(05-24-2013 03:47 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Who picked up the slack? K St? Both FSU and Clemson finished ranked higher than them last year. Ok St? One hit wonder. That same year Clemson and VT played in BCS bowls.

... and yet the Big 12 still won more BCS bowls that year than the ACC, despite their one team playing a far tougher opponent than either ACC team played. Go figure.

(05-23-2013 10:27 PM)Maize Wrote:  It could hurt them by having 1 less game then the other leagues...you could see a situation like this:

12-1 Alabama-(SEC Champion)
12-1 Southern Cal-(Pac 12 Champion)
12-1 Ohio State- (B1G Champion)

3 Spots for the 4th school...12-1 Florida State-(ACC Champion), 11-1 LSU-(only loss to Alabama @ Bama by 3) or 11-1 Texas-(Big XII Champion)

The best solution for a situation like this is an eight-team playoff.

I'm inclined to think we'll see that before we see an expanded Big 12.

(05-24-2013 06:29 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(05-23-2013 10:27 PM)Maize Wrote:  It could hurt them by having 1 less game then the other leagues...you could see a situation like this:

12-1 Alabama-(SEC Champion)
12-1 Southern Cal-(Pac 12 Champion)
12-1 Ohio State- (B1G Champion)

3 Spots for the 4th school...12-1 Florida State-(ACC Champion), 11-1 LSU-(only loss to Alabama @ Bama by 3) or 11-1 Texas-(Big XII Champion)

The best solution for a situation like this is an eight-team playoff.

I'm inclined to think we'll see that before we see an expanded Big 12.

I agree.

As for Maize's scenario, Texas by brand name alone would get the nod over Florida State for the 4th spot. Same thing for Oklahoma. If the Big XII champ is other than UT and OU then I can see the ACC champ or in that case LSU fighting for spot #4. If the Big XII champ is Oklahoma and the ACC's champ is Louisville or Georgia Tech then Oklahoma would get the 4th spot. The interesting part would be if the Big XII champ is TCU and the ACC champ is Syracuse. Who would get the spot?

The Big XII has had their #1 team lose in the CCG and I'm sure they don't want to deal with that nightmare again unless the $$$$ justifies the move. Colorado over Texas, Texas over Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech being tied in the South Division and deciding who was going to the CCG or Kansas getting the Big XII's second BCS bowl over Missouri even though Missouri beat KU and was ranked higher; Mizzou won the North Division and played in the CCG. I think the Big XII wants to take a break on that as much as they can.

(05-24-2013 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:50 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... which of course is a two-edge sword, as FSU loses to Florida at least as often as it beats them. FSU is historically the best shot the ACC will have to make the playoffs, but a loss in the Florida game will be impossible to overcome, being so high-profile and so late in the season.

And that's fine. It just means the ACC will always be in the conversation. Can't always say that for the Big 12 and definitely not for the AAC

The Big 12 doesn't have a high-profile end of season OOC game, and yet it's been in the title-game conversation far more often than has the ACC over the past decade.

Absolutely true but we are talking about the future. ACC has more opportunties to jump ahead of the Big 12. If FSU and Miami don't take a nosedive we're having a different conversation. Just keep an eye on Texas and OK. I have a feeling they are going through a period where they aren't in the conversation either.

In other words, the ACC will be relevant in national title conversations if OK and TX are a lot worse and Miami and FSU are a lot better than they have been the past 10 years. Wake me up when it happens.

FSU was better than OK and Texas last year. Miami and Texas were about the same. Last 3 years Texas has gone 5-7, 8-5, 9-4. Not exactly lighting the world on fire.

(05-24-2013 06:29 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(05-23-2013 10:27 PM)Maize Wrote:  It could hurt them by having 1 less game then the other leagues...you could see a situation like this:

12-1 Alabama-(SEC Champion)
12-1 Southern Cal-(Pac 12 Champion)
12-1 Ohio State- (B1G Champion)

3 Spots for the 4th school...12-1 Florida State-(ACC Champion), 11-1 LSU-(only loss to Alabama @ Bama by 3) or 11-1 Texas-(Big XII Champion)

The best solution for a situation like this is an eight-team playoff.

