- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What did South Carolina bring to the table in 1992?
Posted on 9/20/11 at 11:55 am to H-Town Tiger
Posted on 9/20/11 at 11:55 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
dding Texas would give the Pac 12 a presence in the 2 largest states.
adding OU brings you dallas. this is not debatable.
1
Posted on 9/20/11 at 11:55 am to Chicken
i agree. UT needs a conference more than they need them. they need it for scheduling and to develop the LHN so that they might could be a sustainable independent like ND in the future. I don't think a major conference like the SEC, PAC or B10 are willing to take them at all costs. the ACC may be willing to cut them a special deal if they can get ND too. In fact, I think some, especially the SEC are willing to see them flounder because if they get everything they want, they could a major force to deal w/.... especially having to compete w/ the LHN for Texas recruits.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 12:12 pm to Chicken
quote:UT doesn't NEED a conference for football. They would do much better IMO than Notre Dame as an independent.
if OU and OSU bolt to the Pac-12, the Big 12 folds...therefore, I stand by my assessment that UT would need the Pac-12 more than the Pac-12 needs UT. key word is "needs"...
For other sports, especially basketball, obtaining a conference affiliation would be crucial. I still stand by my argument that no major conference is going to accept UT without them putting a all or large portion of the LHN revenue into the conference pool.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 12:20 pm to GeauxTigersLee
quote:
UT doesn't NEED a conference for football. They would do much better IMO than Notre Dame as an independent.
For other sports, especially basketball, obtaining a conference affiliation would be crucial. I still stand by my argument that no major conference is going to accept UT without them putting a all or large portion of the LHN revenue into the conference pool.
no doubt UT has over played their hand. they wanted the B12 to stay around for a few more years to allow them to develop the LHN before going independent. but i think they do need a conference today for football to develop a schedule that will draw ratings/ subscribers to the LHN. They could easily lose A&M and OU next year, and any of the other B12 schools that find a new conference home (OSU, TT, etc.). They'll need more than Rice, Houston and SMU. In the longrun, they could do it and probably better than ND. And I agree that none of the major 3 conference (SEC, PAC, B10) want them unless they give up the LHN. The ACC allow it if they can get ND too.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 12:25 pm to Chicken
quote:
My point is that there is no conference needing UT
What conference needs any team then? You're just arguing over semantics.
quote:
In this scenario, who, in the region, is going to accommodate the school that caused the break up of the Big 12?
Yeah, I'm sure CUSA or the MWC would turn down the chance to get UT in basketball and baseball because they imploded the Big 12
If you want to say Texas needs to be in a conference at least for smaller sports I agree, but they have options, for the Pac 12 adding them would be a big get, there is really no one else that the Pac 12 could add that's a big as Texas for them.
This post was edited on 9/20/11 at 12:29 pm
Posted on 9/20/11 at 12:27 pm to jcole4lsu
quote:
adding OU brings you dallas. this is not debatable.
Its very debatable, OU is at best the 3rd team in Dallas and its still out of state. Yes there are a lot of OU fans/alum in Dallas, just like there are a lot of LSU alum in Houston, but LSU does not give you Houston, and OU does not give you Dallas in the same way as adding Texas or A&M does.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 12:30 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:Besides the Big 12 NEEDING Texas, there is none...that is exactly my point!
What conference needs any team then?
quote:boy, I am sure that would be just lovely for UT's basketball and baseball programs...
Yeah, I'm sure CUSA or the MWC would turn down the chance to get UT in basketball and baseball
If the Big 12 folds, and Texas can't find a suitable home for the smaller sports, how can you argue that Texas wouldn't be the needy party?
This post was edited on 9/20/11 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 9/20/11 at 12:31 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Its very debatable, OU is at best the 3rd team in Dallas and its still out of state.
Plus, if OU is not longer in the same league as Texas and does not continue the Red River game, doesn't OU quickly lose a big chunk of it's attraction in DFW?
Posted on 9/20/11 at 12:32 pm to GeauxTigersLee
quote:
UT doesn't NEED a conference for football. They would do much better IMO than Notre Dame as an independent
define better than ND?
Going Indy is a last ditch option for UT. They'd rather be in a conference, its easier scheduling and gives them 2 ways to make a BCS bowl and any of the major conferences would take them, maybe not unconditionally, but they would take them.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 12:33 pm to Jwho77
quote:I am sure OU would find a way to play a game in Dallas when they wanted to...
Plus, if OU is not longer in the same league as Texas and does not continue the Red River game, doesn't OU quickly lose a big chunk of it's attraction in DFW?
