View Full Version : Texas has NOT talked to Big Ten
MajorMike
02-24-2010, 06:05 PM
so says the AD
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- The University of Texas likes its position in the Big 12 Conference and has not talked with the Big Ten about its expansion plans, athletic director DeLoss Dodds said Wednesday.
Dodds spoke with The Associated Press on Wednesday after recent speculation that the Longhorns program could be courted by the Big Ten, which is considering expanding.
Dodds said Texas would be a natural target for any league because of the school's strong academics, athletics and the power to draw a large television audience. But Texas and the Big 12 are good for each other, Dodds said, adding "It's working. I like it."
The Big Ten announced in December it would explore options for expansion to add a 12th school. The Big Ten also looked at expansion in 1993, 1998 and 2003. Penn State was the last team to join in 1990, and Notre Dame rejected an offer in 1999.
Earlier this month, speculation on possible targets focused on Texas, which has one of the wealthiest athletic programs in the country and is a major research university with a huge alumni base surrounded by some of the larger television markets in the nation.
"We're always going to be looked at. I don't think that's a bad thing. That's a good thing," Dodds said.
He said there have been no talks between the Texas and the Big Ten. He said the Big 12 has been a good fit for the Longhorns since the conference started in 1996 with the members of the old Big Eight and four members of the old Southwest Conference.
"I think it's been a great conference for us and we've been good for the conference. Before the (Big 12), we were struggling with recruiting and struggling with all kinds of things. The Big 12 has brought us stability, kept Texas kids in Texas," he said.
"All the sports have been good to us. We've built up some good rivalries. It's been good for us," Dodds said.
Even if another school were to leave the Big 12, Dodds said he believes the remaining members would try to keep the conference intact by finding a replacement instead of seeing a domino effect of schools bolting for other leagues.
"I don't know who that would be," Dodds said.
If the league has a problem, it's that the Big 12 is not as old as the Big Ten or the Southeastern Conference, Dodds said.
"People around the country kind of pick on us because we don't have 'tradition.' I don't think we need that. I think we're pretty darn good. You don't have to be 100 years old to be good," Dodds said.
The Big 12 does not have the lucrative TV deals the Big Ten and SEC do, but its day will come, Dodds said. The league's contracts with ABC/ESPN and Fox Sports Net will be up for renewal in 2015.
"That's the year we've got the leverage," Dodds said. "It will be the Big 12's turn."
Copyright 2010 Associated Press.
Pretty much the same thing the Big 10 commish said about a week ago.
Big Ten: Trying to hook 'Horn?' (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2010/02/16/big_ten_2-16.ART_ART_02-16-10_C1_HDGJS7P.html?sid=101)
The Big Ten conference meeting is not until May, I wouldn't expect to hear anything significant until after they meet and discuss the expansion issue. I'm sure Texas would come up, how much consideration they give Texas is a whole other issue.
Blake
02-24-2010, 08:54 PM
finally something straight from the horse's mouth.
lebomb
02-24-2010, 09:40 PM
finally something straight from the horse's mouth.
Horses have been known to lie............. :wakeup
Blake
02-24-2010, 10:33 PM
Horses have been known to lie............. :wakeup
are you calling him a liar?
lebomb
02-25-2010, 07:44 AM
are you calling him a liar?
Naaaaaw................ just sayin. People say what they want you to hear sometimes. I have no idea if he is lying or not.
K-State Spur
02-25-2010, 09:14 AM
Horses have been known to lie............. :wakeup
Except, in this case, it makes sense that Texas really wouldn't want to make the jump.
Unless other Big 12 teams start defecting (i.e. Colorado & Mizzou represent the first POSSIBLE - not probable - dominoes), Texas has a BCS conference that it has complete control over (politically, not athletically - although the latter has been true at times).
Why give that kind of power away to join a conference where your vote only counts for 8%?
Blake
02-25-2010, 12:36 PM
Naaaaaw................ just sayin. People say what they want you to hear sometimes. I have no idea if he is lying or not.
why do you think he might be lying?
lebomb
02-25-2010, 01:23 PM
why do you think he might be lying?
Well because where there is smoke there is fire. Ive heard from several sports sources, including ESPN on the radio that the Big 10 had contacted UT. Also it has been known for people to LIE. Coaches that say they arent leaving a school and BAM! The next day they are gone. Players that say Im not leaving this team, then BAM! The next day they are gone to another team. Athletes that say they have never done steroids............... well, ya get the picture. Anyhow Im not saying he DID lie, Im just saying there could be a possibility. :hat
Whisky Dog
02-25-2010, 01:51 PM
I like it the way it is
Well because where there is smoke there is fire. Ive heard from several sports sources, including ESPN on the radio that the Big 10 had contacted UT. Also it has been known for people to LIE. Coaches that say they arent leaving a school and BAM! The next day they are gone. Players that say Im not leaving this team, then BAM! The next day they are gone to another team. Athletes that say they have never done steroids............... well, ya get the picture. Anyhow Im not saying he DID lie, Im just saying there could be a possibility. :hat
Didn't Nick Saban once say he was never going to Alabama to coach?
lebomb
02-25-2010, 01:55 PM
Didn't Nick Saban once say he was never going to Alabama to coach?
Yep and Brett Favre said he was going to retire. Lots of times!!! :rollin
K-State Spur
02-25-2010, 04:04 PM
Well because where there is smoke there is fire.
And sometimes there is just smoke.
lebomb
02-25-2010, 04:05 PM
And sometimes there is just smoke.
.................And you can have a fire without smoke :toast
Blake
02-25-2010, 04:26 PM
Anyhow Im not saying he DID lie, Im just saying there could be a possibility. :hat
So you apparently know nothing about DeLoss's character, but because everyone lies at some point or another, you think there's a possibility he is lying here?
This rumor got out probably because of someone thinking like you do.
lebomb
02-25-2010, 04:32 PM
So you apparently know nothing about DeLoss's character, but because everyone lies at some point or another, you think there's a possibility he is lying here?
This rumor got out probably because of someone thinking like you do.
Wow........touched a nerve did I? :lmao
Blake
02-25-2010, 05:23 PM
Wow........touched a nerve did I? :lmao
in what way do you figure you touched a nerve? Do you think I'm a Deloss dodds fan?
I'm curious why you would infer that someone might be lying when you have no reason to think so other than "everyone lies and where there's smoke there's fire.
lebomb
02-25-2010, 07:09 PM
in what way do you figure you touched a nerve? Do you think I'm a Deloss dodds fan?
I'm curious why you would infer that someone might be lying when you have no reason to think so other than "everyone lies and where there's smoke there's fire.
Actually that is EXACTLY what I think........see how it plays out before you take anyones word for it. Thats what Im sayin.........
Look at Utsa..........Lynn said we are SLC bound...........2 months later we are going straight to the big time. And dont say UTs AD is different, we are all human, and the damn same. Late. :rolleyes
johngateswhiteley
02-27-2010, 04:33 AM
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/19928/pac-10-ad-big-ten-contacted-texas-am
K-State Spur
02-27-2010, 09:44 AM
Woodward also talked about expansion and said the Pac-10 and the Big Ten have reached out to officials at Texas and Texas A&M. "I'd be surprised if our office is not in contact with them," he said. "I'm sure those conversations have happened and are taking place."
That sounds a hell of a lot more like speculation that the definitive statement that the blog title would lead one to believe. Of course, ESPN would NEVER keep a story going even when the evidence no longer supports their predisposition....
And the Pac 10 could not get in a bidding war because it doesn't offer anything that Texas doesn't already have (except much higher travel costs).
Blake
03-02-2010, 09:27 AM
Actually that is EXACTLY what I think........see how it plays out before you take anyones word for it. Thats what Im sayin.........
exactly. so why are you implying he might be lying?
Look at Utsa..........Lynn said we are SLC bound...........2 months later we are going straight to the big time. And dont say UTs AD is different, we are all human, and the damn same. Late. :rolleyes
so because Lynn is a liar, your default reasoning is that all ADs are liars.
good logic. :tu
Blake
03-02-2010, 09:37 AM
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/19928/pac-10-ad-big-ten-contacted-texas-am
that "interesting tidbit" from the Washington AD was actually pretty uninteresting.
it sounds like a lot of people are really trying to dig for something that's just not there.
lebomb
03-02-2010, 11:19 AM
exactly. so why are you implying he might be lying?
so because Lynn is a liar, your default reasoning is that all ADs are liars.
good logic. :tu
So based on that, you are saying there is NO WAY the UT athletic director lies?? :lmao
Nice logic there as well my man. :rolleyes
Blake
03-02-2010, 02:56 PM
So based on that, you are saying there is NO WAY the UT athletic director lies?? :lmao
Nice logic there as well my man. :rolleyes
Never said that. I have no reason not to believe him in this case.