I'm inclined to think we'll see that before we see an expanded Big 12.

Me too. I think that it is inevitable.

(05-24-2013 08:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:50 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And that's fine. It just means the ACC will always be in the conversation. Can't always say that for the Big 12 and definitely not for the AAC

The Big 12 doesn't have a high-profile end of season OOC game, and yet it's been in the title-game conversation far more often than has the ACC over the past decade.

Absolutely true but we are talking about the future. ACC has more opportunties to jump ahead of the Big 12. If FSU and Miami don't take a nosedive we're having a different conversation. Just keep an eye on Texas and OK. I have a feeling they are going through a period where they aren't in the conversation either.

In other words, the ACC will be relevant in national title conversations if OK and TX are a lot worse and Miami and FSU are a lot better than they have been the past 10 years. Wake me up when it happens.

FSU was better than OK and Texas last year. Miami and Texas were about the same. Last 3 years Texas has gone 5-7, 8-5, 9-4. Not exactly lighting the world on fire.

KSU was probably better than FSU. I laugh at the idea that Miami would be better than UT though.

Oregon State, Ole Miss, and others that UT beat would handle the Canes. UT has been down but went 9-4 playing a much more difficult schedule than UM did at 7-5.

Clemson and FSU were good and UL was too. Other than that though there isn't any ACC14 team that the computers had in the top 50 other than Syracuse who came in roughly at 38 on average. Rounding out the bottom of the 15 current or future teams are 3 teams that averaged collectively 94.

The Big 12 had everyone except KU (99) and WVU (51.5) come in under 50 with KSU, OU, BU, OSU, and UT all in the top 26. It simply isn't close to the same thing.

(05-24-2013 08:44 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Big 12 doesn't have a high-profile end of season OOC game, and yet it's been in the title-game conversation far more often than has the ACC over the past decade.

Absolutely true but we are talking about the future. ACC has more opportunties to jump ahead of the Big 12. If FSU and Miami don't take a nosedive we're having a different conversation. Just keep an eye on Texas and OK. I have a feeling they are going through a period where they aren't in the conversation either.

In other words, the ACC will be relevant in national title conversations if OK and TX are a lot worse and Miami and FSU are a lot better than they have been the past 10 years. Wake me up when it happens.

FSU was better than OK and Texas last year. Miami and Texas were about the same. Last 3 years Texas has gone 5-7, 8-5, 9-4. Not exactly lighting the world on fire.

KSU was probably better than FSU. I laugh at the idea that Miami would be better than UT though.

Oregon State, Ole Miss, and others that UT beat would handle the Canes. UT has been down but went 9-4 playing a much more difficult schedule than UM did at 7-5.

Clemson and FSU were good and UL was too. Other than that though there isn't any ACC14 team that the computers had in the top 50 other than Syracuse who came in roughly at 38 on average. Rounding out the bottom of the 15 current or future teams are 3 teams that averaged collectively 94.

The Big 12 had everyone except KU (99) and WVU (51.5) come in under 50 with KSU, OU, BU, OSU, and UT all in the top 26. It simply isn't close to the same thing.

I didn't say Miami was better. I said it was about the same.I don't think Texas' schedule was that much tougher. Miami played K St and Notre Dame out of conference. Texas' toughest OOC game was Ole' Miss.

As for K St and FSU, we can debate that all day long. No way to know for sure.

Texas played 9 teams that went to bowl games. Miami didn't. Same argument with K-State over FSU...

(05-24-2013 09:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Texas played 9 teams that went to bowl games. Miami didn't. Same argument with K-State over FSU...

