OU Prez Boren... | Page 3 | The Boneyard

OU Prez Boren...

Status
Not open for further replies.
upstater said:
You have me confused with someone else. I have no idea what you're responding to about who is irrelevant or what not.

Finally, the BC block didn't matter in 2013. BC did speak up to block UConn again. Remember, as the Louisville AD said, UConn was "penned in" as a new member. So they were wanted twice. BC again spoke up against them, and there were indeed words of anger at BC from Virginia and UNC's AD at the time. But it was also clear that Clemson, FSU and perhaps others didn't want UConn.

So, this is twice that the ACC had prepared to admit UConn, in 2011, and in 2013, and both times others came in and blocked it. BC in 2011, and FSU/Clemson w/ BC in 2013.
Expand ...

In retrospect, UConn's vote into the ACC in 2013 was dead before it began. The ACC had 11 voting members at the time of the vote and 3 non-voting members in Pitt, Syracuse, and ND. While it requires a 2/3 vote (7 yes votes in the ACC's case in 2013) to accept a new ember, no conference is going to embarrass itself with a close vote on expansion. Thus, the final vote will always be unanimous. Before the vote even took place, BC, Miami, Clemson, and FSU were already opposed to UConn's entry into the ACC for a range of reasons. While they could not vote, Syracuse came out against UConn (see Boeheim 's remarks) while Pitt would do whatever BC and Syracuse wanted because of a life debt they incurred by getting into the ACC in the prior Big E raid. Thus, with 1/3 fully against UConn plus at last 2 of the 3 new members against, the ACC sought the sexier, safer, short-term choice in Louisville that everyone could 'agree' to or at least not disagree with. Was UConn too self-assured that it would get into the ACC? Yes. Did Louisville do an excellent job of marketing itself into the ACC to replace Maryland? Yes. Did it really make a difference for UConn in the end? No.
 
Mr. Conehead said:
In retrospect, UConn's vote into the ACC in 2013 was dead before it began. The ACC had 11 voting members at the time of the vote and 3 non-voting members in Pitt, Syracuse, and ND. While it requires a 2/3 vote (7 yes votes in the ACC's case in 2013) to accept a new ember, no conference is going to embarrass itself with a close vote on expansion. Thus, the final vote will always be unanimous. Before the vote even took place, BC, Miami, Clemson, and FSU were already opposed to UConn's entry into the ACC for a range of reasons. While they could not vote, Syracuse came out against UConn (see Boeheim 's remarks) while Pitt would do whatever BC and Syracuse wanted because of a life debt they incurred by getting into the ACC in the prior Big E raid. Thus, with 1/3 fully against UConn plus at last 2 of the 3 new members against, the ACC sought the sexier, safer, short-term choice in Louisville that everyone could 'agree' to or at least not disagree with. Was UConn too self-assured that it would get into the ACC? Yes. Did Louisville do an excellent job of marketing itself into the ACC to replace Maryland? Yes. Did it really make a difference for UConn in the end? No.
Expand ...
Was UConn a non-starter for the Big 12? Yes. Did geography make it ridiculous for the Big 12 to even consider UConn? Yes. Was UConn a bad fit culturally? Yes. Were 6 other institutions all considered better more logical choices? Yes. Did UConn end up being one of the top mentioned choices by the time of the NCAA Conference Championship vote? Yes.

Never under estimate the value a strong lobbying/marketing effort.
 
CL82 said:
Was UConn a non-starter for the Big 12? Yes. Did geography make it ridiculous for the Big 12 to even consider UConn? Yes. Was UConn a bad fit culturally? Yes. Were 6 other institutions all considered better more logical choices? Yes. Did UConn end up being one of the top mentioned choices by the time of the NCAA Conference Championship vote? Yes.

Never under estimate the value a strong lobbying/marketing effort.
Expand ...
The more I've thought about it, UConn actually adds the most value to the Big 12 out of any of the P5 conferences. They're the conference that's most worried about TV sets since they don't have their own network, and they're already strong enough in football that they don't necessarily care as much as, say, the ACC if an expansion candidate brings a ton of football pedigree.

A few months ago UConn to the Big 12 seemed absurd, but not anymore.

My point is it's more than just the lobbying/marketing effort, as helpful as that's been.
 
amory said:
The more I've thought about it, UConn actually adds the most value to the Big 12 out of any of the P5 conferences. They're the conference that's most worried about TV sets since they don't have their own network, and they're already strong enough in football that they don't necessarily care as much as, say, the ACC if an expansion candidate brings a ton of football pedigree.

