(06-12-2014 09:29 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 09:22 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  If the Texoma four go to the PAC, you can bet Kansas will have options with the B1G and SEC.

Correct. Their options at the time were far more limited than they would be now, due to the realization that a name brand can have value, even if they don't have a large market.

Kansas is going nowhere without Kansas State. Kansas State is not going to the Big or SEC.

(06-12-2014 11:06 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 10:34 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  Holy cow, on the BE boards at several sites it is very well known that the Catholics nixed the addition of the 4 B12 schools. It is repeated all the time because it was reported in 2010 by Blaudschun. And their reasons were perfectly understandable.

1. The non-workability of the BET
2. The increased difficult of getting an NCAA invite
3. The increased power within the conference of football schools

And, I'm waiting for a reply: what inaccurate info did I give you in the past?

It was very well known that they gave the football schools an "open checkbook" to sign those. I don't care what the Jersey Guy said, that is a flatout lie. They were ALL for that expansion. And there is no question, I mean no question about it? How do I know? Because they started putting out feelers to TV people to see what kind of impact it would have on their impending contract negotiations (where my info comes from). It was in large part what lead to the passing on the ESPN deal, because even though it never came to fruition, the mere talk about it had other networks, networks who did not end up bidding on the AAC in the end, very interested in looking at the Big East because of the value that THAT league in basketball would bring. Even after it didn't happen, the dialogue was already opened. It is one reason they became determined to go to the open market. That was how the info got out in the first place. The funny thing is it is odd you are trying to say the Catholic schools turned the idea down, when Luck is TELLING you in the article that is not true.His exact words:

Oliver Luck Wrote:"And we would have kept the affiliation with the (Big East) basketball schools, because they loved the addition of Kansas. They (the Big 12 schools) also liked it. They were nervous as hell, too. We had a series of phone calls. That was sort of our best option

And to answer your question, most anything you have posted about BE expansion history. I mean damn, your response about the Gerogetown thing more or less shows what I am talking about. You missed the info right in front of you, and tried to tell me my info was wrong.

Who put out feelers? Marinatto and Tagliabue? Uh-huh. G'town by the way has always been a pro-football school within the conference. Heck, they are like that now. In 1992, it was the others who needed convincing to stick around, and UConn and Georgetown were the two schools that convinced the Catholics. I absolutely agree that Marinatto was pushing this. This all came down over a span of 2 days, one weekend. They put it forward, but then were rebuffed by the Catholic presidents. This is pretty well known. Surprised you're in the dark about it. And before you think that a conference president would not go forward with something not knowing his conference was not fully behind him, consider Marinatto's approach to the ESPN contract. Same situation. He was 100% behind it. This is just like Bowlsby and the B12, or heck Larry Scott and the Pac12. These are four instances in which the conference commissioner went ahead with negotiations that the rest of the conference was not fully behind. Happened to Swofford as well.

"And to answer your question, most anything you have posted about BE expansion history. I mean damn, your response about the Gerogetown thing more or less shows what I am talking about. You missed the info right in front of you, and tried to tell me my info was wrong."

I see you are backtracking now. You wrote that BEFORE I countered your idea that the Catholics were in favor of the TV deal. BEFORE. Now, be specific.

(06-12-2014 12:17 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  I see you are backtracking now. You wrote that BEFORE I countered your idea that the Catholics were in favor of the TV deal. BEFORE. Now, be specific.

I did not backtrack. You just don't get it. Reread it. What I said was they were first blamed for pushing for the deal, because posters thought there was a better deal out there, thus they were blamed for trying to force everyone else to take the deal. THEN after it turned out that the deal might have been a good idea, they were blamed for forcing the league to turn down the deal. That is what I said. It's right there for you to read. I never said who actually did what. I was referring to how they were blamed for both sides of the issue, but only when that decision was deemed the wrong one.

Now I will tell you a fourth time: read it again. You will see I have changed nothing.

(06-12-2014 12:09 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 09:29 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 09:22 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  If the Texoma four go to the PAC, you can bet Kansas will have options with the B1G and SEC.

Correct. Their options at the time were far more limited than they would be now, due to the realization that a name brand can have value, even if they don't have a large market.

Kansas is going nowhere without Kansas State. Kansas State is not going to the Big or SEC.

I am not familiar with the inner workings of Kansas politics. Does KState have the weight to keep Kansas with them? Even if AAU Kansas has the opportunity to align with AAU central in the B1G?

Generally speaking, such a relationship would likely prevent a school like Kansas from making a pre-emptive move to leave a conference that would leave Kansas State in a damaged conference (same for Oklahoma). It's an entirely different matter to purposely sink one school to ensure both schools sink equally. Meaning if something happened to the Big 12, if Kansas had an option to go to the Big Ten or SEC, they would not pass it up just because K State could not go too.

(06-12-2014 02:03 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 12:17 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  I see you are backtracking now. You wrote that BEFORE I countered your idea that the Catholics were in favor of the TV deal. BEFORE. Now, be specific.

I did not backtrack. You just don't get it. Reread it. What I said was they were first blamed for pushing for the deal, because posters thought there was a better deal out there, thus they were blamed for trying to force everyone else to take the deal. THEN after it turned out that the deal might have been a good idea, they were blamed for forcing the league to turn down the deal. That is what I said. It's right there for you to read. I never said who actually did what. I was referring to how they were blamed for both sides of the issue, but only when that decision was deemed the wrong one.

Now I will tell you a fourth time: read it again. You will see I have changed nothing.

Backtracking about me providing inaccurate info. I asked you to tell me when that happened. You wrote that I did it in response to writing about G;town and the TV deal. My response about G'town came AFTER your claim that I was giving inaccurate info. So again, what inaccurate info?

Changing the subject again. You made a claim about the c7 and right here, proof of being wrong, shown wrong. I don't even need to go further. But many of your past innaccuracies were on this same subject. Generally trying to blame the c7 for things they didn't do. Your Villanova thing, saying the c7 pushed them on the rest, was your other inaccuracy. And on the tv deal (the c7 pushed for it, only Georgetown of that group was against it. Georgetown is not the whole c7). And on and on.

Anyway my point is proven. By you no less. If shit were worth something, you (and half of this forum) would blame the C7 every time you were constipated.

(06-12-2014 07:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Changing the subject again. You made a claim about the c7 and right here, proof of being wrong, shown wrong. I don't even need to go further. But many of your past innaccuracies were on this same subject. Generally trying to blame the c7 for things they didn't do. Your Villanova thing, saying the c7 pushed them on the rest, was your other inaccuracy. And on the tv deal (the c7 pushed for it, only Georgetown of that group was against it. Georgetown is not the whole c7). And on and on.

Anyway my point is proven. By you no less. If shi were worth something, you (and half of this forum) would blame the C7 every time you were constipation.

thank you adcorbett for providing us with an example of some authentic kentucky gibberish.

Personally and for obvious reasons I'm glad that turd didn't flush!

(06-12-2014 08:02 PM)shere khan Wrote:  thank you adcorbett for providing us with an example of some authentic kentucky gibberish.

Posting on an iPhone, plus editing a quote, plus trying to work around the censor, will make for the occasional nonsensical response.