Texas to the Big 10?
by rencito on Dec 16, 2009 3:25 PM CST
Email
PrintThe Big 10 announced earlier this week that it will explore ideas for expansion. It is pretty widely known that the Big 10 has always had a crush on Notre Dame, and for good reason. However, we also know that Notre Dame hasn't exactly been reciprocating in the courtship. It is still possible, however (contrary to popular belief, Notre Dame would benefit financially from the move).
Missouri has been mentioned a lot, but I don't see how that benefits the Big 10 in any way--not a ton of tradition, nor rabid fan base, nor academics, nor or huge TV market. Personally, Rutgers makes more sense than Missouri (also, another myth is that a new school must border on the existing Big 10 footprint--which is also untrue).
But another interesting school that has surfaced is Texas. Because why would the Big 10 not aim high if it can't get Notre Dame? In fact, the argument can be made that Texas may be more beneficial than Notre Dame given its stellar athletics program, fan following and Houston/Dallas/San Antonio/Austin markets. Texas fits in with the Big 10 in terms of tradition, size, market, AND academics. As a disclaimer, I am a Big 10 guy (Minnesota undergrad) currently in Texas' MBA program here in Austin. (As an aside I will DEFINITELY be cheering for Minnesota in the big volleyball match tomorrow night!) So, I am all in favor of Texas moving to the Big 10. It would probably benefit Texas financially (The Big Ten Network alone adds $6M per year and would probably grow with the addition of Texas) as well as give it more of a presence in recruiting the Midwest. It would also be a step up in terms of academic resources (every Big 10 university is part of the prestigious American Association of Universities, as is Texas, only half of the Big XII has such designation).
What I'm looking for is some input from Texas fans. I do see some drawbacks such as losing some rivalry games with Oklahoma and A&M. It certainly wouldn't be hard to keep those as non-conference games, but would only make the schedule more difficult (can you imagine playing Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M all in one year?). Plus, I think Texas would be at a huge disadvantage playing in Minnesota, Penn State, Wisconsin and other cold weather locales where there may be several inches of snow in late season games.
But that is just football. Texas would be a good add for Big 10 volleyball (Minnesota and Penn State are both in the Final Four this weekend), basketball (joining Illinois, Michigan State, Ohio State, Minnesota as powerhouses), and baseball (Minnesota and Ohio State are the big guns here, but Texas would probably dominate).
So what do Texas fans think? Surely, there are some positives and negatives to which I am not privy.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
152 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
On a similar note
Let’s say that the Big 10 takes Missouri.
Who would you want as their replacement?
TCU?
Utah?
Boise State?
Rice?
Houston?
Someone else?
I would think that would be the logical choice as well
Maybe TCU—they do play in Dallas/Fort Worth. But they aren’t a big school (enrollment wise).
I wonder if the other Big XII schools would balk at ANOTHER Texas school being added to the conference to replace a non-Texas school. I know I would be. Right now, Texas has a tremendous advantage playing so many games in their home state.
If I’m a non-Texas Big XII school, I would probably push for Utah. But again, money would be a huge factor, so perhaps not.
Texas is a big state though.
the travel from Austin to Lubbock is probable longer then any big 12 north school to any other big 12 north school. so if a school like Houston joined the big 12, Texas Tech might move to the north division, if TCU, they could just be in the north division.
by Ryan2907 on Dec 17, 2009 1:25 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
See the barking carnival thread, it is getting rather absurd.
The swine flu takes a Will Muschamp shot every September.
by pleaseplaykindle on Dec 16, 2009 3:50 PM CST reply actions
ummm...geography?
Plus I’d rather battle OU(great rivalry too) for the big XII every year than fight off iowa, penn state, michigan, and ohio state.
by trueorangeblood on Dec 16, 2009 3:58 PM CST via mobile reply actions
Agreed on those points
Certainly an easier path to winning the Big XII than Big 10. Remember Penn State before joining the Big 10? They were dominant. The road got a lot tougher with the grueling Big 10 schedule.
I don’t know how big of an issue geography is, but it is certainly a consideration.
As of recent
OSU OU TTech are tougher than those 4.
Plus, there’s no way one Division would have Texas matched with Iowa, PSU, UM, and tOSU. (And I guess MSU?)
