Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="ninety-nine, post: 1769686, member: 5497"]
The only reason non-Texas schools would presumably vote to add Houston is to get something that they want from Texas and its voting bloc. Cincinnati is an obvious choice if expansion is already on the table, but standing alone, they aren't a big enough carrot to justify ceding more voting power in the Big 12 to the Texas bloc, unless UT is willing to sign a GOR or make some other deal favorable to the Big 12's long-term security. But then why would Oklahoma sign? They matter in football-world too. Unless they're getting assurances from the TV networks that a two-team expansion would be acceptable, and guarantee favorable treatment at contract-renewal time. In which case, Cincinnati might not be the choice at all - it would have to be a long-haul investment, which means re-considering UCF, BYU (despite the issues) and UConn.

Meh. I'm starting to buy into the "smoke screen/no expansion" theory. Why interview 17 schools via video conference, unless you're trying to drive home some kind of a point to certain observers?
[/QUOTE]

Verification

First name of men's bb coach