You however, specifically said "horses have been known to lie" and I questioned why you think he might be lying.
Your reasoning so far has been that ADs like UTSA's Lynn lie and people in general lie.
When I say good logic, I really mean bad. :tu
lebomb
03-02-2010, 03:27 PM
There isnt any valid way to prove he is lying or not............... I guess if they stay in the Big 12 or leave........... it will not matter right?
mookie2001
03-02-2010, 03:42 PM
Did anyone actually think Texas was going to big 10? Honestly
no fucking way even the people that report this crap had to have known it's not happening
Ever.
lebomb
03-02-2010, 04:21 PM
Did anyone actually think Texas was going to big 10? Honestly
no fucking way even the people that report this crap had to have known it's not happening
Ever.
Now, I agree with this 100%, but I find it hard to believe the Big 10 had NO contact with Texas. :rolleyes
Blake
03-02-2010, 04:33 PM
There isnt any valid way to prove he is lying or not...............
exactly my point.
Blake
03-02-2010, 04:35 PM
Now, I agree with this 100%, but I find it hard to believe the Big 10 had NO contact with Texas. :rolleyes
:lol then you say this....
why do you find it hard to believe? because Lynn lied to you?
lebomb
03-02-2010, 04:35 PM
exactly my point.
That is what I was saying as well............
Blake
03-02-2010, 04:43 PM
That is what I was saying as well............
great. Then why do you think Deloss might be lying again?
Did anyone actually think Texas was going to big 10? Honestly
Then why did Texas ask to join the Big 10 in the early 90s?
At one time Texas was interested in the Big 10.
Blake
03-02-2010, 09:16 PM
Then why did Texas ask to join the Big 10 in the early 90s?
At one time Texas was interested in the Big 10.
because the Big XII wasn't around yet.
do you really think that Texas has a good enough reason to leave the Big XII, especially right after they just finished playing in the title game?
MajorMike
03-02-2010, 09:55 PM
Then why did Texas ask to join the Big 10 in the early 90s?
At one time Texas was interested in the Big 10.
You are 50% right 50% wrong.
Texas harbored interest; Texas never ASKED to join.
because the Big XII wasn't around yet.
True, But they asked three years before the Big 12 was even formed. Bottom line is they asked for membership at one time. Facts are facts.
I was just responding to the post stating that it would never happen ever, when in the 90s it wasn't a remote idea as the poster I responded to made it out to be.
do you really think that Texas has a good enough reason to leave the Big XII, especially right after they just finished playing in the title game?
Money talks and the Big 10 Network brings in a ton of money for each team, much more than the Big 12 can generate for Texas. The Big Ten recently obtained a study (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0302-big-ten-foot--20100301,0,2940944.column) prepared by the Chicago-based investment firm William Blair & Company, analyzed whether five different schools would add enough revenue to justify expanding the league beyond 11 teams. "The point was: We can all get richer if we bring in the right team or teams," the source said.
I think the Big 10 could make a pretty nice pitch to Texas if they wanted to bring Texas in, who knows if that is the case though, although there was a story (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/feb/11/big-ten-making-overtures-texas/?sports) that the Big Ten has engaged in “preliminary exchanges” with Texas.
I think that Texas would be turning down a boat load of money if they turned down an offer from the Big Ten.
I don't the Big 10 will offer membership to Texas. Can you honestly say to yourself that Texas is completely happy being in the Big 12.
Blake
03-02-2010, 10:05 PM
Texas was desperate to get out of the flailing southwest conference.
They were harboring interest in a lot of difference conferences including the Pac 10 and Big 8.
Blake
03-02-2010, 10:15 PM
True, But they asked three years before the Big 12 was even formed. Bottom line is they asked for membership at one time. Facts are facts.
Exactly. They talked about it before the Big XII was formed.
Money talks and the Big 10 Network brings in a ton of money for each team, much more than the Big 12 can generate for Texas. The Big Ten recently obtained a study (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0302-big-ten-foot--20100301,0,2940944.column) prepared by the Chicago-based investment firm William Blair & Company, analyzed whether five different schools would add enough revenue to justify expanding the league beyond 11 teams. "The point was: We can all get richer if we bring in the right team or teams," the source said.
I think the Big 10 could make a pretty nice pitch to Texas if they wanted to bring Texas in, who knows if that is the case though, although there was a story (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/feb/11/big-ten-making-overtures-texas/?sports) that the Big Ten has engaged in “preliminary exchanges” with Texas.
I think that Texas would be turning down a boat load of money if they turned down an offer from the Big Ten.
I don't the Big 10 will offer membership to Texas. Can you honestly say to yourself that Texas is completely happy being in the Big 12.
Are they unhappy enough to make a jump to a different conference? Honestly, no way.
How much extra money do you think they would be missing out on by turning down the Big 10?
You are 50% right 50% wrong.
Texas harbored interest; Texas never ASKED to join.
You are correct. my bad.
Exactly. They talked about it before the Big XII was formed.
Like I said I was just responding to a poster who said it was never going to happen ever. I was just pointing out that it was a possibility back in the early 90s.
Are they unhappy enough to make a jump to a different conference? Honestly, no way.
Fair enough.
How much extra money do you think they would be missing out on by turning down the Big 10?
Well right now Texas took in 12 million in TV revenue in an unequal Big 12 (meaning Texas took in the most) while each Big 10 team took in 22 million in TV revenue. So right there it is 10 million a year, plus the billions of research money the CIC offers. But strictly in terms of TV revenue I'm sure if Texas was in the Big Ten they would add more households to the network and increase the share of revenue per school. How much I have no clue, I guess it would depend on how many households the Big Ten could get into on their cable package in the state of Texas. But adding the Dallas-Forth Worth, Houston, and San Antonio markets would not hurt revenues if Texas were added. All that is assuming Texas is asked and accepted to join the Big 10.
mookie2001
03-02-2010, 10:37 PM
This thread is strange
its 2011 not the early 90s, Texas is in the big12, not the swc
They're not joining the big10 and nobody could possibly think they are
These are the kind of things non sports fans talk about
they could join the candyland conference too
lebomb
03-03-2010, 07:00 AM
great. Then why do you think Deloss might be lying again?
So you dont think Dodds talked to the Big 10 at all period? Is that what you are saying? You think he is straight up? Just answer yes or no please. *waiting*
K-State Spur
03-03-2010, 10:03 AM
So you dont think Dodds talked to the Big 10 at all period? Is that what you are saying? You think he is straight up? Just answer yes or no please. *waiting*
I would guess that he did some research through back channels, but I would not be surprised if there was no formal conversation that took place.
At the end of the day, Texas has exactly what they want - a BCS league that they essentially have total control over. They might make an extra $12 million in TV from the Big 10 (which is a drop in their budget's bucket), but they would also likely gladly pay that to get the political control over a league that they have now.
In the Big 12, if Texas says jump, Beebe asks them if they would like him to bend over while he's doing it. In the Big 10, Texas would have the same clout as Northwestern.
Blake
03-03-2010, 11:26 AM
So you dont think Dodds talked to the Big 10 at all period? Is that what you are saying? You think he is straight up? Just answer yes or no please. *waiting*
If Dodds said he didn't, then I don't see any reason to think otherwise.
Why do you think he is a liar again?
lebomb
03-03-2010, 11:28 AM
If Dodds said he didn't, then I don't see any reason to think otherwise.
Why do you think he is a liar again?
Didnt say he was a liar............I said its possible he is.
Blake
03-03-2010, 11:30 AM
Didnt say he was a liar............I said its possible he is.
why do you think it's possible again?
lebomb
03-03-2010, 11:39 AM
why do you think it's possible again?