That would leave the other division to have what, Northwestern, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue? Man, that would be some great football to watch.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Dec 16, 2009 4:54 PM CST up reply actions
Logical divisional structure
I think would be east/west:
West
Texas
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Northwestern
East
PSU
UM
MSU
OSU
Indiana
Purdue
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 16, 2009 5:07 PM CST up reply actions
OSU, OU, TTech better?
Based on what?
Sagarin Ratings:
Ohio State 12
Iowa 18
Penn State 20
Oklahoma 23
Nebraska 24
Texas Tech 31
RPI Rankings:
Ohio State 8
Iowa 9
Penn State 11
Oklahoma St 18
Nebraska 19
Wisconsin 20
Texas Tech 29
Oklahoma 36
The Big XII was pretty weak this year and it certainly helped Texas. Yeah, yeah, Oklahoma was down this year. So was Michigan.
In basketball, the Big XII is certainly better now. I won’t argue that one. My point is that there is no way the Big Ten is an “inferior athletic conference”. You can argue that Texas wouldn’t stand to gain much by switching (although I think they would benefit financially), but it isn’t because The Big Ten is inferior athletically.
Okay, then what does it mean?
Again, I think we are splitting hairs. Any difference between the two conferences are pretty negligible from a performance standpoint.
You just wrote:
Any difference between the two conferences are pretty negligible from a performance standpoint.
But on the other thread, you wrote:
I would take Iowa, Ohio State, and Penn State over Texas and Oklahoma State and it isn’t even close if you are talking "right now".
Which is it?
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 16, 2009 5:47 PM CST up reply actions
That is the whole point
One person can point to the Big XII being better depending on the time frame while you can say the same thing about the Big Ten.
My point is that arguing which conference is best when talking about moving is rather futile for me or anyone else to argue. My point about Iowa, Ohio State, and PSU “right now” was in response to someone else.
The conferences are at parity from a performance standpoint. From a financial standpoint, it should favor the Big Ten (TV contracts/networks). Texas may be less affected by a move than others would be.
Big Ten territory definitely has the population advantage
But I have to wonder about the rapidly declining economy in that region. Does the decay harm the outlook of media revenues for the conference?
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 7:33 AM CST up reply actions
Sure - I think the conferences are on par in football and basketball
However, the Big Ten is terrible at baseball.
Fair
Ohio State and Minnesota are the best teams in the conference. Texas is considerably better than them—although that is one sport.
How good is Texas at hockey? Again, one sport.
"How good is Texas at hockey?"
…that would be AWESOME!
by BrooklynHorn on Dec 16, 2009 9:14 PM CST up reply actions
I wouldn't be too surprised . . .
. . . if some school in Texas — not UT, but perhaps an SMU — took advantage of the youth programs which have been flourishing in Dallas over the last decade or so and fielded a hockey team as a niche sport.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 16, 2009 10:53 PM CST up reply actions
false, Wincosin is better than Minnesota
heck even Illini is better than Minnesota at times. yes you have tubby for basketball, but lets not get too crazy
COACH BOOM BABY!!
I wish they would take Iowa State
I know there is no incentive for them to do it, but I always thought they were out of place in our conference. I would like to replace Iowa State with Arkansas and renew the SWC rivalries. They are generally good competitors in FB, BB and baseball. TCU or Houston would also be fine.
No kidding
I’m the most passionate about giving Iowa St. the boot. They need to pick it up and carry some weight. I’d swap them Iowa or Arkansas in a heartbeat.
Out of place in "our" conference?
You do realize that Iowa State has been a member of the Big 12’s precursor conferences since the early 1900s, right?
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
Never ever
Game travel would be a disaster for the Texas fans.
Agree
Impossible. Not gonna happen. For all the reasons listed by the posters above (tradition, money, etc.).
It would probably improve
the financial situation. How much does tradition hold when we are talking about money? We’ve seen tradition lose out before.
Would it really help us that much financially?
We already have the highest athletics revenue in the country, are we going to be double the rest of the country once we join the Big Ten?
We don't need help financially!!!
and probably never will. See Permanent University Fund. See 80M football profit. Plus I wouldn’t want to see our kick coverage team playing in Madison, Ann Arbor, State College, etc in the snow in the late fall :)
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Dec 16, 2009 9:04 PM CST up reply actions
Agree
The Longhorns have a big advantage in the Big XII. They would certainly lose that in the Big 10. Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State travel well. They would love to see a game in Austin.
Honestly, and I’m a Longhorn season ticket holder, I’m not even sure the Horns are the best team in Texas. TCU had a better resume and Texas benefited from a VERY down Big XII conference this year.
Nor really sure . . .
. . . how this is relevant in a thread about a theoretical Texas move to the Big 10:
I’m not even sure the Horns are the best team in Texas. TCU had a better resume and Texas benefited from a VERY down Big XII conference this year.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 16, 2009 5:23 PM CST up reply actions
A tangent
Based on my view that the down Big XII helped Texas get to the national championship game.
We’re probably splitting hairs here trying to argue which conference is best athletically. It really is a true toss up. In the end, Texas would probably gain financially at first, but not sure it would be best for their competitive interest in the long run.
Basically, I’m reacting to the “inferior athletic conference” posted by someone else.
Regardless of whether we're the best team in Texas (which I think we are)
I’m pretty sure we would have been the best team in the Big Ten this year.
Debatable
Again, I would like to see Texas play more true away games. You really think it is that easy to go into a Big Ten stadium and win? I doubt Texas would have gone undefeated in the Big Ten this year.
For the record, I’m not anti-Texas at all. As an objective college football fan, I just feel TCU got jobbed because Texas started out ranked higher and is the only reason they finished higher. I really do hope UT beats Alabama because I can’t stand how the SEC thinks it is God’s gift to football. Especially this year—for many of the same reasons stated above. Texas, Alabama, Florida all had their fair share of warts. I was really hoping for an all Texas NC game between TCU and Texas. Stupid SEC.
Debatable?
Which team would be better? OSU? Iowa?
No, I’m pretty sure Texas would be far and away the best team in that conference.
by billycthulhu on Dec 16, 2009 6:10 PM CST up reply actions
If Nebraska and Oklahoma
can almost win on neutral fields, I’m pretty sure Ohio State, Penn State or even Iowa would win at home. But the Horns benefited mightily from a down Big XII this year, not to mention playing so many games within the state of Texas. No way Texas would be undefeated in the Big 10.
And how many times did Ohio State benefit from a lackluster Big 10?
The Big 12 may be down this year, but to say that there is “no way” that Texas would be undefeated in the Big 10, when freaking Iowa was surviving for much of the year, is being a bit too bold.
by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 17, 2009 4:50 AM CST up reply actions
Furthermore
It is bizarre you’re trying to point to the Big 12 being down as a point for TCU without taking into consideration their own conference, which is still considerably weaker than the Big 12. Would TCU be undefeated in the Big 12?
by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 17, 2009 4:52 AM CST up reply actions
Also, you can't really say
that TCU was jobbed by the Big XII being weak when they aren’t even the BCS #3 team. If Texas had lost a game, TCU would still be on the outside.
I'm not entirely convinced that Cincy would have gone had we lost
I haven’t bothered trying to crack the numbers, but in at least two of the six computers, Texas was wedged between Cincinnati and TCU. Had Texas lost, Texas would have fallen and TCU would have moved up in relation to Cincinnati in the polls. GIven the very narrow margin separating the two teams, it seems at least plausible that TCU would have been #3.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 17, 2009 10:22 AM CST up reply actions
For the record, Dallas is farther away from Austin...
…than Ann Arbor is from Columbus. Study up on geography. Texas is big. Very, very big. Just because something takes place within the borders of the state does not mean it’s not a lot farther away from Austin than something that would be a state or three away from a Big Ten school.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 7:37 AM CST up reply actions
Still Texas
The distance is rather irrelevant. You don’t think there are as many Longhorns fans in Dallas as there are in Austin? I’m not saying everyone in Dallas is a UT fan, but given the difference in total population, there are probably as many UT fans in Dallas as Austin.
Uh huh
And what does the gross number of fans have to do with whether or not something is a true away game? There are lots of Ohio State fans in the Ann Arbor-Detroit area, believe it or not. My mother-in-law lived in Saginaw, the poor thing, and there were Ohio State fans all over the place there.
So what’s your point?
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 9:29 AM CST up reply actions
Doesn't matter
Look at the stadium on game day. Ohio State does not enjoy a de facto home game when they play in Ann Arbor like UT does when it plays anywhere inside Texas—where most of their games are played. College Station may be an exception when they have a decent team (I haven’t seen a game in College Station).
They have played a total of 10 games outside of Texas in the last four years combined. You can’t tell me that isn’t a HUGE advantage. That is probably the biggest reason Texas wouldn’t leave the Big XII.
You're obviously just posing as a Longhorns ticket holder
Otherwise you might actually know more about this. Texas does not “enjoy a de facto home game” anywhere inside Texas. Ever attend UT @ Tech? Or UT @ atm?
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 9:48 AM CST up reply actions
Don't forget
the rose bowl in 2006. That was decidedly out of our state an within 20 miles of the school we were playing and yet we had 60% of the crowd if not more. If we are willing to go to California, then I’m willing to say that our fans just travel well. If tickets are available, then we buy them.
Went to Disney World last Friday through Monday
And I noticed on Friday that there were many, many more instances of burnt orange Texas apparel than any other two schools’ apparel combined. It was a little closer on Saturday and Sunday, as the locals were out at the park, but still fewer of them showed than did Texas fans. Monday was another burnt orange day at Disney World.
So even if the available tickets aren’t for anything related to football, it appears that Texas fans buy them.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 11:05 AM CST up reply actions
You've busted yourself as a poser
with that comment about de facto home games. The only place in this state where Texas has an advantage with regard to the crowd at away games is in Houston when the Horns play Rice, and that’s because Rice is a tiny school that typically sucks at football and Houston has the largest concentration of Texas alumni.
Tech and A&M don’t give Texas anywhere near enough tickets to come within miles of making those “de facto home games.” It’s the biggest game of the year, by far, for both of those schools when they get to play Texas at home, and they sell out pretty much immediately.
Texas/OU is as close to a true neutral site game as a rivalry can possibly get. The Cotton Bowl is almost exactly halfway between Austin and Norman (it’s actually 7 miles closer to Norman), and OU and Texas each get a 50% ticket allotment every year.
If you were really a Texas fan, you’d know all of this. My guess is you’re another one of those SEC fans looking for a reason as to why Texas doesn’t belong in the national title game. What’s the matter? Are you afraid Alabama isn’t up to the challenge? If we’re so undeserving, you should be resting easy, not pretending to be a UT fan on the Internet.
His posting history: Minnesota Golden Gophers
In addition to the Twins, Timberwolves, etc.
This is not a Texas season ticket holder. Nor am I, for that matter, but I never claimed to be.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 12:45 PM CST up reply actions
yeah..
…I remember this guy when we beat Minnesota in basketball. Maybe he’s still sore about that.
by vy til i die on Dec 17, 2009 1:28 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah...
I put that disclaimer in the original post. I do attend UT for grad school and am a season ticket holder. I’m not hiding anything. But I also went to some games outside Austin and there is tremendous support for the Longhorns throughout the state. Maybe de facto home game was a little too far, but well represented nonetheless. You can’t possibly say that staying within the Texas borders isn’t a tremendous advantage.
I've gone to UT games at KU and other places
And UT was in the majority in those cases, unlike at atm or Tech. I’m not sure what your point is. If you’re saying that anywhere where UT will have a significant number of fans in the stadium doesn’t represent a true home game, then playing at Iowa State is more of a home game than playing at College Station, TX.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 3:11 PM CST up reply actions
Oh boy
Please don’t tell me you’re doing this.
I wrote this last year. I’d link the one on Crimson and Cream Machine too, but the guy deleted the post when it became apparent he was clueless.
by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 17, 2009 2:43 PM CST up reply actions
No
I never mentioned anything about that game other than Oklahoma wasn’t very good this year. I know the Oklahoma game is a neutral site. I was there and it was 50/50 crowd. That one is close enough to Oklahoma and the Sooners are a big enough program that they don’t get outnumbered.
I’m talking about playing against other Texas schools (and I already noted A&M is an exception in my original comment about this topic).
What I was saying is that the non-conference schedule was pretty weak and all at home. Baylor is pretty much a home game, too.
...and
that UT has very few “true” road games. There are Longhorns fans throughout the state. Just saying that is a big advantage and is probably the biggest reason they wouldn’t leave the Big XII.
I personally think it would be interesting from a pure football perspective to see them move to the Big Ten. I understand the rivalry aspect of staying in the Big XII and the fact that the financial situation probably isn’t as big of a factor for a school like Missouri.
Give us your arbitrary criteria for "true" road games
That way we can do some actual analysis. Without your criteria, it’s futile to argue with you, because you keep moving the goalposts.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 3:14 PM CST up reply actions
your comment about TCU..
made me throw up a little. Seriously? TCU had a better resume??? The best win they had was against Clemson. BYU and Utah dont count because those teams suck and are overrated. Meanwhile, we had wins against Missouri, Oklahoma state, Texas tech, and nebraska.
