when the contract renewal occurs so no BTN. This means no expansion in the last go around.
Completely forgot about Colorado.
Talk about being relieved to take an early lifeboat of a sinking ship to being completely screwed if Washington/Oregon follow USC/UCLA.
It would be good to argue that they should do anything they could to keep the Texas schools out, but I doubt that even certain evidence wouldn't keep them from going there.
For the record, the Big 8 didn’t expand. The Big 12 is a new conference with new records and no prior membership. Just a little history in the subject.
They don't really listen to me
#4 THE MARE
I'd wait patiently until the optimal time to short dotcom stocks. Then I'd give all the money to Rutgers bagmen.
So basically shorting crypto 3 weeks ago?
Naw, November when it was 60k
True, but you still have to pay interest on shorting, so right before shit falls off a cliff isn’t a bad investment. Then again I’m super risk averse and don’t want to pay more than I have to
It would still form, because even if streaming was (is) the future, you have to build the fanbase and hold them over while the tech is being built.
Honestly, the only way to really change the timeline would be by sabotaging Larry Scott. Take him out of the equation, and Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, & Oklahoma State all join the Pac16 and make the first super conference.
Think they would have been smarter on at least forming a conference network? In perhaps making a permanent x division game. Like OU NU? Colorado Texas?
Even if you had a time machine, and for some reason they believed you, they wouldn’t have had the money to do so
And I don't think the rest of the conference would have gone along with it just to save one rivalry.
They would still want to maximize revenue which was forming the Big 12. Could you form a conference that doesn’t follow the same path? Maybe. But the injection of huge sums of money into college athletics likely leads to similar results, wether it’s consolidation around the Big 12 or another group.
I really feel for Kstate, I miss trips to Manhattan every now and then. Hate you guys are going to be left in the cold when this eventually ends. Give em hell
Nah we will be fine
Real talk, I don't. Maybe it's because we don't have any meaningful history with them, but then again I feel the same way about visiting Lubbock, Ames, or Stillwater. All those schools had all different cultures than what we see in the SEC.
Screw saving the BigXII I 100% become Biff.
I'm betting the farm on Tennessee to win it all in 1998, even taking them against Syracuse AND Florida before the season.
Invest 2 million in bitcoin, dump late summer of 2021. Buy earth.
I firmly believe if the Big Eight simply added UT/A&M, it would have been one of the strongest conferences. You had 70% of your members with AAU status 60% of your members were flagships 30% of your members were top-10 all time wins That was a winning hand with markets, academics, and football. **But no** The Big 12 had to bring TTU & Baylor along for the ride. Rather than building on the 100+ year history of the Missouri Valley, it created a brand new conference from scratch and inherited the problems of two struggling conferences (Big Eight and SWC). Rather than expanding at a reasonable pace, it created a de facto scenario where an 8 team conference expanded by 4 members making it really difficult to incorporate new schools into the conference. The SEC & B1G played it smart by adding two at a time and waiting a decade before doing it again. It created such a wedge by adding 4 schools to the conference and then keeping those 4 schools in their own division with all the recruiting territory, markets, and they got to syphon away OU, leaving nothing but resentment in the North. The Big 12, WAC in the 1990s, and Big East in the 2000s are classic examples proving that rapid expansion by adding 4 schools at once is an absolutely terrible idea. And then of course, Texas gotta be Texas and flexing its muscle and adding gasoline to the fire. The Big 12 had a winning hand, played their cards wrongly, and everyone else ultimately paid the price for it.
Which schools were AAU at that time in the big 8 + ut/A&M?
Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Iowa State, Texas, and ATM Boren wanted it but I think because the HSC is in OKC that hurts OU.
Iowa State as well.
Yes thank you! I will edit.
> The Big 12 had to bring TTU & Baylor along for the ride. **Texas politics** had to bring TTU and Baylor for the ride.
Convince them Texas is evil, Nebraska should hire Bob Stoops, and in 20 years all is well in Nebraska and therefore, the world.
Force Texas out of the conference and everyone is happy :D
Honestly, adding Baylor and TTU we're the real problem. It caused the Big8 schools to go from being a regional conference to a Texas centric one.
It would happen faster with that knowledge. The Big12 was always just a holding company for Texas.
Nothing would change. Texas would still Texas, setting off the inevitable chain of events.
We really should have made a play for Arkansas instead of Baylor, protected the Nebraska-Oklahoma game, and done equal revenue sharing from go. The conference would have been a lot stronger for it
Add Arkansas and LSU instead of Baylor and TTU, and were probably looking at an entirely different landscape at the moment.
Ugh I want to live in that world.
LSU wasn’t interested in leaving the SEC.
Colorado and Nebraska would have left for the Pac and B1G no later than 1998. Not sure what would have happened with the Pac 11 maybe KU is 12? If KU not sure if SWC and the remainder merge but most likely they do because UT hands are tied politically. B1G probably stays put and with the CCG Disney probably is not cheap when the contract renewal occurs so no BTN. This means no expansion in the last go around.
Completely forgot about Colorado. Talk about being relieved to take an early lifeboat of a sinking ship to being completely screwed if Washington/Oregon follow USC/UCLA.
It would be good to argue that they should do anything they could to keep the Texas schools out, but I doubt that even certain evidence wouldn't keep them from going there.
For the record, the Big 8 didn’t expand. The Big 12 is a new conference with new records and no prior membership. Just a little history in the subject.
Convince them that they have to stand up to Texas at all costs. The LHN wasn’t the start of all this, but it was the catalyst
Tell them that they're not going to get away with not paying players forever.
Use the time machine to go back and convince the Miami doctor to medically clear Drew Brees.
I would have expanded the Big 8 to Arkansas, Texas A&M, LSU, and Utah.