............the same reason its possible you are liar. The same reason its possible anyone is a liar. Because there is a chance anyone will lie. So until all the dust settles........the jury is out. :toast
Blake
03-03-2010, 11:42 AM
............the same reason its possible you are liar. The same reason its possible anyone is a liar. Because there is a chance anyone will lie. So until all the dust settles........the jury is out. :toast
I figured Dodds coming out and saying that he never spoke to the Big 10 settled the dust.
What kind of dust is still unsettled for you that your jury still can't come to a decision?
lebomb
03-03-2010, 12:40 PM
I figured Dodds coming out and saying that he never spoke to the Big 10 settled the dust.
What kind of dust is still unsettled for you that your jury still can't come to a decision?
You are correct. Dodds said no contact, then no contact.
I figured Dodds coming out and saying that he never spoke to the Big 10 settled the dust.
So when A-Rod said he was never on roids you considered the dust to have been settled, because at that point the majority of the media who covered baseball had no reason to believe he was ever on roids, then it came out that he had a positive test.
I wouldn't say Dodds is a liar because like you say he has really no reason to lie, but neither me, you, lebomb are in position to judge his character because we don't know the guy. People say one thing and do another all the time. Is it possible that he told the truth, absolutely. Is it possible that his statement is not entirely accurate, that is possible too.
lebomb
03-03-2010, 01:52 PM
Is it possible that he told the truth, absolutely. Is it possible that his statement is not entirely accurate, that is possible too.
Bingo!!! :hat
Blake
03-03-2010, 02:35 PM
So when A-Rod said he was never on roids you considered the dust to have been settled, because at that point the majority of the media who covered baseball had no reason to believe he was ever on roids, then it came out that he had a positive test.
I wouldn't say Dodds is a liar because like you say he has really no reason to lie, but neither me, you, lebomb are in position to judge his character because we don't know the guy. People say one thing and do another all the time. Is it possible that he told the truth, absolutely. Is it possible that his statement is not entirely accurate, that is possible too.
Even though the analogy with ARod is strange, I don't disagree.
I find lebomb's skepticism in this case fascinating. It must suck to live in a world where you have a hard time believing people, even when there is no apparent motive for them to lie to you.
Even though the analogy with ARod is strange.
I'm just curious why you think it is strange.
It must suck to live in a world where you have a hard time believing people, even when there is no apparent motive for them to lie to you.
Well in my profession I find that about 75 % of the people I deal with in the field do not always state the truth, although they do have a financial motive to lie to me in many instances.
Did anyone see the email from Ohio State president Gordon Gee where he e-mailed Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany in April and confirmed that he had spoken with University of Texas president William Powers.
"I did speak with Bill Powers at Texas, who would welcome a call to say they have a 'Tech' problem," Gee wrote in an e-mail that was among several obtained by The Dispatch through a public-records request for documents and correspondence related to Big Ten expansion proposals.
Texas Tech is one of Texas' rivals in the Big 12 conference. Ohio State officials declined a Dispatch request to explain the "Tech" problem.
"Public record laws do not require us to provide further clarification on meaning," OSU spokeswoman Amy Murray said in an e-mail. "While a few of the e-mails are cryptic, we aren't obliged to provide additional explanation."
In a previous e-mail to Delany, Gee wrote that the Big Ten controls its own destiny in expansion but, "the window will soon close on us. Agility and swiftness of foot is our friend." That statement seems to have proven prophetic with the recent news about the Big 12 and the Pac-10.
It's fun to try and decode the language in these e-mails. What do you think Delany meant by this sentence to Gee?
"Finally double chess # of moving parts including not harming brand as we execut."
Link (http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/12943/ohio-state-prez-delany-discussed-texas)
lebomb
06-04-2010, 01:01 PM
I find lebomb's skepticism in this case fascinating. It must suck to live in a world where you have a hard time believing people, even when there is no apparent motive for them to lie to you.
Did anyone see the email from Ohio State president Gordon Gee where he e-mailed Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany in April and confirmed that he had spoken with University of Texas president William Powers.
"I did speak with Bill Powers at Texas, who would welcome a call to say they have a 'Tech' problem," Gee wrote in an e-mail that was among several obtained by The Dispatch through a public-records request for documents and correspondence related to Big Ten expansion proposals.
Texas Tech is one of Texas' rivals in the Big 12 conference. Ohio State officials declined a Dispatch request to explain the "Tech" problem.
"Public record laws do not require us to provide further clarification on meaning," OSU spokeswoman Amy Murray said in an e-mail. "While a few of the e-mails are cryptic, we aren't obliged to provide additional explanation."
In a previous e-mail to Delany, Gee wrote that the Big Ten controls its own destiny in expansion but, "the window will soon close on us. Agility and swiftness of foot is our friend." That statement seems to have proven prophetic with the recent news about the Big 12 and the Pac-10.
It's fun to try and decode the language in these e-mails. What do you think Delany meant by this sentence to Gee?
"Finally double chess # of moving parts including not harming brand as we execut."
:rolleyes .................. must suck to be so naive like Blake.
DarkReign
06-04-2010, 01:42 PM
Whoooooops....
Its best to never take anyone at their word.
Blake
06-09-2010, 08:57 PM
:rolleyes .................. must suck to be so naive like Blake.
:rolleyes ........... must suck to live in your world where people are guilty before proven innocent. It wouldnt surprise me if you were also one of those 9/11 truthers.
of course, the blogger simply says that the Ohio St president spoke with the UT president.
It does not mention Dodds anywhere and it does not say that the Big 10 and Texas had any kind of talks.
No matter how many times you miss kicking that football, Charlie Brown.......just keep trying......
you flying up in the air and landing on your backside always makes for great entertainment.
Marklar MM
06-10-2010, 01:09 PM
Rumor is that Texas/A&M were offered by the Big10 yesterday. One of the reasons for the Texas/A&M meeting that occurred today.
Blake
06-10-2010, 01:20 PM
Rumor is that Texas/A&M were offered by the Big10 yesterday. One of the reasons for the Texas/A&M meeting that occurred today.
any links?
SpursTillTheEnd
06-10-2010, 01:23 PM
any links?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/06/10/aggies.options/
Marklar MM
06-10-2010, 01:25 PM
any links?
http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?SID=901&fid=57&style=2&tid=143839427&Page=1
ESPN Insider also has a similar thing...probably taken from this link.
Guy apparently knows someone that works in the Big10 offices. Offers were given yesterday. The meeting today, according to him, was to decide whether they will join the big10, pac10, or if A&M will split off and join the SEC.
Blake
06-10-2010, 01:29 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/06/10/aggies.options/
I may have missed it, but I saw nothing in that article of any talks between the Big 10 and A&M (or UT)
http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?SID=901&fid=57&style=2&tid=143839427&Page=1
ESPN Insider also has a similar thing...probably taken from this link.
Guy apparently knows someone that works in the Big10 offices. Offers were given yesterday. The meeting today, according to him, was to decide whether they will join the big10, pac10, or if A&M will split off and join the SEC.
The same guy was kicked off that message board a few months back becasue he posted that Nebraska would be the first school offered if Notre Dame did not want to join and stop the league at 12.
Yeah the guy deffiently has some sort of connection to the Big Ten offices if you review his older posts and compare them to what is coming out now.
Blake
06-10-2010, 01:40 PM
http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?SID=901&fid=57&style=2&tid=143839427&Page=1
ESPN Insider also has a similar thing...probably taken from this link.
Guy apparently knows someone that works in the Big10 offices. Offers were given yesterday. The meeting today, according to him, was to decide whether they will join the big10, pac10, or if A&M will split off and join the SEC.
so a guy on a messageboard says he knows someone in the Big 10 offices and starts a thread called "Big 10 invites UT, A&M, Missouri and ND".
He subsequently has to edit that the OP in that thread and then in real life, we find out that it's Nebraska that got and accepted the invite. :lol
Thanks, but I'll wait for a better source.
Marklar MM
06-10-2010, 01:43 PM
so a guy on a messageboard says he knows someone in the Big 10 offices and starts a thread called "Big 10 invites UT, A&M, Missouri and ND".
He subsequently has to edit that the OP in that thread and then in real life, we find out that it's Nebraska that got and accepted the invite. :lol
Thanks, but I'll wait for a better source.
Where did you get that out of said thread?
Blake
06-10-2010, 01:46 PM
Where did you get that out of said thread?
Post #1:
Breaking: Big Ten Offers Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri and Notre Dame Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just spoke with my friend at the Big Ten. The offer to Missouri is contingent upon Texas AND/OR ND joining. Will post more details as I hear.
