re: Baylor won't move until OU decides

quote:

---

Baylor is simply looking out for themselves as it's clear no one else will.

---

you know, they could have used all that money that they fricked their fellow SWC compatriots out of and built a real football program, and now they wouldn't be so worried about being thrown off the gravy train.

but hey, nobody's looking out for them. Poor Baylor.

quote:

---

If OU (& by default OK Lite) decide to leave is Baylor going to sue A&M, OU, & Ok State?

---

Baylor has Ken Starr...they think that they can sue everyone I guess. What a bunch of pansy crybabies. Threatening a lawsuit because their conference is falling apart and their pipe dream is coming to an end.

The writing is on the wall this is their last ditch effort to stop the inevitable. No matter what happens right now Baylor may end up with some extra money, but there is no way this conference will ever last. Ut thought they could get away by doing there own thing and because of it other schools like ATM and ou are now trying to take care of themselves. No matter the cost they will do it for the long run.

quote:

---

Baylor doesn't care about TAMU going to the SEC, they only care about the breakup of the BIGXII because the know that if that happens, they're out of a BCS conference as none of the big boys will want to take them. If Oklahoma stays and it looks like the BIGXII will survive for at least a couple of years, then I think Baylor will sign

---

If OU leaves, the Big XII is sunk, and Baylor becomes a non-entity, struggling to find a small conference to join. I don't think the biggies cared about their win over TCU...all Baylor has to offer is women's basketball/softball...

quote:

---

Baylor may have had 8 winnings seasons in the last decade of the SWC, but TCU and SMU had a combined 20 conference championships and 3 national titles, compared to Baylor's 5 conference titles in 81 years and no national championships.

---

Well, that's misleading. SMU's last conference title was in 1984, and post death penalty, SMU was awful. Aside from winning 5 games in 1992, SMU had not won more than 2 games since 1986 (pre-death penalty). Arguing that SMU was in anyway a viable program is just a lie.

The national titles were in 1935 and 1938 (SMU and TCU split in 1935). Arguing you should take a team for their national title over 50 years ago would result in you think Minnesota was a power program. Or Yale.

TCU had not won a conference title since 1959. FIFTY NINE. They had gone 35 years without a conference title. So yeah, if the Big 8 had expanded in 1950, then TCU had a great case. Unfortunately, the next 40 years happened.

Since that 1959 SWC title, TCU had SIX winning seasons. Six. Which barely topped their number o seasons with one win or less at five. Baylor had more winning seasons in ten years than TCU had managed in 36.

Oh, and did I mention TCU was on probation?

quote:

---

There was a mad dash to fill the 4th spot, and Baylor's "winning seasons" in the most recent decade had nothing to do with why they got in.

---

False.

Rice could've added all the political pressure they wanted, and they still wouldn't have gotten in. Having some success on the football field was absolutely relevant.

Secondly your timeline is wrong. Baylor's political push was not to add Baylor as the fourth team, it was to add two Texas teams in addition to A&M and Texas. Baylor's politicians worked in conjunction with Tech, mainly because Baylor had even more pull than Tech, and they pooled their resources. Tech and Baylor were a package deal.

I don't deny Baylor used political pressure, but Baylor was clearly a better program than the other options, and the political pressure was not to add Baylor as the 12th team, but to add 12 teams at all. If Baylor didn't use its political influence, Texas Tech doesn't get in the Big 8 either.

LINK

quote:

---

I actually was told very similar thing by the assistant AD at aTm today. Said it was OU move and should be known in very near future.

---

No matter what OU does, regardless of what Chip Brown says, Baylor is never signing that waiver.

quote:

---

No matter what OU does, regardless of what Chip Brown says, Baylor is never signing that waiver.

---

IF...2-4 more teams leave and the Big 9 officially dissolves, most of Baylor's argument of "damages" might just go away, even if they never sign that waiver.

Of course if the "crazy woman" is really that far gone, she could try to sue everyone for the collapse of the conference, or maybe blame Aggie for having caused it all.

quote:

---

Well, that's misleading. SMU's last conference title was in 1984, and post death penalty, SMU was awful. Aside from winning 5 games in 1992, SMU had not won more than 2 games since 1986 (pre-death penalty). Arguing that SMU was in anyway a viable program is just a lie. The national titles were in 1935 and 1938 (SMU and TCU split in 1935). Arguing you should take a team for their national title over 50 years ago would result in you think Minnesota was a power program. Or Yale. TCU had not won a conference title since 1959. FIFTY NINE. They had gone 35 years without a conference title. So yeah, if the Big 8 had expanded in 1950, then TCU had a great case. Unfortunately, the next 40 years happened. Since that 1959 SWC title, TCU had SIX winning seasons. Six. Which barely topped their number o seasons with one win or less at five. Baylor had more winning seasons in ten years than TCU had managed in 36. Oh, and did I mention TCU was on probation? False. Rice could've added all the political pressure they wanted, and they still wouldn't have gotten in. Having some success on the football field was absolutely relevant. Secondly your timeline is wrong. Baylor's political push was not to add Baylor as the fourth team, it was to add two Texas teams in addition to A&M and Texas. Baylor's politicians worked in conjunction with Tech, mainly because Baylor had even more pull than Tech, and they pooled their resources. Tech and Baylor were a package deal. I don't deny Baylor used political pressure, but Baylor was clearly a better program than the other options, and the political pressure was not to add Baylor as the 12th team, but to add 12 teams at all. If Baylor didn't use its political influence, Texas Tech doesn't get in the Big 8 either.

---

I don't feel like taking the time and effort to debate you about this from an iPhone, so I'm just going to say this:

There are two possibilities regarding your assertion that the Big 12 invited Baylor (in Waco) over TCU or SMU (in Dallas/Fort Worth) based on Baylor's more recent success. 1) You are correct and the power brokers in the Big 8/Big 12 were morons for inviting what turned out to be a doormat in a shitty market (if you're going to have a doormat, at least have one in a recruiting hotbed). 2) You are the idiot for thinking this had anything to do with merit, much less transient success over a short and recent period. Recent success (especially very moderate levels of it) is very far down the totem pole as far as ranking the desirability of conference additions, which is why the SEC is not considering the fact that neither A&M nor Mizzou has won a damn thing in a few generations.

35 years is a "transient period"? Really?

And markets don't matter. Or else no one would want Alabama. Or Texas A&M.

TCU was friggin' TERRIBLE in the early 1990s. They were as bad as Baylor is now. They got left out not from any grand conspiracy, because they sucked for a very long time and then got caught cheating while sucking. TCU has never, ever delivered the Dallas market, and as long as we're throwing epithets, you're a moron for thinking they do.

I've never denied there was political pressure, in fact, I've flat out admitted it. So perhaps the moron is the one who can't read. But political pressure could be exerted DUE TO BAYLOR'S RELATIVE QUALITY. This is not hard to get your head around. Why couldn't Rice get in the Big 12 then? They are in Houston.