The Big 12 had 3 teams that finished above .500 in the conference. The reason why they had more bowls teams was because of weak non-conference schedules. Anyone can load up on cupcakes. Iowa State is a perfect example. They lost 6 conference games and went to a bowl. That's because they played Tulsa, Iowa, and Western Illinois...OOC.

(05-24-2013 08:52 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:44 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Absolutely true but we are talking about the future. ACC has more opportunties to jump ahead of the Big 12. If FSU and Miami don't take a nosedive we're having a different conversation. Just keep an eye on Texas and OK. I have a feeling they are going through a period where they aren't in the conversation either.

In other words, the ACC will be relevant in national title conversations if OK and TX are a lot worse and Miami and FSU are a lot better than they have been the past 10 years. Wake me up when it happens.

FSU was better than OK and Texas last year. Miami and Texas were about the same. Last 3 years Texas has gone 5-7, 8-5, 9-4. Not exactly lighting the world on fire.

KSU was probably better than FSU. I laugh at the idea that Miami would be better than UT though.

Oregon State, Ole Miss, and others that UT beat would handle the Canes. UT has been down but went 9-4 playing a much more difficult schedule than UM did at 7-5.

Clemson and FSU were good and UL was too. Other than that though there isn't any ACC14 team that the computers had in the top 50 other than Syracuse who came in roughly at 38 on average. Rounding out the bottom of the 15 current or future teams are 3 teams that averaged collectively 94.

The Big 12 had everyone except KU (99) and WVU (51.5) come in under 50 with KSU, OU, BU, OSU, and UT all in the top 26. It simply isn't close to the same thing.

I didn't say Miami was better. I said it was about the same.I don't think Texas' schedule was that much tougher. Miami played K St and Notre Dame out of conference. Texas' toughest OOC game was Ole' Miss.

As for K St and FSU, we can debate that all day long. No way to know for sure.

Good for them playing KSU and ND. Too bad the rest of their schedule was weak in the CPU's. Their avg opponent computer ranking is still 8-10 points lower despite their 3 noncons being KSU, ND, and USF.

I don't think FSU would beat KSU. Much the same way UF handled them I think KSU wouldn't be flashy but would simply execute their way to a vanilla W.

Clemson would be a worse matchup for them IMO.

(05-24-2013 09:10 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:52 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:44 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  In other words, the ACC will be relevant in national title conversations if OK and TX are a lot worse and Miami and FSU are a lot better than they have been the past 10 years. Wake me up when it happens.

FSU was better than OK and Texas last year. Miami and Texas were about the same. Last 3 years Texas has gone 5-7, 8-5, 9-4. Not exactly lighting the world on fire.

KSU was probably better than FSU. I laugh at the idea that Miami would be better than UT though.

Oregon State, Ole Miss, and others that UT beat would handle the Canes. UT has been down but went 9-4 playing a much more difficult schedule than UM did at 7-5.

Clemson and FSU were good and UL was too. Other than that though there isn't any ACC14 team that the computers had in the top 50 other than Syracuse who came in roughly at 38 on average. Rounding out the bottom of the 15 current or future teams are 3 teams that averaged collectively 94.

The Big 12 had everyone except KU (99) and WVU (51.5) come in under 50 with KSU, OU, BU, OSU, and UT all in the top 26. It simply isn't close to the same thing.

I didn't say Miami was better. I said it was about the same.I don't think Texas' schedule was that much tougher. Miami played K St and Notre Dame out of conference. Texas' toughest OOC game was Ole' Miss.

As for K St and FSU, we can debate that all day long. No way to know for sure.

Good for them playing KSU and ND. Too bad the rest of their schedule was weak in the CPU's. Their avg opponent computer ranking is still 8-10 points lower despite their 3 noncons being KSU, ND, and USF.

I don't think FSU would beat KSU. Much the same way UF handled them I think KSU wouldn't be flashy but would simply execute their way to a vanilla W.

Clemson would be a worse matchup for them IMO.