--- 6/10 Morning Update:
I do have somewhat of an update as of this morning. I say somewhat because it depends not on the Big Ten itself, but on a number of non-Big Ten schools. This whole process (the expansion strategies, not the message board banter) is absolutely fascinating.
So let me first say that the Big Ten is aware of the original message board thread and believes that it has played a role in bringing about the discussions to where they are now, for better or worse. My friend has kept me in the loop continuously, and as of this point there are some things, if disclosed, that can hurt the negotiation process for the Big Ten. There are others that can help. And I'm a low-risk outlet for information because I have no credibility (other than the 30,000 page views primarily from large southern and eastern states - to you I say thank you for giving Northwestern a moment to occupy the center of the college football world. I believe this will become more commonplace in the future as Pat Fitzgerald continues to build a program of excellence in Evanston.) (One other thing: Northwestern owns justIowa. Remember that.)
The "somewhat" update is two parts, as follows: First, some very interesting things are happening in the Big East right now. If I said anything more about that, it would jeopardize the position of the Big Ten, so suffice it to say that this depends on the status of that school in South Bend.
Second, after the hasty entry of Nebraska, the Big Ten presidents are less unified on letting schools of questionable academic merits into the conference. In fact, blocs of voting Big Ten members have emerged in support of and in opposition to certain schools becoming admitted into the conference. This relates to the first part in that disclosures of the schools in discussion would jeopardize the position of the Big Ten.
Sorry for the "somewhat" update, but things will become clear soon enough. For now, keep your eyes on South Bend and Austin.
- PBC
P.S. Hey Lou, do I get a commission for driving all this traffic to your site?
This post was edited on 6/10 10:13 AM by PURPLE Book Cat
my favorite part:
And I'm a low-risk outlet for information because I have no credibility (other than the 30,000 page views primarily from large southern and eastern states - to you I say thank you for giving Northwestern a moment to occupy the center of the college football world.
I tried to scan the 4 pages as quickly as possible, but I'm still not seeing anywhere about the Big 10 having invited UT and A&M.
If I missed it, my bad........please copy/paste what I missed. Thanks.
Marklar MM
06-10-2010, 01:53 PM
Post #1:
my favorite part:
I tried to scan the 4 pages as quickly as possible, but I'm still not seeing anywhere about the Big 10 having invited UT and A&M.
If I missed it, my bad........please copy/paste what I missed. Thanks.
That was the update for today. And its hard to miss when the topic is based on the fact that "Big Ten Offers Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri and Notre Dame" is in the title. The Big10 isn't going to link that...Delaney is already pissed that any info got out. And you're favorite part is simply him saying believe him if you want.
And based upon you're post below
"so a guy on a messageboard says he knows someone in the Big 10 offices and starts a thread called "Big 10 invites UT, A&M, Missouri and ND".
He subsequently has to edit that the OP in that thread and then in real life, we find out that it's Nebraska that got and accepted the invite.
Thanks, but I'll wait for a better source. "
He edited the OP to include an update, and Nebraska was not mentioned in the post at all (outside of a small blurb on academics).
Blake
06-10-2010, 02:02 PM
That was the update for today. And its hard to miss when the topic is based on the fact that "Big Ten Offers Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri and Notre Dame" is in the title. The Big10 isn't going to link that...Delaney is already pissed that any info got out. And you're favorite part is simply him saying believe him if you want.
And based upon you're post below
Ok. So again basically it's a guy that says he has a friend in the Big 10 offices that says the Big 10 offered these 4 teams an invite.
If this were really true, Mizzou would already be packing their bags with Nebraska.
Thanks for the effort, but it's a fail
Marklar MM
06-10-2010, 02:22 PM
Ok. So again basically it's a guy that says he has a friend in the Big 10 offices that says the Big 10 offered these 4 teams an invite.
If this were really true, Mizzou would already be packing their bags with Nebraska.
Thanks for the effort, but it's a fail
If you read anything, you would see that Mizzou was contingent on ND/Texas. But alas, you didn't. He also said Nebraska would be the first team offered if ND didn't accept the first time around.
Not like it matters..I doubt Texas and their buddy join.
Blake
06-10-2010, 03:27 PM
If you read anything, you would see that Mizzou was contingent on ND/Texas. But alas, you didn't. He also said Nebraska would be the first team offered if ND didn't accept the first time around.
I didn't see anywhere in any part of the entire 4 pages about UT and A&M getting an invite either.
Alas, the thread title failed badly.
Not like it matters..I doubt Texas and their buddy join.
Invitations for UT and A&M to join the Big 10 would make things pretty interesting.
UT, A&M, ND, and maybe Missouri, Kansas, Pitt et al would absolutely be the premier conference in the country, no matter how the other conferences end up playing out.
Terms Presented by Notre Dame and Texas
Link (http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=162506546&mid=162506546&sid=901&style=2)
:corn:
Fpoonsie
09-08-2011, 09:06 AM
Wow.
Kermit
09-08-2011, 09:17 AM
If that's true, Wow.
If that's true, Wow.
PBC had some really good tid bits last year that turned out to be true in regards to expansion and time lines, but towards the end his information got less and less reliable.
Obviously taken with a grain of salt, but if true, is very interesting.
stretch
09-08-2011, 10:18 AM
wow
Terms Presented by Notre Dame and Texas
Link (http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=162506546&mid=162506546&sid=901&style=2)
:corn:
Some slight confirmation...
Marcus Hartman (@marcushartman) tweeted this...
"Talked to someone well connected who said Texas-Big Ten talks are legit"
ChumpDumper
09-08-2011, 11:22 AM
Nebraska should just quit playing football if this happens.
Kermit
09-08-2011, 11:41 AM
Nebraska should just quit playing football if this happens.
Dr. Thomas Osborne might choke a bitch. Or several bitches.
Nebraska should just quit playing football if this happens.
Looks like either Colorado or Nebraska are going to be in a conference with someone they wanted to leave forever.
Link (http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1262282)
Alot of throw away things, but the first time I have seen Chip actually hint the Big 10 might be involved. Most of the article is about A&M going to the SEC in 2013, slowing down expansion so more expansive talks can be had
Quote:
"Sources say one of the options being looked at by Texas A&M right now would be to delay their departure from the Big 12 to the Southeastern Conference one year. Instead of joining the SEC in 2012 the Aggies would join the SEC in 2013....
But just imagine what that means...
All the scenarios about whom the SEC might add to get to 16; about whom the Pac-12 might add and how Texas and the Longhorn Network could or could not fit into a conference structure could be mulled over for weeks and months and not hours and days.
If the Big Ten came to Texas and said we will take you as a member and you can bring the Longhorn Network - with the only caveat being that Texas could not share in any of the revenue from the Big Ten Network, that could be deliberated and discussed thoughtfully."
Quote:
An outside the box option would be something like a conference such as the Big Ten allowing Texas to join the league and only make money off of LHN and not share revenue from the Big Ten Network. File that one away
Getting more interesting by the minute.
Kermit
09-08-2011, 12:05 PM
Looks like either Colorado or Nebraska are going to be in a conference with someone they wanted to leave forever.
:lol
You think Colorado went to the PAC 12 to get away from Texas?
:lol:lol:lol
Kermit
09-08-2011, 12:09 PM
Link (http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1262282)
Alot of throw away things, but the first time I have seen Chip actually hint the Big 10 might be involved. Most of the article is about A&M going to the SEC in 2013, slowing down expansion so more expansive talks can be had
Quote:
"Sources say one of the options being looked at by Texas A&M right now would be to delay their departure from the Big 12 to the Southeastern Conference one year. Instead of joining the SEC in 2012 the Aggies would join the SEC in 2013....
But just imagine what that means...
All the scenarios about whom the SEC might add to get to 16; about whom the Pac-12 might add and how Texas and the Longhorn Network could or could not fit into a conference structure could be mulled over for weeks and months and not hours and days.
If the Big Ten came to Texas and said we will take you as a member and you can bring the Longhorn Network - with the only caveat being that Texas could not share in any of the revenue from the Big Ten Network, that could be deliberated and discussed thoughtfully."
Quote:
An outside the box option would be something like a conference such as the Big Ten allowing Texas to join the league and only make money off of LHN and not share revenue from the Big Ten Network. File that one away
Getting more interesting by the minute.
