So that means... UH is stuck in the AAC? I'm strangely ok with that. Is there a chance we move on to greener pastures down the line?
It slows the expansion train, but nothing can derail it short of the Big 12 collapsing entirely. What this really does is set the stage for massive upheaval in the next 5-10 years as the B1G will be looking to poach disaffected Big 12 members, while the Big 12 will be trying to do the same to the ACC.
Pretty great news but there is no timeline yet on when the game will happen. Forcing the big 12 to separate into divisions was dumb considering the round robin schedule. You'll be guaranteed a good matchup every year if they just take the top two teams in the conference and have them play again but it's way better than the constant mismatch conference championships. It would be super weird to see OU and UT play twice in a year but that would of course require UT to crawl out of the gutter. I won't be holding my breath on that one. It will be strange to see teams play on the last week of the season and then again in the conference championship the week after. That would have happened with OU and Ok St this year. Ok St's Mike Gundy: The big 12 was never going to add UH no matter what. Per me, Major, SI and other notational opinion's. UT doesn't want UH and neither does TCU, Baylor and Texas Tech. Beyond some random comment that the OU president made years ago, I can't imagine the rest of the big 12 (former big 8) wants the conference to get even more Texas heavy. The ACC will invite UH sometime in the next 3 years. They saw how valuable the Texas market has been for the SEC in viewers and recruits. It is the only conference that makes sense.
Actually Boren's last comments about adding UH were back in June. Beyond that, it wasn't some "random comment". It was a specific and pointed statement to long-time Tulsa World writer David Stitler about his endorsement of UH and the need for the Big 12, and Oklahoma, to gain more exposure in the Houston market. And speaking of Boren, he ain't satisfied by this development. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/President_Boren">@President_Boren</a> says Big 12 would still be disadvantaged even with title game: <a href="https://t.co/egMvgxM5tt">https://t.co/egMvgxM5tt</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Sooners?src=hash">#Sooners</a> <a href="https://t.co/VmCa8A5uB7">pic.twitter.com/VmCa8A5uB7</a></p>— Brady Vardeman (@BradyVardeman) <a href="https://twitter.com/BradyVardeman/status/687426676800774144">January 14, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Again the b12 is shortsighted and ran by fear. So they are about to get wrecked by the ACC in the near future. I also suggested for UH to say f-you to the b12 and look to the ACC. ACC has a huge opportunity to stake a claim in SEC country by inviting UH and maybe Tulane. Right now ACC had no Texas presence so this is their chance.
B12 title game without divisions is dumb. It negates the whole purpose of a "one true champion" round robin. Within 1 or 2 years, something dumb like a 7-2 team beating a 9-0 team is going to happen that's going to make everyone say "why the hell did we think this was a good idea?".
As an example, this year, OU would have had to play OSU again, a week after going on the road and beating them by 25. Bedlam this year would have been a completely irrelevant game - whoever lost would get a mulligan, and whoever won would get no benefit.
Hell, you don't even need a hypothetical. If this system were in place this year, OU (11-1) would have had to play Oklahoma State (10-2) in Norman for the Big 12 title a week after beating them 58-23 in Stillwater.
I don't know about anybody else, but I think this is a terribly dumb ****ing idea. That's not new for the BigXII leadership, but still....
Interview with WVU AD http://wvmetronews.com/2016/01/13/lyons-talks-big-12-title-game-expansion-coliseum-beer-sales/ If a network is the end game, then UH is in. The Houston media market dwarfs the others up for grabs, and without UT a Big 12 network won't get off the ground in Houston. Unless you consider a meager carriage fee on a singular provider like Dish Network "off the ground", heh.
I would prefer the ACC. I think UH needs to stay clear of UT. Hated the way UH became irrelevant in the latter years of the SWC.
Oh hell yeah, I think it would be awesome for athletics, couple UH with another school that matters (BYU? Cincy?). But there's a ton of "wait and see" and a ton of "who? why?" attitude in Austin circles....
Oklahoma and Texas are pretty much tied to the hip and OK is just slightly less of a behemoth than UT is.
What makes you think this is what UT mostly wanted versus other schools? The previous regime was very vocal on realignment and didn't seem to have an issue with publicly throwing their weight around. But we have heard very little from the UT brass as of late as well as most of the Big 12 schools outside of Boren. Of course a lot of this might occur behind the scenes but seems that a lot of folks will still blame UT for any and all moves made by conference. With that said, unless the conference is divided into divisions, a conference championship game is dumb and worthless.
There's two reasons I can see why the B1G/SEC/PAC supported deregulation. Reason 1) The rules governing CCG were a little archaic and the original reasons for the regulations were no longer applicable. Repealing the rules might benefit them all in the future. Reason 2) The rest of the P5 don't want the Big 12 to expand. They like the Big 12 being at 10 teams, as it creates consternation within the conference and puts the Big 12 at a disadvantage in terms of competitiveness. Should the Big 12 fold, the rest of the P5 will benefit, and deregulation is one step closer to the Big 12's inevitable collapse. Give em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves. That's exactly what Delaney and Sankey did here.