Maybe. K St didn't match up well with Baylor nor Oregon so Clemson probably would have given them fits. FSU is tough to gauge. There were leading Florida in the 4th quarter then EJ Manuel fell apart.

(05-24-2013 08:49 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  When all is said and done, the Big 12 will add at least 2 more team and maybe 4 teams. The Big 12 owns the names of Big 14 and Big 18. The teams I see for possible Big 12/14 expansion are:

BYU
Central Florida
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Memphis
South Florida

My best guess would be BYU and Cincinnati would be their first choice. However, BYU may still be a No-Go, so #12 is still the question mark.

If they go to 14, my guess is this:

BYU
Central Florida
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Memphis
South Florida

But here again BYU is probably a No-Go.

I have many OU & OSU friends who I have discussed this subject with, & I am sure they would disagree with your post.

The Big XII does not have to expand, period. This idea seems to be forgotten by a lot of people. I notice that fans of current Big XII fans seem to overwhelming make that point. They also seem to favor staying at 10.

I don't think the Big XII will expand in the near future with the teams you list above. BYU would be a possibility, but any of the other teams need to go on a Boise type run to have a good chance for an invitation.

I don't see the Big XII adding anyone for the next 5 years. In 10 years from now, when GORs could be expiring, Colorado State will be another potential expansion candidate on the Big XII radar. Of course, the Big XII could come apart when the GORs expire & then who knows where everyone ends up.

(05-24-2013 08:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:50 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And that's fine. It just means the ACC will always be in the conversation. Can't always say that for the Big 12 and definitely not for the AAC

The Big 12 doesn't have a high-profile end of season OOC game, and yet it's been in the title-game conversation far more often than has the ACC over the past decade.

Absolutely true but we are talking about the future. ACC has more opportunties to jump ahead of the Big 12. If FSU and Miami don't take a nosedive we're having a different conversation. Just keep an eye on Texas and OK. I have a feeling they are going through a period where they aren't in the conversation either.

In other words, the ACC will be relevant in national title conversations if OK and TX are a lot worse and Miami and FSU are a lot better than they have been the past 10 years. Wake me up when it happens.

FSU was better than OK and Texas last year. Miami and Texas were about the same. Last 3 years Texas has gone 5-7, 8-5, 9-4. Not exactly lighting the world on fire.

FSUs end of season position was inflated by getting to play northern Illinois in a bowl game. As for texas, the fact that they have been mediocre the past three years and yet the big 12 has still been more relevant in the title race than the ACC speaks volumes.

(05-24-2013 09:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Texas played 9 teams that went to bowl games. Miami didn't. Same argument with K-State over FSU...

The Big 12 had 3 teams that finished above .500 in the conference. The reason why they had more bowls teams was because of weak non-conference schedules. Anyone can load up on cupcakes. Iowa State is a perfect example. They lost 6 conference games and went to a bowl. That's because they played Tulsa, Iowa, and Western Illinois...OOC.

Some teams in the conference had to readjust their schedules due to realignment issues. It's not loading up on cupcakes, since B12 teams only play 3 OOC games. ACC teams played more OOC games, and had just as many patsies on their schedules. They simply played more OOC teams, which made their OOC schedules seem tougher...

(05-25-2013 08:44 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:01 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Texas played 9 teams that went to bowl games. Miami didn't. Same argument with K-State over FSU...

The Big 12 had 3 teams that finished above .500 in the conference. The reason why they had more bowls teams was because of weak non-conference schedules. Anyone can load up on cupcakes. Iowa State is a perfect example. They lost 6 conference games and went to a bowl. That's because they played Tulsa, Iowa, and Western Illinois...OOC.

Some teams in the conference had to readjust their schedules due to realignment issues. It's not loading up on cupcakes, since B12 teams only play 3 OOC games. ACC teams played more OOC games, and had just as many patsies on their schedules. They simply played more OOC teams, which made their OOC schedules seem tougher...

