Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[bullsbucsfan426]

NIU was surprisingly high. 

But I would not complain if we only lost Cincy and they took Colorado state since all we need to do is go grab Army. 

 

[Guest PCBull14]

20 minutes ago, NAM37 said:

I'm sure this is more Twitter crap, but I find the "veto" column interesting:

 

 

If this is legit...you telling me TX vetoed Houston! Like I said if TX wants a campus in Houston they will get one. UH in the end will not stop them. I think they're realizing that. Just my gut instinct and how I've felt all along. 

[NAM37]

3 minutes ago, PCBull14 said:

If this is legit...you telling me TX vetoed Houston! Like I said if TX wants a campus in Houston they will get one. UH in the end will not stop them. I think they're realizing that. Just my gut instinct and how I've felt all along. 

That TX veto is one of the main reasons I think this is fake (That and NIU doing so well.). If it's NOT fake then someone is going to get fired because no one involved would want this released.

Edited September 1, 2016 by NAM37

[Dogma]

31 minutes ago, brybull1970 said:

Assuming July and Mark were two of the three, I would also Bring Rob Higgins and the person who could have the biggest financial impact on the University (from legislator, donor, corporate support).

If LRS was still with us I would likely say just send him, but part of me thinks USF would have already been in the Power 5.

Vinik

[Triple B]

33 minutes ago, NAM37 said:

I'm sure this is more Twitter crap, but I find the "veto" column interesting:

 

 

Now this is the kind of stuff that made this thread once awesome .....

[ToroDeFuego]

32 minutes ago, NAM37 said:

I'm sure this is more Twitter crap, but I find the "veto" column interesting:

 

 

Obviously fake. They wouldn't go through all of their confidentiality stuff and then print out sheets like this. And if they did, it would have a burnt orange header on it not NIU red.

[Who'sYourData?]

37 minutes ago, NAM37 said:

I'm sure this is more Twitter crap, but I find the "veto" column interesting:

 

 

Rice is allegedly still in the mix.  But they got zero votes here.  ECU got more votes, but they are out.

Doesn't look legit, unless this was just a quick straw poll before information gathering or something along those lines.

[Guest PCBull14]

9 minutes ago, NAM37 said:

That TX veto is one of the main reasons I think this is fake (That and NIU doing so well.). If it's NOT fake then someone is going to get fired because no one involved would want this released.

Yeppers. First thing I saw was NIU and Boise scoring so high and then getting the cut. Though I still think Houston is the most vulnerable candidate right now. I just have this feeling TX hopes this thing drags out, gets approval to build in Houston with out much effort,  and then blocks them.

[Triple B]

1 hour ago, NAM37 said:

I'm sure this is more Twitter crap, but I find the "veto" column interesting:

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, ToroDeFuego said:

Obviously fake. They wouldn't go through all of their confidentiality stuff and then print out sheets like this. And if they did, it would have a burnt orange header on it not NIU red.

There's no way that, at any point in this process, the top 4 for expansion would have been Cincinnati, Colorado State, Northern Illinois and UConn. If there was, we really need to reconsider this whole thing ..... the Big 12 is bat **** crazy.

[namuh-bull]

So each school ranked their expansion picks from 10 to 1, and had the chance to veto candidates.  The V is below 0, I guess.

Just the generic title "Conference Expansion Scorecard" tells me it's bogus.  These conferences are so full of themselves that they would name it something like  "Big 12 preliminary candidate scorecard"

NIU - yeah.

Go Bulls!