Non-Key Tweets | Page 622 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

Is the Big12 so insecure about their ability to attract sponsors that they need to grovel to FedEx? Can you imagine any other co french even taking this nonsense into account? It's embarrassing, really.
 
amory said:
Forget the FedEx money, if it's Pickens that wants Memphis we're screwed. Texas wants UH and BYU, they'll get them. OU wants Cincy, they'll get them. Boren probably would prefer UConn over Memphis but we haven't seen anything saying that he has us as a "must". He'll toss OK State that bone.

I don't like this at all.
Expand ...

No reason both Memphis and UConn can't make it, especially if they are going "east" and taking four schools. BYU would be the odd one out.
 
In what world can Memphis be in if UConn is available? If Memphis is in B12, UConn is in ACC or B1G.
 
pj said:
In what world can Memphis be in if UConn is available? If Memphis is in B12, UConn is in ACC or B1G.
Expand ...
I wish this was true, but we are approaching the bargaining stage. We better hope this league doesn't get decimated and we're still in it. Season ticket sales are bad now?
 
Pickens will be dead in 5 years. You csn't make long term decisions based on his preferences.
 
SAMCRO said:
I assumed CL meant she dyed her hair blonde and was asking if her natural brunette roots were beginning to show. Now-a-days it's all hardwood floors, and maybe there's a cute little entry way door mat that reads "WELCOME".
Expand ...
Nope, it was just a brain fart....:oops:
 
pepband99 said:
Two teams or four? Big 12 mum on plans, but theories, advantages, problems abound

Gives Houston and Memphis "football success" and us, not so. Not really all that informative.
Expand ...
We just have to remember it will be the presidents who make this call.

I think our biggest check mark is that if the conference EVER wants a conference network we are the best available add hands down. Not the fifth best program in Texas, or the 4th best in Tennessee.

All we need is for these guys to have a little foresight.
 
noeynox said:
We just have to remember it will be the presidents who make this call.

I think our biggest check mark is that if the conference EVER wants a conference network we are the best available add hands down. Not the fifth best program in Texas, or the 4th best in Tennessee.

All we need is for these guys to have a little foresight.
Expand ...

To paraphrase @frankthetank "You need to think like a university president *not* like an athletic director"
 
WestHartHusk said:
Maybe this has already been discussed, but both Diaco and Benedict have been talking about how we are looking at NY games going forward...got to think that this is a big part of our pitch.
Expand ...
Really? Hmmm, I missed the quotes.
 
Exit 4 said:
Really? Hmmm, I missed the quotes.
Expand ...
From the UConnBlog story here:

From Diaco: "I don't see any downside," Diaco said. "We know that UConn Nation will come."

From Benedict: "There's been work, and there's been some conversations," Benedict shared. "I think that that's something that certainly we've got to look at as an opportunity. I think the New York market certainly is important to us in a lot of different ways. We've got a lot of alums there and it's an opportunity to put ourselves on a national stage and potentially attract opponents to play us in that kind of environment that we might not be able to play otherwise...

"That's something that we definitely will be looking at as we move forward."
 
businesslawyer said:
Would it be possible for you to avoid patting yourself on the back at least until something actually happens? As opposed to a tweet or article being posted?
Expand ...

I have to explain posts to you now?

Memphis was not getting in. This was not some great insight by me or anyone else. But if you want to defend Memphis, go for it.
 
CallMeBruce said:
LOLwut. You think one donor from one of the weakest schools in the league is going to decide who gets in? The Chicken Little nonsense on here is off the charts.
Expand ...


I hope you're right, but it explains Brett McMurphy's slant as a purported neutral observer. He's an OSU grad and an ESPN functionary. That explains a lot. God ESPN is just loaded with phonies.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
I have to explain posts to you now?

Memphis was not getting in. This was not some great insight by me or anyone else. But if you want to defend Memphis, go for it.
Expand ...

I'm not saying Memphis is getting in. I never expected Memphis to get in.

But what does that article change? For all you know, that statement was leaked as part of the negotiating going on because OU wants to make sure they get something they want in return for letting Memphis in.
 
businesslawyer said:
I'm not saying Memphis is getting in. I never expected Memphis to get in.

But what does that article change? For all you know, that statement was leaked as part of the negotiating going on because OU wants to make sure they get something they want in return for letting Memphis in.
Expand ...

BL, I agree with the thrust of your post, but (if accurate) I think this statement is a bit too far as a negotiating tactic. You don't really want to diminish a potential member if you may take them. Had it been a statement like "OU is still evaluating Memphis as a potential partner relative to other candidates" I would agree, but this is 'we don't want to be a conference with them. Period. That is harsh and doesn't set the stage for a good relationship going forward, nor, if OU backs off, for other members to be intimidated by their posture in the future.
 
As we've seen in the past, Chip Brown is the mouthpiece of the Texas administration. Reading the tea leaves, it seems clear they've used their bargaining chip with Houston. My guess is OU and the others who weren't keen on another Texas school have or would agree to give in on UH with the right package. This quote makes it pretty clear that package does not include Memphis and OU is putting their foot down on that end. Other than the Texas reporters, there's been virtually no conclusive proof that Memphis was "gaining momentum" in any regard. It seems Boren is saying here (through Tramel) "You got your political pick with UH, we're not giving you a second one." That quote in the tweet is about as directly a negative comment about a realistic expansion candidate as we've seen in this process.

You don't make a statement to the press like "OU does not want to be in a conference with Memphis" when you're negotiating to get something else you want in return for allowing Memphis in. Much less after you've already given Texas one free pick, so to speak, that you weren't terribly enamored with.
 
WestHartHusk said:
BL, I agree with the thrust of your post, but (if accurate) I think this statement is a bit too far as a negotiating tactic. You don't really want to diminish a potential member if you may take them. Had it been a statement like "OU is still evaluating Memphis as a potential partner relative to other candidates" I would agree, but this is 'we don't want to be a conference with them. Period. That is harsh and doesn't set the stage for a good relationship going forward, nor, if OU backs off, for other members to be intimidated by their posture in the future.
Expand ...

And that's fair. My bigger point, however, remains that not every statement uttered is made because of the underlying truth of the statement (even if it's reported accurately). We don't know that Memphis is not going to be invited because of that statement. WE'll know when a decision is announced.
 

Online statistics

Members online
34
Guests online
2,527
Total visitors
2,561
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,231
Messages
4,388,264
Members
10,196
Latest member
ArtTheFan


.
..
Top Bottom