We already kind of seemed tied into the Rose Bowl
No Big 10 team will have played more bowl games in the Rose Bowl than us this decade*.
(Lumping a bowl game played in January 2010 into the 2000s*.)
**(No arguments on when the decade ends, please!)
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 16, 2009 5:11 PM CST up reply actions
More of an anomoly
Ohio State has played in more national championship games.
Plus, Texas isn’t really playing in the Rose Bowl this year. That game is between Oregon and Ohio State.
Dude, it’s a joke pointing out the irony that a non Big 10 team has been to Pasadena more frequently than a non Bog-10 Texas. And I specifically wrote “bowl games in the Rose Bowl” to cover the fact that we’re playing in the stadium and not the game.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 16, 2009 5:44 PM CST up reply actions
well...
The 2010 Rose Bowl still belongs to the 2009 Season.
Plus… In my opinion, 2000-2009 is the decade, people say there is no year zero, true, but, that only affects decade 1-9
Plus, the calander we use today wasn’t actually used in that time, so 2000-2009 is the decade. That means year 10-19 is the decade also.
no
for the love of god keep me away from that godforsaken conference
There's probably a better chance of Texas becomming independent than going to the Big 10.
3/19/2009 - Dogus Balbay Made a Three-Pointer. Never Forget.
So there can be negative odds of something happening?
’Cause the odds of our going indy are approximately 0%.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 16, 2009 6:42 PM CST up reply actions
Dont feel like we should lower our standards...
Big 10 would be a big down grade for us. We already generate the highest revenue, and I dont think that will double by joining Big 10.
Big 12 is having a down year but no way the best team in Big 12 loses to 8-4 USC at home.
I value the traditions and history but the current trend in the CFB says that Big 10 is not as good as Big 12
COACH BOOM BABY!!
More of a presence in recruiting the Midwest?
Why on earth would Texas want to do that? If nothing else, you’ve made me laugh.
Rust Belt: Dwindling population, poor prospects for economic recovery, high taxes, horrible weather. Where do I sign?
Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate.
- Thomas Jones
Geography?
Just because it financially makes sense to add a program to a conference doesn’t mean they should be added. Putting Texas in the Big 10 I think is just plain dumb. If its financially right for the SEC to add Oregon or USC doesn’t mean they should be added to the conference. Now adding Notre Dame or possibly a team that is in a conference that is near the Big 10 area is a different story I think Notre Dame is the best choice even though they are at a downpoint they still have a big fan base and academically they are way up there. Not to mention they are in the “Independent” conference. Personally I think we would be looked down on if we switched almost like we were scared of the teams in our conference.
While most are dreaming of success, winners wake up and work hard to achieve it.
BIG Ten Sucks
Texas to the SEC so we can beat Florida and ’Bama on a regular basis
Texas to SEC
Would never happen. the Acadamice are to low in the SEC for Texas to ever be interested. A&M wanted to go to the SEC before the SWC split but Texas at the time wasn’t interested because of Academics. Texas’ standards are to high to want to be affiliated with SEC schools.
by Ryan2907 on Dec 17, 2009 3:34 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Lets get something straight...Minnesota is NOT a basketball powerhouse
It says here last time you won the conference championship was in 1997 and you make NCAA every 4-5 yrs or so. NOT a CBB powerhouse
COACH BOOM BABY!!
Yeah that was tongue in cheek
It is where I did my undergrad. They are an improving program with Tubby Smith, but you’re right that they aren’t a powerhouse in basketball.
Ratings
I just read the Big 12 championship had higher ratings then the SEC. Correct me if Im wrong but a majority of the top 10 rated games this decade have Texas playing in them. Even if that statement is a little off, maybe we should consider going independent. We show networks the ratings they should show us the money. And joioning the Big 10 would be great with that whole population relocation. In 10 years they’ll have about as many people living there as Wyoming.
Has anyone heard
what they are thinking about renaming the Big 10?
I heard “Great 12” and, of course, cringed.
Yes, I heard something along the lines of
“The Irrelevant Twelve” I am excited to see what the logo will look like.
by Longhorn in MO on Dec 17, 2009 7:45 AM CST up reply actions
I heard they scrapped the "Bigger 12" idea...
…in favor of Rust Belt Conference.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 7:57 AM CST up reply actions
you're right...
…it’s not like they have 10 teams now, so no one will notice ANOTHER team in there.
by vy til i die on Dec 17, 2009 1:48 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, but...
if you look at the Big 10 logo, they did slip in an 11 in there. Seriously, go check it out, you won’t be able to see anything else after you find it.
IF MIZZOU Leaves
I think all conferances just need to implode and restart.
I know its crazy.
But MIZZOU leaving Big XII creates a huge Chain reaction that Iowa State would not.
MIZZOU leaves Big XII North. Leaves Iowa State even more Isolated. Big XII needs another team to fill that gap. But Who?
Anything In Texas would offset the balance, most likely making OSU and OU split. Which I do not think they would go for that split.So that rules out Houston, TCU, UTEP and all New Mexico Schools.
That Leaves:
Arkansas:Bait them over. Creates a hole in SEC. Memphis?
Colorodo State: Can go into the North
Air Force: Could also fit easily.
Wyoming?
There are not many other options out there without stretching the geography lines.
Hole in SEC:
Fill with Louisville. The Big East is easy to raid.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 7:41 AM CST up reply actions
Also, don't forget Boise State, Utah, or BYU
Granted, those are somewhat far-flung, but Utah would be a sizeable school with a lot of TV sets and a good fit for the conference, outside of a bit more distance than would be desirable.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 7:42 AM CST up reply actions
Chip Brown this morning on 1530
says that Mizzou is in fact the Big 10’s first choice to add a 12th team. And if that happens, that his sources say Arkansas would be by far the most likely team to take their spot since both the Big 12 and Arkansas would want that move.
Interesting………let the domino effect begin.
Wonder who'd replace Arkansas?
My suggestion is Louisville. USF would be another possibility. Outside of those two, the SEC would have to either raid the ACC or pick up a non-BCS team like USM, UCF, ECU, etc.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 8:48 AM CST up reply actions
Would it make sense for Arkansas to leave the SEC?
I’m not sure that would work out financially for them. I get the old SWC connection, but not sure that would be enough.
Miami of FSU?
There’s some history as to why they’re not in the SEC, but I don’t know it. I’d think it would be in SEC’s best interest to shed Arkansas and pick up another big FL school. ACC’s basketball push wouldn’t be too terribly affected by that loss either, as opposed to Duke, UNC, etc.
by Infield Elephant on Dec 17, 2009 9:10 AM CST up reply actions
I'm actually thinking they'd like to expand their market
Losing Arkansas would reduce it, although Arkansas isn’t one of the stronger parts of the SEC market (probably third-weakest, to be honest). I’m not sure that a second Florida team would expand the market much, although Miami would add a big enough market in a far enough area of the state that it could expand the conference market enough to make sense.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 9:32 AM CST up reply actions
C-USA Team?
I know that both Memphis and Houston are really trying to find greener pastures. They could go for one of those.
You gotta imagine that
the Big XII would try to block the Mizzou move. And you know the Big XII has mega clout ($$$).
Go ahead and take Iowa State, though, in my opinion.
Big Ten has more clout
financially speaking. That isn’t any secret. The Big Ten Network alone will give them more money. Iowa State does nothing for the Big Ten.
It will be interesting to see what happens if a Big XII team is chosen. There will be some political posturing, I’m sure since someone is going to lose out.
If Mizzou goes to the Big 10, and Arkansas goes to the Big XII (I’m not sure they would, but let’s say if), it isn’t like the SEC is going to be very happy picking someone out of C-USA, Sun Belt, or even the Big East. Other than Notre Dame, anyone the Big 10 picks is probably going to result in a fiasco, because there is no way they would expand unless it was a big team.
That’s interesting. Can you link to published report that concretely backs up that Big Ten vs. Big XII claim?
Also, more importantly, I don’t think it ultimately matters. Both conferences are very important to CFB, and they aren’t going to risk completely infuriating the Big XII just to make the Big Ten slightly more comfortable.
Sure
This is a few years old now (I couldn’t find something more recent that spelled it out like this and I would assume any deviations would be offsetting).
It shows that the Big XII gets a total of $79.5M from its TV contracts per year ($480/8 + $78/4). That comes out to $6.625 per school.
The Big Ten gets $214M from its TV contracts per year ($1,000/10 + 20/10 + 2,800/25). This comes out to over $19M per school. This number would grow with the addition of a conference championship game.