That can't be right. Loooooochi said that A&M was done with the Big 12.
That can't be right. Loooooochi said that A&M was done with the Big 12.
I don't know why you've knocked Looch so much. He's been the most accurate on this. When everyone blew their load Tuesday night he said there was a hurdle (Baylor) and was right.
Kermit
09-08-2011, 12:23 PM
I don't know why you've knocked Looch so much. He's been the most accurate on this. When everyone blew their load Tuesday night he said there was a hurdle (Baylor) and was right.
He's taken the Chip Brown approach.
1. Take shit
2. Throw against the wall
3. See what sticks
4. ???
5. Profit
Fpoonsie
09-08-2011, 12:26 PM
He's taken the Chip Brown approach.
1. Take shit
2. Throw against the wall
3. See what sticks
4. ???
5. Profit
:lmao
I don't necessarily agree, but...well done.
He's taken the Chip Brown approach.
1. Take shit
2. Throw against the wall
3. See what sticks
4. ???
5. Profit
Chip Brown is deffinetly lip service for whatever Texas wants leaked. Sometimes they throw him a bone so that he looks somewhat credible.
The only reason I linked his article was that he referenced the B1G with Texas. Who knows if it has any merit or not. Most likely it does not, but interesting nonetheless.
He's taken the Chip Brown approach.
1. Take shit
2. Throw against the wall
3. See what sticks
4. ???
5. Profit
His shit has stuck more than any other person/outlet reporting on this story.
Kermit
09-08-2011, 12:53 PM
His shit has stuck more than any other person/outlet reporting on this story.
He's also thrown the most.
He's also thrown the most.
I disagree, but I digress. I think Texas ends up in the PAC with TT/OU/OSU. 20% chance at indy.
Kermit
09-08-2011, 01:10 PM
I disagree, but I digress. I think Texas ends up in the PAC with TT/OU/OSU. 20% chance at indy.
My wet dream, but this B1G shit is heating up.
My wet dream, but this B1G shit is heating up.
You'd prefer the PAC to the B1G?
My wet dream, but this B1G shit is heating up.
Especially if ND is the 14th team and they stop there.
One can hope.
Kermit
09-08-2011, 01:26 PM
You'd prefer the PAC to the B1G?
I didn't think that the B1G was an option.
I didn't think that the B1G was an option.
Oh so your wet dream is the B1G? Now I'm following. Although, I've always heard Dodds has wet dreams about the PAC.
Kermit
09-08-2011, 01:37 PM
Oh so your wet dream is the B1G? Now I'm following. Although, I've always heard Dodds has wet dreams about the PAC.
I would still like for Texas to go to the PAC. It's a better fit imo. However if the B1G is a viable option, then it's another wet dream waiting to happen. Whichever conference fucks the LHN less is probably where Texas will go. Someone floated a rumor that had Texas joining the B1G but not sharing any revenue. They would get LHN money, and the rest of the league would get B1G money. Same with Notre Dame. I don't believe it, but the B1G would kill babies to get Notre Dame.
DesignatedT
09-08-2011, 01:53 PM
I doubt Texas goes B1G unless the PAC doesn't agree to all those terms listed. If both are willing to abide by those requests then Texas will choose PAC.
Blake
09-08-2011, 01:57 PM
Did anyone see the email from Ohio State president Gordon Gee where he e-mailed Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany in April and confirmed that he had spoken with University of Texas president William Powers.
"I did speak with Bill Powers at Texas, who would welcome a call to say they have a 'Tech' problem," Gee wrote in an e-mail that was among several obtained by The Dispatch through a public-records request for documents and correspondence related to Big Ten expansion proposals.
Texas Tech is one of Texas' rivals in the Big 12 conference. Ohio State officials declined a Dispatch request to explain the "Tech" problem.
"Public record laws do not require us to provide further clarification on meaning," OSU spokeswoman Amy Murray said in an e-mail. "While a few of the e-mails are cryptic, we aren't obliged to provide additional explanation."
In a previous e-mail to Delany, Gee wrote that the Big Ten controls its own destiny in expansion but, "the window will soon close on us. Agility and swiftness of foot is our friend." That statement seems to have proven prophetic with the recent news about the Big 12 and the Pac-10.
It's fun to try and decode the language in these e-mails. What do you think Delany meant by this sentence to Gee?
"Finally double chess # of moving parts including not harming brand as we execut."
Link (http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/12943/ohio-state-prez-delany-discussed-texas)
lol Tech problem.
if the Big10 wanted UT so bad that they go ahead and take Tech as well, I would never stop laughing out loud. Never.
lol Tech problem.
lol that was from last year
lol that it was an actual e-mail
if the Big10 wanted UT so bad that they go ahead and take Tech as well, I would never stop laughing out loud. ever.
They don't want Texas as bad as you might think. Last year when that was discussed the B1G didn't want any of UT's crappy tag alongs. I guess you can't comprehend that. If A&M goes to the SEC as planned and OU bolts for the PAC-whatever then Texas would mostly likely be free from having to go to another conference with worrying about the likes of Tech and Baylor.
The B1G wants Texas, but only on terms that will satisfy both parties. That is the catch.
Blake
09-08-2011, 02:13 PM
lol that was from last year
lol that it was an actual e-mail
lol that it was only a year ago
They don't want Texas as bad as you might think. Last year when that was discussed the B1G didn't want any of UT's crappy tag alongs. I guess you can't comprehend that. If A&M goes to the SEC as planned and OU bolts for the PAC-whatever then Texas would mostly likely be free from having to go to another conference with worrying about the likes of Tech and Baylor.
The B1G wants Texas, but only on terms that will satisfy both parties. That is the catch.
I don't see anything anywhere from any real source that says UT wants the Big10.
I very much think this latest rumor you posted is a huge pile of bullshit.
Kermit
09-08-2011, 02:20 PM
lol that it was only a year ago
I don't see anything anywhere from any real source that says UT wants the Big10.
I very much think this latest rumor you posted is a huge pile of bullshit.
I don't know how credible this is but...
LullonSports Joe Lull
by NFLDraftMonster
To make clear what I'm reporting: both Texas & Notre Dame have had discussions w/ the Big Ten regarding joining the conference by 2014...
I don't see anything anywhere from any real source that says UT wants the Big10.
nor will you, but multiple sources have confirmed they have talked recently, which can mean nothing or a lot. Probably was nothing more than a meeting to gauge interest, etc...
I very much think this latest rumor you posted is a huge pile of bullshit.
The rumor that they talked? believe what you want to man. I'm not saying there weren't conversatrions, but it wouldn't suprise me. How deep those conversations went (if at all) who really knows.
Blake
09-08-2011, 02:30 PM
the Big 10 sends party invites to Notre Dame on an almost daily basis.
Kermit
09-08-2011, 02:35 PM
Btw, great thread.
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=188&f=1650&t=7769534&p=1
I haven't seen a lot of these.
the Big 10 sends party invites to Notre Dame on an almost daily basis.
I don't see anything anywhere from any real source that says the Big 10 sends Notre Dame party invites almost on a daily basis.
I have to call b.s. on that rumor.
stretch
09-08-2011, 02:44 PM
I don't see anything anywhere from any real source that says the Big 10 sends Notre Dame party invites almost on a daily basis.
I have to call b.s. on that rumor.
:lmao
benefactor
09-08-2011, 02:49 PM
I don't see anything anywhere from any real source that says the Big 10 sends Notre Dame party invites almost on a daily basis.
I have to call b.s. on that rumor.
:lol
Blake
09-08-2011, 02:51 PM
nor will you, but multiple sources have confirmed they have talked recently, which can mean nothing or a lot. Probably was nothing more than a meeting to gauge interest, etc...
if it's legit, then a credible source should have picked it up by now.
The rumor that they talked?
The part that said Notre Dame and UT held hands while going into the Big 10 meeting and laid out their demands.
Notre Dame keeps saying no and neither school really have a reason at this point to be proactive in trying to join another conference.
Blake
09-08-2011, 02:55 PM
I don't see anything anywhere from any real source that says the Big 10 sends Notre Dame party invites almost on a daily basis.
