Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="huskymedic, post: 1823198, member: 549"] Guess who's speaking for who? [URL='http://newsok.com/tramel-ou-not-anti-expansion-ou-is-anti-expansion-candidates/article/5520007?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter']Tramel: OU not anti-expansion; OU is anti-expansion candidates[/URL] -- Also posted in Commentary thread. >>“From Day One, expanding was OK if we replaced the teams we lost with teams of equal stature,” said an OU administrator Tuesday. “They are not out there.” Brigham Young. Houston. Cincinnati. Connecticut. All have pluses and minuses. We can debate which candidates offer the best portfolios. We cannot debate that all have minuses. Nebraska didn't have minuses. Texas A&M didn't have minuses. Colorado and Missouri didn't have minuses. All flagship universities in their states. All deep roots with fellow conference schools. All a decent (or better) amount of football tradition. All academically stout (all four members of the prestigious Association of American Universities). “The teams we need have left,” another Big 12 administrator said Tuesday. “Whoever you add out there really devalues the whole conference. They don't add anything. Just to get 12? What's sacred about a number? Does that make you stable?”<< [/QUOTE]