Posted on 9/20/11 at 12:34 pm to H-Town Tiger
apples and oranges. OU has a much much much larger presence in dallas than LSU does in houston
the DMN provides more coverage of OU then aTm, so id say they are really 2nd in the city.
plus, you do not have to dominate a city to "bring" it. you simply need enough market share to make the conference "native" to that city. with the amount of media coverage ou gets in dallas, its clear they would certainly deliver the dallas market to the new PAC whatever
the DMN provides more coverage of OU then aTm, so id say they are really 2nd in the city.
plus, you do not have to dominate a city to "bring" it. you simply need enough market share to make the conference "native" to that city. with the amount of media coverage ou gets in dallas, its clear they would certainly deliver the dallas market to the new PAC whatever
Posted on 9/20/11 at 12:42 pm to jcole4lsu
quote:
the DMN provides more coverage of OU then aTm, so id say they are really 2nd in the city.
only because OU has been a elite power of late and A&M sucked. Plus how much of that is because of the RRR? I bet it was different in the 90's. There are more A&M alum in DFW than OU.
quote:
you do not have to dominate a city to "bring" it. you simply need enough market share to make the conference "native" to that city. with the amount of media coverage ou gets in dallas, its clear they would certainly deliver the dallas market to the new PAC whatever
No one team dominates any major city, but its not the same as adding UT, OU is still not in Texas. UT gets the whole state, which btw is what I said. You guys are treating it like a zero sum game. OU is a good add for the PAC 12, but it doesn't help their TV footprint nearly as much as Texas. Adding the flagship of the 2nd largest state > adding a team that "gets coverage" in Dallas. A&M would get you more in Texas than OU, sorry.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 12:43 pm to Chicken
quote:
I am sure OU would find a way to play a game in Dallas when they wanted to...
Agreed...but it won't be so notable when it isn't UT or TAMU. Will playing TCU really stir up that market?
Posted on 9/20/11 at 12:46 pm to Chicken
quote:
If the Big 12 folds, and Texas can't find a suitable home for the smaller sports, how can you argue that Texas wouldn't be the needy party?
Bang! Would the LHN idea spawned in the first place if Texas wasn't so good in every sports, men's and women's? No way, because quality baseball, basketball (men's and women's) and softball alone will fill a ton of airtime.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 12:47 pm to H-Town Tiger
i said OU gives the PAC a presence in texas, which is true. it gives you a very large presence, you dont NEED UT or aTm do that.
and it doesnt matter WHY OU is big in dallas, it just matters that they are large in that market. OU wont suddenly become diminished there just because they arent in the bevo 9
and it doesnt matter WHY OU is big in dallas, it just matters that they are large in that market. OU wont suddenly become diminished there just because they arent in the bevo 9
Posted on 9/20/11 at 12:50 pm to TheFolker
quote:
As is the case with Kansas.
It would just be a different situation entirely. I would say even as of now Kentucky would bring everything Mizzou does (basketball school that has had some success in football with a large stadium that sells out). Had we been in the ACC or Big East we would have several conference titles and BCS games, as well as be in the top 10-15 in attendance as opposed to the top 25. Our stadium would probably be 80k+ as opposed to 68k.
Posted on 9/20/11 at 1:26 pm to Chicken
quote:
If the Big 12 folds, and Texas can't find a suitable home for the smaller sports, how can you argue that Texas wouldn't be the needy party
Because I'm saying the will find a suitable home, pretty big assumption on your part to say they will not. What it the world would make you think no one would take Texas?
Posted on 9/20/11 at 1:33 pm to jcole4lsu
quote:
i said OU gives the PAC a presence in texas
LSU gives you a presense in Texas and so does Arkansas. Hell so does Ohio State. I bet there are more TTU alum in texas than there are OU alum and while TTU does not have the on field success OU does, its not a commuter school like NTU or UH.
quote:
it gives you a very large presence
Define large? Its no better than 4th state wide.
quote:
you dont NEED UT or aTm do that.
so your contnetion is that the SEC is stupid, they don't need to add A&M, since they already have LSU and Arkansas?
OU gives you a decent presence in DFW, UT and A&M give you the whole state. I'm not saying OU isn't desirable, but you guys are kidding yourself if you think adding just OU is giving the PAC 12 a Texas market same as adding UT.
Putting the LHN aside for a moment, if the goal was to add the Texas TV market, who you pick out of UT, A&M and OU?
This post was edited on 9/20/11 at 1:35 pm
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News