Texas To The Big 10?

by Peter Bean on Jul 31, 2007 2:33 PM CDT in Football Comment 12 comments

Could Texas be the team the Big 10 is eyeing to become the twelth member of the conference?

Maybe, but it's beyond unlikely Texas would do it. It's not so much that the Big 12 is so wonderful (all other factors being equal, Texas would rather be in the Big 10), it's that (at least for football) a move to the Big 10 would dramatically hamper Texas' ability to schedule. At all.

Texas would play eight conference games per season in the Big 10 each year. Add in that Texas would never drop Oklahoma and A&M from the schedule and the Longhorns have 10 games set for the season already. In all likelihood, that would mean two games with some combination of Rice, Houston, North Texas, Baylor and TCU to maintain a strong presence in the state, give local fans opportunities to see the team, and maintain their recruiting strategies.

And that's just football. As Brian notes:

Non-revenue sports would all of a sudden have killer travel costs... and what do they do with their baseball and softball teams, both of which they like quite a bit? Playing in a virtual mid major is going to be a harsh blow.

Right. There's a reason Texas flirted with the Big 10 when the Southwest Conference disbanded - the academics at the member institutions are far superior to those in the Big 12 and it'd be a very strong financial situation for the athletic department in football.

But, there's a reason we went with the Big 12 in the end. For all the pros that exist for playing football in the Big 10 and being associated with better academic institutions, there are too many overall drawbacks when you consider non-revenue sports, travelling issues, and the "State of Texas" factor. (Our state pride - good in many regards - can make us a bit of a provincial bunch at times.)

All told, while the chatter is fun and the pros to playing football in the Big 10 are tasty, this is never going to happen. The Big 12, limitations and all, is a better fit for Texas athletics overall.

--PB--

0 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Don't let me catch you flirting with another

conference. It makes me sadface on the insides.

by Red Blooded on Jul 31, 2007 2:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Mizzou seems like the

likely choice here.

But Jim Delaney should pay a visit to Mizzou's stadium before sending the invite. My HS football stadium is about the same size. I've seen junior high track meets with more atmosphere than Mizzou on a Saturday.
It says something about their fan support.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Jul 31, 2007 3:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

You have said that a couple of times

Why Mizzou?

Is is a mixture of location and quality of teams?

Why not Iowa St?

by Wells on Jul 31, 2007 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

2 reasons

TV markets - St.Louis and Kansas City

Location - Contiguous with BigTen states

--- All roads to the Big-XII Championships run through OU and the RRS. It's not just "another game." ---

by HornChamps on Jul 31, 2007 6:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree with Hornchamps

They also meet academic & research standards, plus they already have a rivalry with Illinois.

Iowa State doesn't meet any of the above qualities, aside from an instate rival.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Jul 31, 2007 7:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That makes sense

What about Pittsburgh?

by Wells on Jul 31, 2007 8:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Makes sense football wise

but I wonder if Big East teams will be reluctant to break up basketball rivalries.
It will be interesting to see, because I think Big East teams are more likely targets than BIG 12 teams.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Aug 1, 2007 7:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Beyond unlikely

I'd say this is ridiculous [fill in the dog days of the offseason] banter.

I keep reading columns that include absurd justifications for why teams should or shouldn't join certain conferences, and they typically cite revenue issues, tv deals, new tv markets, recruiting advantages, etc. Unfortunately, all of these things fly in the face of much more obvious issues, like, oh I don't know, GEOGRAPHY!!

Geography is a factually real issue people. If you're a pragmatist, it affects the operating costs of your athletic department, if you're a traditionalist, there are dozens of reasons geography is important, from neighboring rivalries to regional culture to acting a part of a larger athletic community.

As much as we hate A&M, they are more a part of our culture than Wisconsin is, and in the Big Ten, Texas would experience a sort of strange, isolated, identity crisis. Imagine opening the paper and reading about A&M, OU, and Tech, but then having to skip that page to see what Purdue and Michigan St. did last Saturday instead. I think the strange sense of isolation Texas fans would feel would be more detrimental that people consider.

I read a column a couple of years back about how Notre Dame makes much more sense in the Big East. Why is that exactly? Because they play basketball in that conference? Let's see, Notre Dame regularly plays Michigan, Michigan St., Purdue, and Indiana, and by the way, they happen to be located in the dead center of the big ten region, roughly equidistant from all of its perimeters. Most importantly, they are a northern Indiana team that shares the same general midwestern culture that all of the Big Ten teams share. But I can see how they would better fit with West Virginia and South Florida [insert bitterly sarcastic tone].

People get so caught up in obscure logistics, trends, and short-sighted revenue plans, that they overlook the most obvious factors staring them blatantly in the face.

by BrooklynHorn on Jul 31, 2007 3:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

True

But the Big East and ACC make it work. Boston College and Miami have been playing each other for years.
Rutgers has to play South Florida, Lville, Cincy, etc.

You are right about the isolation and weirdness of it. IMO, we would be hated in BIG 10 country. Not a good culture fit.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Jul 31, 2007 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is why I think

the Big East and ACC don't work well.

The Big Ten and the SEC have been perennially the best two conferences throughout the past 50 years, and I don't think its a coincidence that they are the most tightly knit conferences. The Big12, Big East, and ACC are perhaps a bit too ambitious compared to the old Big8, SWC, etc. It could be that those conferences happen to be experiencing down years, but I wonder if history won't look upon them as a mistake, while the Big10 and SEC keep rolling along.

The proximity of the stadia, the recruiting, and the close sense of culture in the Big10/SEC creates escalation, in my opinion it breeds a more competitive environment. Whereas USC and Washington compete in a more abstract sphere, as do Boston College and Miami, and even Texas and Iowa St.

by BrooklynHorn on Jul 31, 2007 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Might work

Perhaps A&M could come with us? And I don't see travel costs as a big deterrent. Travel times, maybe if they take the bus. But with the extra dough the Big 10 games will bring in, it could be that the costs are offset. I notice some less rich schools are doing OK in the Mid America conference.

by Caradoc on Jul 31, 2007 3:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

It would be awesome

I know it won't happen, but I would love to see Texas join us in the Big 10. I would love to go to Austin to watch Michigan play Texas! I'm in favor of this as an OOC game also.

Also, if it happened, I would hope for the Big 12 to decide to kick out Iowa St in order to balance the divisions. Then the Big 10 would have 12 teams and the Big 12 would have 10 teams.

by jallotta on Jul 31, 2007 3:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs