TCU is not going to hand over it's vote to UT, period. If West Virginia really doesn't want Cincinnati, then Cincy isn't going to be recommended by Bowlsby and the Committee and no one will even vote on them. The point of adding Cincy would be to please WVa. by adding a somewhat close school in the eastern time zone - if this article is correct and the Eers are in a NIMBY mood, then there is no point in even trying to "please" them and no school will vote for them. And, TCU was going to be added in 2011 despite Texas - all the other schools were in favor of it and Neinas (at the time) said that in public and that there was only possible opposition from one school (i.e., UT). AD CDC then went on an unannounced trip to Austin to shmooze DeBoss Dodds and after that, UT withdrew their "possible" opposition, that is, they acquiesced to the fait accompli. Yes, after TCU was added, that trip was well-publicized and the story emerged that TCU owed its inclusion to UT, which is a story that it isn't accurate. TCU doesn't really care whether the myth of UT's support is accurate or not and it's okay with us if UT wants to take credit, so we've never really challenged the myth because there's no point to it. But the idea that we're going to hand over our vote on our future to UT is utterly ridiculous. It's junk like that that makes me disbelieve everything else the Dude says.

What TCU is likely to do is to vote WITH EVERYONE ELSE and either accept or reject the Bowlsby/Committee recommendation, be it BYU/Cincy, BYU/Houston or Houston/Cincy (or something else). And if it's no, all that means is that it's put off until next May, so it's really "not at this time" and not really no. There is no "vote trading" or other machinations. I think generally that TCU favors expansion (including BYU) because that means more money. TCU, like the famed philosopher Frito from Idiocracy, "likes money." It's that simple.