OOC schedules are highly over-rated. What should matter is the overall SOS. E.g., imagine these two schedules for an SEC and ACC team:

SEC team, Conference schedule: played #3 LSU, #1 Alabama, #8 Georgia, #15 Texas A&M, unranked Mississippi State, unranked Ole Miss. OOC schedule: played unranked cupcakes Louisiana-Monroe and Tulane, and unranked Western Kentucky.

ACC team, Conference schedule: played #21 Clemson, unranked Wake Forest, unranked Georgia Tech, unranked NC State, unranked UNC, and unranked Virginia Tech. OOC schedule: Unranked cupcake Florida A&M, unranked USF, #4 Florida.

Idiots who focus only on OOC schedule would say "Aha! The chicken SEC team feasted on a cupcake schedule whereas the brave ACC team scheduled a #4 OOC game!"

Completely missing the obvious fact that the SEC team clearly played a much tougher overall schedule.

(05-24-2013 10:34 PM)Tulsafanzz Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:49 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  When all is said and done, the Big 12 will add at least 2 more team and maybe 4 teams. The Big 12 owns the names of Big 14 and Big 18. The teams I see for possible Big 12/14 expansion are:

BYU
Central Florida
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Memphis
South Florida

My best guess would be BYU and Cincinnati would be their first choice. However, BYU may still be a No-Go, so #12 is still the question mark.

If they go to 14, my guess is this:

BYU
Central Florida
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Memphis
South Florida

But here again BYU is probably a No-Go.

I have many OU & OSU friends who I have discussed this subject with, & I am sure they would disagree with your post.

The Big XII does not have to expand, period. This idea seems to be forgotten by a lot of people. I notice that fans of current Big XII fans seem to overwhelming make that point. They also seem to favor staying at 10.

I don't think the Big XII will expand in the near future with the teams you list above. BYU would be a possibility, but any of the other teams need to go on a Boise type run to have a good chance for an invitation.

I don't see the Big XII adding anyone for the next 5 years. In 10 years from now, when GORs could be expiring, Colorado State will be another potential expansion candidate on the Big XII radar. Of course, the Big XII could come apart when the GORs expire & then who knows where everyone ends up.

That is up to Texas...the Big XII GoR expires two years before everyone else. JMO, if no Big XII expansion within two years of that date then the Longhorns are going to completely stir the pot again...looking for the best deal between their current league or looking @ a deal with either the ACC or B1G...

(05-25-2013 11:48 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:34 PM)Tulsafanzz Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:49 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  When all is said and done, the Big 12 will add at least 2 more team and maybe 4 teams. The Big 12 owns the names of Big 14 and Big 18. The teams I see for possible Big 12/14 expansion are:

BYU
Central Florida
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Memphis
South Florida

My best guess would be BYU and Cincinnati would be their first choice. However, BYU may still be a No-Go, so #12 is still the question mark.

If they go to 14, my guess is this:

BYU
Central Florida
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Memphis
South Florida

But here again BYU is probably a No-Go.

I have many OU & OSU friends who I have discussed this subject with, & I am sure they would disagree with your post.

The Big XII does not have to expand, period. This idea seems to be forgotten by a lot of people. I notice that fans of current Big XII fans seem to overwhelming make that point. They also seem to favor staying at 10.

I don't think the Big XII will expand in the near future with the teams you list above. BYU would be a possibility, but any of the other teams need to go on a Boise type run to have a good chance for an invitation.

I don't see the Big XII adding anyone for the next 5 years. In 10 years from now, when GORs could be expiring, Colorado State will be another potential expansion candidate on the Big XII radar. Of course, the Big XII could come apart when the GORs expire & then who knows where everyone ends up.

That is up to Texas...the Big XII GoR expires two years before everyone else. JMO, if no Big XII expansion within two years of that date then the Longhorns are going to completely stir the pot again...looking for the best deal between their current league or looking @ a deal with either the ACC or B1G...