I have to call b.s. on that rumor.
since it's only a messageboard fool saying it, that's probably a good call on your part. :tu
stretch
09-08-2011, 03:55 PM
if it's legit, then a credible source should have picked it up by now.
generally, where there's smoke, theres fire, even when "credible" people, or the people involved themselves deny deny deny. even though I like to fuck with you (lol harrell lol tech), i know you are a pretty smart dude, and are most definitely smart enough to know that.
how big the fire is the better question. there isnt a doubt in my mind that some sort of talk has taken place between UT and the big 10. doesnt mean it went far, and it probably hasnt.
if it's legit, then a credible source should have picked it up by now.
I don't know what you consider to be a credible source, so I can't say if a credible source has picked it up yet by your standards.
The part that said Notre Dame and UT held hands while going into the Big 10 meeting and laid out their demands.
They were purposed terms first off. Second the rumor states that each party should do what is best for each party and that they preferred the status quo than to joining the Big 10. Third, like I said you can believe what you want. If you think this rumor is B.S. than more power to ya.
Notre Dame keeps saying no and neither school really have a reason at this point to be proactive in trying to join another conference.
Kind of like how the SEC said in August that they were happy with the current alignment and then 2 weeks later voted to accept Texas A&M, right??
ND will continue to say no until it has to say yes. Everyone knows that.
Blake
09-08-2011, 04:58 PM
I don't know what you consider to be a credible source, so I can't say if a credible source has picked it up yet by your standards.
an actual media sponsored web site quoting university sources would do.
some slappy throwing shit out on a messageboard doesn't do.
They were purposed terms first off. Second the rumor states that each party should do what is best for each party and that they preferred the status quo than to joining the Big 10. Third, like I said you can believe what you want. If you think this rumor is B.S. than more power to ya.
I do think that Notre Dame and UT meeting up with Big 10 officials last night is BS until someone with rep confirms it.
It's rather silly to think that a meeting like that could happen with such secrecy.
More power to your silly beliefs. :tu
Kind of like how the SEC said in August that they were happy with the current alignment and then 2 weeks later voted to accept Texas A&M, right??
wrong
The SEC talk about being happy was clearly for legal purposes because of the Baylors of the world.
ND will continue to say no until it has to say yes. Everyone knows that.
exactly, which makes a meeting of this type make little sense.
Blake
09-08-2011, 05:05 PM
generally, where there's smoke, theres fire, even when "credible" people, or the people involved themselves deny deny deny. even though I like to fuck with you (lol harrell lol tech), i know you are a pretty smart dude, and are most definitely smart enough to know that.
how big the fire is the better question. there isnt a doubt in my mind that some sort of talk has taken place between UT and the big 10. doesnt mean it went far, and it probably hasnt.
There have obviously been no formal talks.
No reason to think there havent been some informal phone calls here and there between school officials to test the waters.
an actual media sponsored web site quoting university sources would do.
some slappy throwing shit out on a messageboard doesn't do.
Other sources have confirmed the meeting. Not just the individual at on the message board. I take that post with a grain of salt, but that particular poster has been correct more often than not last year on things of expansion nature.
You are not going to see a media sponsored web site quoting a university source with this, because it is no in their interests to seek the media coverage.
A poster in a previous page has referenced another source other than that message board.
I do think that Notre Dame and UT meeting up with Big 10 officials last night is BS until someone with rep confirms it.
Good for you.
It's rather silly to think that a meeting like that could happen with such secrecy.
Are you retarded? based on your previous responses I seriously have to ask at this point.
More power to your silly beliefs. :tu
My belief that something can happen without a media outlet confirming said event. I'm really reaching there. I'm pretty sure secret meetings happen all the time in this world whether it be in regards to sports, publicly traded companies and yet those meetings go largely unreported by media outlets.
wrong. The SEC talk about being happy was clearly for legal purposes because of the Baylors of the world.
You missed the point, not surprising, and then made some other random statement.
exactly, which makes a meeting of this type make little sense.
How does it not make sense. It was a contingency meeting in case the Big 12 were to completely dissolve and super conferences began to form. I don't get how you think that doesn't make sense. You honestly don't think schools are meeting behind closed doors discussing what happens if X happens, or Y happens.
Blake
09-08-2011, 11:12 PM
Other sources have confirmed the meeting. Not just the individual at on the message board. I take that post with a grain of salt, but that particular poster has been correct more often than not last year on things of expansion nature.
great, link these sources.
You are not going to see a media sponsored web site quoting a university source with this, because it is no in their interests to seek the media coverage.
so who is the original source that knows of this meeting?
A poster in a previous page has referenced another source other than that message board.
what is the source?
Good for you.
Butthurt for you.
Good entertainment for me.
Are you retarded? based on your previous responses I seriously have to ask at this point.
:lol you are the one defending a rumor from a random poster on a Northwestern fanboard.
I've got a better reason to call you retarded, tbh.
My belief that something can happen without a media outlet confirming said event. I'm really reaching there. I'm pretty sure secret meetings happen all the time in this world whether it be in regards to sports, publicly traded companies and yet those meetings go largely unreported by media outlets.
good for you and your silly beliefs. :tu
You missed the point, not surprising, and then made some other random statement.
Your analogy was pretty retarded, tbh.
How does it not make sense. It was a contingency meeting in case the Big 12 were to completely dissolve and super conferences began to form. I don't get how you think that doesn't make sense.
As long as the Big 10 teams continue to schedule Notre Dame year in and year out and ND continues to love their independence, the Irish have absolutely no reason to be proactive in requesting a meeting to discuss joining.
Honestly, if the Big 10 wants Notre Dame, they need to just remove them from the schedules altogether and force their hand.
You honestly don't think schools are meeting behind closed doors discussing what happens if X happens, or Y happens.
who went to this meeting for UT?
who went to the meeting for Notre Dame?
where was the meeting held?
who is the source that is leaking this info to a Northwestern University messageboard poster?
5. The Longhorn Network would remain independent until approximately 2014, at which point the network would become a part of an expanded Big Ten Network (specifically referred to as "BTN2"), likely either in partnership with Fox, NBC, or less likely ABC
how would the Longhorn Network run by ESPN be more likely to partner with Fox or NBC and less likely to partner with themselves?
great, link these sources.
Um, nope. Google it yourself.
so who is the original source that knows of this meeting?
an individual.
what is the source?
an individual
Butthurt for you.
You use the word "butthurt" way to much. Probably a common word for you with your lifestyle.
:lol you are the one defending a rumor from a random poster on a Northwestern fanboard.
Not defending the rumor. Where have I supported the rumor. I said it was interesting "if" true. You are the individual who thinks that if a source is not identified than a story is not true. If that was the case you probably were in denial of the Watergate scandal becuase "deepthroat" was an unidentified source (until his death bed) that brought down Nixon as president.
I've got a better reason to call you retarded, tbh.
OKay.
Your analogy was pretty retarded, tbh.
Yeah and your response to that analogy didn't even acknowledge the point being made, and just went on some other random tangent. Usually when a point is being made you don't just go off and spout off something random that has nothing to do with the original point being made.
Honestly, if the Big 10 wants Notre Dame, they need to just remove them from the schedules altogether and force their hand.
Sure. Piss someone off before inviting/forcing them to the conference. I'm sure that would go a long way into making ND think about joining the Big Ten.
who went to this meeting for UT?
who went to the meeting for Notre Dame?
where was the meeting held?
You read the rumor. None of those things were identified. Why don't you contact the poster on that messageboard and Joe Lullon and ask them your questions. But you asking me to answer those questions when you already know the answer proves your ineptitude.
who is the source that is leaking this info to a Northwestern University messageboard poster?
an individual that works at the big ten office if you go by Joe Lullons information, who is not the same person as the poster on the Northwestern board.
how would the Longhorn Network run by ESPN be more likely to partner with Fox or NBC and less likely to partner with themselves?
Those questions were not answered in the rumor. Quit pretending like I made up the rumor and have any and all answers to it. I merely posted the link for discussion purposes and you turn everything into absolutes. It is just a discussion bro, get over your loser ego and just participate in the discussion.
Blake
09-09-2011, 09:42 AM
Um, nope. Google it yourself.
an individual.
an individual
I did google it.
I found it to be a bullshit rumor.
Your continued butthurt over me calling it bullshit is fantastic though. :tu
You use the word "butthurt" way to much. Probably a common word for you with your lifestyle.
You are way too "butthurt" about this, tbh.
