Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

No way USC was going to stay on an island.  You already stated they wanted Stanford.  Then they wanted UCLA.

Do you remember UT's "Tech Problem?"  That wasn't an issue with the Texas leg trying to force Tech as a partner.  That was Texas wanting to bring a playmate, and A&M was already gone to the SEC.  Texas wanted a partner for reasons that should be obvious.  USC wanted the same thing.

Again, and for the last time-- the B1G got what it wanted.  Regardless of how fans like you feel about it.  The B1G wanted this.  Your schools are cashing the checks.  They could choose not to, they could leave, but they don't.  And so you're all stuck with this. 

Yes, and no. USC was ready to move on when Stanford and the B1G mutually declined each other. UCLA being added was a B1G decision - not a USC demand. And it was a terrible decision.

Anyway, I look at expansion since it started in 2010, and I see Nebraska, Maryland, USC, Rutgers, UCLA, Oregon, Washington.

Only the first 3 make any sense at all. Nebraska makes the most sense.

I really hate this.

I wish sometimes that the PAC could have made that big move with UT, aTm, Tech, oSu, OU and UC. That would have been very stable and in it for the long haul.

A&M scuttled that one because they preferred to look East.  Which is fine of course-- they should have done, and did do, what they thought was best for them.

So you'd be looking at Baylor instead.

Personally I like USC plenty but the idea of playing the rest of the PAC was no more interesting than staying in the B12. 

I'd have much preferred going to the B1G but that just wasn't to be.

That was the "Tech problem" right there. B1G wanted aTm and UT only. I remember that one pretty clearly.

UT could have kept OU as an OOC game too.

The B1G probably would have only taken Maryland if that really happened, to make it an even 14.

The XII would have persisted with UNL and OU in the conference still - adding Utah and BYU.

Nebraska is in the B1G because it couldn't get Texas, an at that time Nebraska looked the next best thing.

Back in 1990-91 would have been the time to grab Texas, but the Big Ten F'd up and held out for fND.

Leadership knows how to print money and that's that.

Agree 100%, that would be a lot of fun and would provide some much deserved relevance back to that historic venue.

And the upper half of the bowl would get butts in seats!!!!  Those poor, lonely seats.  

UT wasn't going to come without a partner, for all sorts of obvious reasons.  A&M didn't want PAC or B1G, they wanted to head east, and they did.  That left Tech.  And the B1G refused Tech.  That killed any chance at a deal.

But NU was already gone to the B1G, the "Tech problem" occurred after the Huskers were already leaving, which was the worst kept secret in college football history.

A&M wanted to go to the SEC as far back as the 80's/90's when it became apparent the SWC was no longer going to be a thing.  We were forced into the XII, along with Tech and Baylor, by the powers that be in the Higher Ups in the State.  Namely, Ann Richards and Bob Bullock, Baylor and Tech Alums.  This is well known and documented.  However, A&M was perfectly content staying in the Big 12 as it originally was structured, until Neb and Co bolted first.  The only mistake we made was staying the extra season, we should have left when NU/CU did and got it over with.  

I often wonder if we could have bolted when Arkansas did in '91/92(?).  Also remember that in that time period A&M was playing some of it's best football ever.  I think we could have easily taken USCe's spot from that time and got in the "original" 12 team league.  

BS