A few months ago UConn to the Big 12 seemed absurd, but not anymore.

My point is it's more than just the lobbying/marketing effort, as helpful as that's been.
Expand ...
I agree, but it was the lobbying/marketing is what made all that known generally.

It's not enough to have strengths, you have to let people know them. I don't think we did that as well with the last ACC opening but we used that effort successfully, overcoming many difficulties, with the Big 12. You need the metrics but you also need to self-promote, in an intelligent and effective way. I think that is a lesson that we've learned institutionally.
 
The Viking said:
Let's hope Mr. Boren didn't see the disgrace known as tonight's UConn basketball game while we were in his backyard.
Expand ...

So you think the CR landscape changes with every game? There is angst all over UConn country because there a lot of fans who care.
 
.-.
Trotter's take on OU's position:


Big 12 mailbag: Conference championship game, David Boren, expansion

4:33 PM ET

Jake TrotterESPN Staff Writer 



Email

print

comment

In this week's Big 12 Twitter mailbag, we discuss the pending conference championship game, Oklahoma president David Boren, possible expansion, potential sleepers next year and who would play Bram Kohlhausen, Gary Patterson and yours truly in a movie.

As this week proved, there's really no offseason in college football, is there?

On to the 'bag:

Follow



Charlie Schreck@charleschreck

‪@Jake_Trotter‪ Does the Big 12 want a c'ship to gain leverage in expansion or do they actually think it's a good idea after round robin?

11:04 AM - 15 Jan 2016

‪Retweets
‪likes

Trotter: How does a championship game give the Big 12 more leverage than it already has with those schools looking to make a move up? As the only Power 5 conference that has shown any interest in expanding via a Group of 5 member, the Big 12 already has all the leverage in that regard. Adding a championship game is really just about whether it gives the Big 12 a better path to the playoff. That's it.

Follow



Jim@681jim

‪@Jake_Trotter‪ is expansion dead in the water due to the new deregulation? #big12mailbag

10:57 AM - 15 Jan 2016

‪Retweets
‪1 1 like

Trotter: I think Boren is going to make sure that doesn't happen. Just hours after the deregulation vote carried, he issued a statement to the Oklahoma Daily student newspaper and to ESPN.com saying the Big 12 won't resolve, in his words, its "disadvantage" until it gets back to 12 members. Boren carries a powerful voice within the Big 12 leadership. And as long as he's pushing for expansion, it won't be dead in the water.

Follow

Steve@kusteveh

‪@Jake_Trotter‪ Intersting comments from Boren in Tulsa paper, particularly regarding GOR & supposed invite from B10, what are your thoughts?

11:01 AM - 15 Jan 2016

‪Retweets
‪likes

Trotter: Boren knows he has leverage. If the Big 12 ever dissolved, Oklahoma would have a Power 5 landing spot somewhere. The same can't definitively be said about everyone else in the Big 12. So Boren can push his agenda, knowing that the other Big 12 members will have to acquiesce or risk Oklahoma bolting, which, in effect, would be the end of the Big 12. With that in mind, Boren is also clearly trying to send a message to Texas. The Longhorns obviously could join any conference they wanted to. But they also wouldn't have it as good as they presently have it in the Big 12, financially. So Texas has something to lose, too, and Boren is attempting to exploit that by getting the Longhorns to come to the table on his agenda, which, as he has stated, includes expansion and the formation of a conference network on top of adding the championship game.

Follow


Perry Bacalis@perrybacalis

‪@Jake_Trotter‪ where does @CSUFootball stand in the Big 12 expansion race? Denver TV market, Ag school, $250M 41K seat stadium, bridge to BYU

11:01 AM - 15 Jan 2016

‪Retweets
‪likes

Trotter: If the Big 12 ever decided that BYU was the answer, Colorado State would make some sense. The Rams would expand the Big 12 footprint back into Colorado and give BYU a travel partner. The best bet for Colorado State would be the Big 12 coming around to BYU. Given the other options, the Rams would still probably be a long shot. But at least that would put them in play.

Follow



Adam Masters@SniperMasters

‪@Jake_Trotter‪ Which middle-line school do you think has the most potential this next year to contend for the Big 12 title? #big12mailbag

10:56 AM - 15 Jan 2016

‪Retweets
‪likes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,338
Messages
4,565,587
Members
10,467
Latest member
Eil Rule


Top Bottom