Not defending the rumor. Where have I supported the rumor. I said it was interesting "if" true. You are the individual who thinks that if a source is not identified than a story is not true. If that was the case you probably were in denial of the Watergate scandal becuase "deepthroat" was an unidentified source (until his death bed) that brought down Nixon as president.
you:
Other sources have confirmed the meeting...........but that particular poster has been correct more often than not last year on things of expansion nature.
you clearly think that there might be something to this rumor.
I think there is nothing to this rumor at all and I think you are stupid for falling for it.
I'm simply making fun of you running with a silly rumor and making even more fun of you getting butthurt about it in the process.
Yeah and your response to that analogy didn't even acknowledge the point being made, and just went on some other random tangent. Usually when a point is being made you don't just go off and spout off something random that has nothing to do with the original point being made.
I pointed out why your analogy was a failure.
It was rather simple to do.
Sure. Piss someone off before inviting/forcing them to the conference. I'm sure that would go a long way into making ND think about joining the Big Ten.
If that's the case it further solidifies the point that the Big 10 needs ND more than ND needs the Big 10.
.....which again would make little sense for ND to be proactive in reaching out to the Big 10.
You read the rumor. None of those things were identified. Why don't you contact the poster on that messageboard and Joe Lullon and ask them your questions. But you asking me to answer those questions when you already know the answer proves your ineptitude.
Again, I'm simply calling BS on the rumor you posted and it's clearly chapping your hide.
The easiest ways to ease your pain would be to either (1) back up what you post or (2) stop posting.
an individual that works at the big ten office if you go by Joe Lullons information, who is not the same person as the poster on the Northwestern board.
lmfao.
who the hell is "Joe Lullons"?
Those questions were not answered in the rumor. Quit pretending like I made up the rumor and have any and all answers to it. I merely posted the link for discussion purposes and you turn everything into absolutes. It is just a discussion bro, get over your loser ego and just participate in the discussion.
Right, those questions weren't answered in the rumor. That's why I asked those questions. Rather retarded of you to not get that, tbh.
Since you nor anyone else can answer those questions and more, I'll continue to call bullshit and if the current trend continues, you will continue to stay "butthurt".
you clearly think that there might be something to this rumor.
No I just posted the link yesterday, because I knew you would go ape shit on it like did last year in the same thread over the same topic, that is the entertaining part.
Never said I believed the recent rumor, you make to many assumptions.
I think there is nothing to this rumor at all and I think you are stupid for falling for it.
My opinion on the rumor is I'm pretty sure ND and/or Texas has conversations with the Big Ten recently about a contingency plan if certain things happen. The conversations were not meant to be proactive in actually join the conference, but as a last resort scenario. Nothing more nothing less. Was it as detailed as the message board poster laid out, probably not. Don't know, don't really care.
I'm simply making fun of you running with a silly rumor and making even more fun of you getting butthurt about it in the process.
:rollin You are the one asking retarded questions, making piss-poor assumptions, going off on random tangents. I just get a kick out of what crazy shit you say next.
I pointed out why your analogy was a failure.
It was rather simple to do.
No you didn't. :rollin You ignored the point in the analogy and spouted off some other random thing that had nothing to do with my point. I don't think you understand the word analogy. Must be that Tech education kicking in.
If that's the case it further solidifies the point that the Big 10 needs ND more than ND needs the Big 10.
Where did I ever say that ND needs the Big 10 more than the Big 10 needs ND. This just proves you make up random shit that you think people say or have said.
.....which again would make little sense for ND to be proactive in reaching out to the Big 10.
Who said ND was proactively looking for a conference. You are the only individual that has even mentioned that.
Again, I'm simply calling BS on the rumor you posted and it's clearly chapping your hide.
Like I said I mainly posted it to get you riled up like it has in the past. :lmao
The easiest ways to ease your pain would be to either (1) back up what you post or (2) stop posting.
What pain :rollin The only pain I have is the pain for anybody that has to put up with you on a daily basis. I feel pain for those individuals.
who the hell is "Joe Lullons"?
I meant Joe Lull, my apologies.
Right, those questions weren't answered in the rumor.
So you can read.
That's why I asked those questions.
I can understand the questions, but if no one was going to provide you the answers, what is the point in asking them. Who ever said there was not any stupid questions, has never taken a question from you.
Since you nor anyone else can answer those questions and more, I'll continue to call bullshit and if the current trend continues, you will continue to stay "butthurt".
:rollin
Blake's Butthurt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXhLSNadFPo)
Blake
09-09-2011, 05:32 PM
No I just posted the link yesterday, because I knew you would go ape shit on it like did last year in the same thread over the same topic, that is the entertaining part.
Never said I believed the recent rumor, you make to many assumptions.
Lol at the backpedaling.
You clearly made a post implying the rumor might have legs. I just quoted it.
Let me know if you need to see what you said again.
My opinion on the rumor is I'm pretty sure ND and/or Texas has conversations with the Big Ten recently about a contingency plan if certain things happen. The conversations were not meant to be proactive in actually join the conference, but as a last resort scenario. Nothing more nothing less. Was it as detailed as the message board poster laid out, probably not. Don't know, don't really care.
I pretty much called this rumor bullshit.
You got butthurt.
You still appear butthurt, even in the midst of the backpedaling.
:rollin You are the one asking retarded questions, making piss-poor assumptions, going off on random tangents. I just get a kick out of what crazy shit you say next.
Asking for a source is not retarded. Falling for a shitty rumor is.
I'm not assuming much other than the rumor is full of shit and you thought it had enough legs to want to re-post it here.
good stuff. :lol
No you didn't. :rollin You ignored the point in the analogy and spouted off some other random thing that had nothing to do with my point. I don't think you understand the word analogy. Must be that Tech education kicking in.
I absolutely did. :rollin :rollin
I don't think you know that you actually used an analogy.
Where did I ever say that ND needs the Big 10 more than the Big 10 needs ND. This just proves you make up random shit that you think people say or have said.
You missed my point about the probability of ND meeting with the Big 10 the other night.
I'm not sure you understand what the word point means.
Who said ND was proactively looking for a conference. You are the only individual that has even mentioned that.
I'm not sure you fully read the rumor and that the things that Joe Lull has said.
"He [Lull] acknowledged TV contract issues, and said both schools already made presentations to Big Ten officials."
http://www.mlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/09/notre_dame_and_texas_to_big_te.html
I'm not sure you know what "proactive" means.
Like I said I mainly posted it to get you riled up like it has in the past. :lmao
I simply called it shit, and you got yourself riled up about it.
well played. :lmao :lmao
What pain :rollin The only pain I have is the pain for anybody that has to put up with you on a daily basis. I feel pain for those individuals.
the pain displayed in the last few pages of this thread.
Extremely visible to those of us that can see your backside burning.
I meant Joe Lull, my apologies.
oh, the local Cleveland weekend sports radio hack Joe Lull that has been getting shat on and accused of making this up.
no apology necessary.
So you can read.
I'm not sure you can.
I can understand the questions, but if no one was going to provide you the answers, what is the point in asking them. Who ever said there was not any stupid questions, has never taken a question from you.
here's a simple one:
is it a bullshit rumor?
yes or no.
:rollin
Blake's Butthurt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXhLSNadFPo)
holy shit! Look at all of those law breakers!
lmao Clarett
lmfao Tressel
:rollin:rollin:rollin
Lol at the backpedaling.
You clearly made a post implying the rumor might have legs. I just quoted it.
That quote you posted in no way implies I thought "that" specific rumor had legs. You are the one doing the implying. Not me.
I pretty much called this rumor bullshit.
Yeah we got that the first 1,395 times you said it. If you have nothing else to add to the thread maybe you shouldn't be posting in it. We know you think the rumor is BS. move on.
You got butthurt.
lol at an adult using the word "butthurt" like it is the coolest word in the 6th grade. :lmao
Asking for a source is not retarded.
Um, yes it is. If sources had to be named there would be no sources in instances like this if the rumor is true. Do you really think Joe Schad, other ESPN people, Yahoo sports break all their stories without sources. Most go unnamed.
I'm not assuming much other than the rumor is full of shit and
You have assumed my posts have other meanings. So you have assume the rumor is bull shit, pretty much called the rumor bull shit. Way to cover your ass on that one, so IF the rumor happened to be true you can say I assumed it was BS and I pretty much thought it was BS. Way to go out on a limb there buddy.
you thought it had enough legs to want to re-post it here.