Texas will never be in the ACC. And before you said Texas talked to the ACC three years ago, they did it as leverage to get what they wanted from the Big XII (sounds like Notre Dame) but never seriously considered the ACC as a real option. Texas really really likes the Pac-12, they had made it clear several times (they have a hard on for the California schools) but they would rather rule the Big XII and get the best deal any school has before going to the Pac-12.

(05-25-2013 12:06 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 11:48 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:34 PM)Tulsafanzz Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:49 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  When all is said and done, the Big 12 will add at least 2 more team and maybe 4 teams. The Big 12 owns the names of Big 14 and Big 18. The teams I see for possible Big 12/14 expansion are:

BYU
Central Florida
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Memphis
South Florida

My best guess would be BYU and Cincinnati would be their first choice. However, BYU may still be a No-Go, so #12 is still the question mark.

If they go to 14, my guess is this:

BYU
Central Florida
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Memphis
South Florida

But here again BYU is probably a No-Go.

I have many OU & OSU friends who I have discussed this subject with, & I am sure they would disagree with your post.

The Big XII does not have to expand, period. This idea seems to be forgotten by a lot of people. I notice that fans of current Big XII fans seem to overwhelming make that point. They also seem to favor staying at 10.

I don't think the Big XII will expand in the near future with the teams you list above. BYU would be a possibility, but any of the other teams need to go on a Boise type run to have a good chance for an invitation.

I don't see the Big XII adding anyone for the next 5 years. In 10 years from now, when GORs could be expiring, Colorado State will be another potential expansion candidate on the Big XII radar. Of course, the Big XII could come apart when the GORs expire & then who knows where everyone ends up.

That is up to Texas...the Big XII GoR expires two years before everyone else. JMO, if no Big XII expansion within two years of that date then the Longhorns are going to completely stir the pot again...looking for the best deal between their current league or looking @ a deal with either the ACC or B1G...

Texas will never be in the ACC. And before you said Texas talked to the ACC three years ago, they did it as leverage to get what they wanted from the Big XII (sounds like Notre Dame) but never seriously considered the ACC as a real option. Texas really really likes the Pac-12, they had made it clear several times (they have a hard on for the California schools) but they would rather rule the Big XII and get the best deal any school has before going to the Pac-12.

Oh I agree...in the end they have it way too good to in the end mess it up....it makes too much sense...that why I said they will stir the pot for a deal to their liking.

(05-24-2013 04:16 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 04:11 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  Actually I don't think the Big 12 needs a championship game as long as they continue to:

1. Play a 9-game conference game
2. Extend the schedule to late November so that they still have games going on while the SEC & B1G is playing the CCG.

They do that now. Honestly, I don't think the Big 12 needs a CCG. There really is no one out there that makes sense for them to add. My only request would be for them to upgrade their non-conference schedules.

I know they do that now. That is why I said "continue".

(05-25-2013 11:48 AM)Maize Wrote:  That is up to Texas...the Big XII GoR expires two years before everyone else. JMO, if no Big XII expansion within two years of that date then the Longhorns are going to completely stir the pot again...looking for the best deal between their current league or looking @ a deal with either the ACC or B1G...

Why would Texas want expansion? They get $20+ million from the Big 12 media deal and $15 million for their tier-3 garbage from the LHN. They are milking more money from the current system than anyone else and love being the king-pin of their own P5 league.

Last thing Texas wants is to have to join the SEC, B1G, PAC, or ACC and be merely one of many "equals". The idea of sharing equal money with the likes of Wake Forest, Rutgers, Utah, or Mississippi State sucks for them almost as much as joining a conference does for Notre Dame.

No, the real danger to long-run Big 12 stability isn't Texas or OK being unhappy, it's one of more of the relatively more-valuable other Big 12 schools, like say a Kansas, deciding that it can make more money and gain more visibility by joining the B1G, PAC, or SEC.