No that was not my reason for posting the link. Once again you have made the wrong assumption yet again. Notice a pattern of wrong assumptions being made on your part.
You missed my point about the probability of ND meeting with the Big 10 the other night.
No I didn't. You mentioned that:
As long as the Big 10 teams continue to schedule Notre Dame year in and year out and ND continues to love their independence, the Irish have absolutely no reason to be proactive in requesting a meeting to discuss joining.
That is false. If the super conferences form that ND AD said a seismic shift could change their thought process on being in a conference. So the purpose of the "alleged meeting" was to present terms if that seismic shift were to occur so they were being "proactive" in case that seismic shift were to occur and not being "proactive" in joining the conference right now.
If nothing changed then your point would have merit, but once again you missed the boat that if a seismic shift were to occur then ND was being "proactive" if such a change were to occur.
I'm not sure you fully read the rumor and that the things that Joe Lull has said.
"He [Lull] acknowledged TV contract issues, and said both schools already made presentations to Big Ten officials."
I have not read every single thing he has posted on the subject. But TV issues with Texas and ND would be issues for either team IF they were to join a new conference.
I'm not sure you know what "proactive" means.
I am aware of what the word means, I'm pretty sure you are assuming the wrong idea again like you consistently do with my posts as well as other posters here.
I simply called it shit, and you got yourself riled up about it.
Could of swore you assumed it was wrong or "pretty much" thought it was bogus.
Extremely visible to those of us that can see your backside burning.
You have a sad case of denial bro. Ask anyone here they all think you are a tool.
oh, the local Cleveland weekend sports radio hack Joe Lull that has been getting shat on and accused of making this up.
Good for Mr. Lull. What sources are calling him a hack. I demand sources :lmao
here's a simple one:
is it a bullshit rumor?
yes or no.
Can I assume it is false like you or "pretty much" call it BS like you previously have. That sounds 100% definitive to me.
holy shit! Look at all of those law breakers!
haters gonna hate no matter what. Tech was just happy to get to play in Ohio Stadium, take their pay day and ass raping and go home smiling.
Blake
09-09-2011, 09:37 PM
That quote you posted in no way implies I thought "that" specific rumor had legs. You are the one doing the implying. Not me.
So we finally agree the rumor is bullshit?
Yeah we got that the first 1,395 times you said it. If you have nothing else to add to the thread maybe you shouldn't be posting in it. We know you think the rumor is BS. move on.
Na, I'll go ahead and keep posting to see how much more butthurt and backpedalling will come of it.
lol at an adult using the word "butthurt" like it is the coolest word in the 6th grade. :lmao
yeah, it's fun to call someone butthurt that's butthurt and watch as they get even more butthurt. :tu
Um, yes it is. If sources had to be named there would be no sources in instances like this if the rumor is true. Do you really think Joe Schad, other ESPN people, Yahoo sports break all their stories without sources. Most go unnamed.
Ummmm.......no it's absolutely not.
Difference is that those guys have reputations to uphold and get paid to prove their stories have merit.
A weekend sports radio hack just made a bit of a name for himself thanks to this rumor.
...and sinc hee couldn't back up his tweets with any real sources, he has now been shown to be a silly fool.
You have assumed my posts have other meanings. So you have assume the rumor is bull shit, pretty much called the rumor bull shit. Way to cover your ass on that one, so IF the rumor happened to be true you can say I assumed it was BS and I pretty much thought it was BS. Way to go out on a limb there buddy.
So leave nothing for anyone to assume.
Is the rumor full of shit or not?
No that was not my reason for posting the link. Once again you have made the wrong assumption yet again. Notice a pattern of wrong assumptions being made on your part.
Your reason for posting doesn't matter in regards to you believing if it's true or not.
You said this:
"Other sources have confirmed the meeting...........but that particular poster has been correct more often than not last year on things of expansion nature."
If you are saying Im assuming too much here, you are either backpedalling hard or you are just retarded and can't understand the words you used.
either way, lol.
That is false. If the super conferences form that ND AD said a seismic shift could change their thought process on being in a conference. So the purpose of the "alleged meeting" was to present terms if that seismic shift were to occur so they were being "proactive" in case that seismic shift were to occur and not being "proactive" in joining the conference right now.
Notre Dame will never get left out of a superconference.
You're retarded if you think they think they will get left out.
You're even more retarded if you think they could ever get left out.
I have not read every single thing he has posted on the subject.
No shit.
Could of swore you assumed it was wrong or "pretty much" thought it was bogus.
Face value it looked pretty much bogus or wrong.
After that, it took some simple googling to show it's a pile of shit.
You have a sad case of denial bro. Ask anyone here they all think you are a tool.
it's so awesome to watch people like you get hurt when someone else exposes their posts as shit.
Good for Mr. Lull. What sources are calling him a hack. I demand sources :lmao
I called him a hack. It's right there with my name on the post.
Your ability to read sucks, tbh. :lmao:lmao
Can I assume it is false like you or "pretty much" call it BS like you previously have. That sounds 100% definitive to me.
That's not a yes or no and I'm just asking for your opinion.
Again, your ability to read sucks.
haters gonna hate no matter what. Tech was just happy to get to play in Ohio Stadium, take their pay day and ass raping and go home smiling.
if you say so.
lol Pryor
So we finally agree the rumor is bullshit?
Never said it was true. Now what is the opposite of true. Come I think you can get this one right, well maybe.
Na, I'll go ahead and keep posting to see how much more butthurt and backpedalling will come of it.
Dude, everyone here knows your a tool. If you want to see butthurt so bad, just go to the thread where you ask for marital advice on this board, that is butthurt.
Na, I'll go ahead and keep posting.
Great, more BS from a BS poster.
yeah, it's fun to call someone butthurt that's butthurt and watch as they get even more butthurt. :tu
From someone who has probably experienced the most butthurt on this board, I'm sure you do like to watch butthurt or experience first hand.
Ummmm.......no it's absolutely not.
Difference is that those guys have reputations to uphold and get paid to prove their stories have merit.
Ok. Start naming Joe Schaad's sources, Chris Mortensen's sources, Chad Ford's. You can't name a fucking one. There is a reason sources go unnamed.
A weekend sports radio hack just made a bit of a name for himself thanks to this rumor.
Perhaps he did. Maybe be smart or dumb move for him, we'll see.
So leave nothing for anyone to assume.
Well when you are consistently wrong in assuming ones views then yes, you specifically stop assuming what other posters think. You have been wrong almost 100% of the time when assuming other posters thoughts regarding their posts. I know, you probably get your jollies off doing that, which is fine since that probably fills a void in your pathetic life.
Your reason for posting doesn't matter in regards to you believing if it's true or not.
You said this:
"Other sources have confirmed the meeting...........but that particular poster has been correct more often than not last year on things of expansion nature."
If you are saying Im assuming too much here, you are either backpedalling hard or you are just retarded and can't understand the words you used.
All I said was that particular poster had been correct in the past on somethings, not all, on the expansion topic. That in no way implies whether or not I thought the rumor was true. I know words are hard for you.
Notre Dame will never get left out of a superconference.
You're retarded if you think they think they will get left out.
You're even more retarded if you think they could ever get left out.
All I said was, "If the super conferences form that ND AD said a seismic shift could change their thought process on being in a conference. So the purpose of the "alleged meeting" was to present terms if that seismic shift were to occur so they were being "proactive" in case that seismic shift were to occur and not being "proactive" in joining the conference right now."
Where did I say ND would get left out of a superconference. No where. :rollin
:rollin you reaching for stuff. Keep reaching bro.
it's so awesome to watch people like you get hurt when someone else exposes their posts as shit.
Well I just exposed your last comment as shit. So how does it feel to watch your self get butthurt. Although I'm sure you probably do that at home all the time in front of a mirror so I'm going to have to assume you enjoy it a lot.
I called him a hack. It's right there with my name on the post.
Well if you are calling yourself a credible source, then I have to call BS. I guy that posts on message boards in regards to the dollar menu can't be very credible. :rollin
Your ability to read sucks, tbh. :lmao:lmao
:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin: rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:r ollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:ro llin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin
lol Pryor
Good one. At least tOSU didn't fire their coach because ESPN told them to do so.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.