These are just the TV contracts, but I would think other revenues are similar between the two conferences. I know there are other revenue streams, but they would probably be roughly equal by conference unless you can think of anything that might be a substantial difference. I know there is merchandising/licensing that goes on. But that shouldn’t change with a conference switch.
Either way you look at it, the proxy can ABC/ESPN. They are paying the Big XII $60M per year while paying the Big Ten $100M.
Fair enough – thanks for the info!
Does this mean that you guys could try to “buy up” Notre Dame’s TV contract as a means to persuade them?
Sure, there are still tons of problems with ND moving. But it sounds like they are the crown jewel that the Big Ten really wants.
No problem
You are right about Notre Dame being the crown jewel. It is the perfect fit for the conference given the geography, prestige, academics, and style of play. But Notre Dame already rejected an offer 10 years ago. They do have their own TV contract that they do not have to share with anyone. I’m guessing that it is north of $10M (it was never disclosed) since before the extension was announced it was $9M. In all, Notre Dame would probably still benefit financially from the move, but I think they like to have the independence.
Given that, the Big Ten really doesn’t HAVE to expand. So if they do, they are going to do it in a big way with a team analogous to Notre Dame, which is why I brought up Texas. Iowa State will not be considered—its athletics AND academics are lacking.
The ironic thing is that Texas wanted to be part of the Pac-10 but that got rejected. They were then rebuffed by the Big 10 as well back when the SWC dissolved. So I guess that Big 10 had its chance, and UT liked the fit with athletics and academics. Geography would still be an issue, but I don’t think it is as big as people make it out to be. The historic rivalries are another story.
Furthermore, I was at a bar in Austin last night and discussed the notion with some more steadfast UT fans than I, and they brought up a point that I didn’t think about. When The SWC dissolved, politicians mandated that TTech, A&M, and Baylor be included where ever UT ended up. I don’t know if such political grandstanding would surface again or if there is some binding agreement that would preclude UT from separating with those aforementioned schools.
As I said before, since it seems certain that the Big 10 will look for a big name team, it is going to get someone riled up. The Big XII probably won’t be happy having to find a replacement for one of its members. As we saw with the Miami/BC/VaTech shift to the ACC, there will be a domino effect that will affect several conferences.
All this could be avoided if Notre Dame was to join. Rutgers or Pitt would probably have the most minimal impacts (I assume East Carolina or some other school would be plucked from C-USA for the Big East—but that could impact the Big East’s automatic conference BCS bid). But if the Big XII is affected things will get even more interesting.
Big post...
Hope you don’t mind if I respond to a few points separate points.
politicians mandated that TTech, A&M, and Baylor be included where ever UT ended up.
Yeah, this is a major issue. I think your Austin friends are right that UT needs to be part of a package with some of our rival schools. And the Big Ten only has room for one.
The Big XII probably won’t be happy having to find a replacement for one of its members.
I feel like it’s not just a Mizzou problem. If Mizzou goes, ISU will probably be next (hanging out there by itself). So we lose two for the price of one.
Rutgers or Pitt would probably have the most minimal impacts
When this whole hurrah started I thought Pitt was the most likely to go. I’ve heard Rutgers isn’t “big” enough to be attractive to the Big Ten. But if Pitt goes, the Big East will be in shambles. It will look even more like another mid-major conference.
As an aside, it’s interesting chatting with you. I have an officemate who’s a big time Big Ten/Pac-10 homer. It’s interesting what a different perspective you guys have on CFB, compared with me.
I doubt you would lose Iowa State
Who else would want them? I don’t think it is much of a problem for them to stay in the conference (from their standpoint). I’m sure it would be their preference to be in the Big XII (or the Big 10, which isn’t going to happen).
I’m not sure if the A&M, Baylor, TTech, package is a must. But I could see it becoming an issue as it did last time. However, this time it isn’t like the current conference is dissolving. The three aforementioned schools do have a home. But I don’t know much about the the legal/political restrictions.
Nice chatting with you, too. Like I said, I think the conferences are pretty equal when it comes to athletics. One can point to the Big XII’s 7 appearances in the BCS championship game to the Big Ten’s 3. On the other hand, the Big Ten boasts 21 appearances in BCS bowls compared to the Big XII’s 17. If you look at the Director’s Cup standings, the Big Ten probably holds an edge there in overall sports, but the difference isn’t huge.
I still think legal pull will have TAMU come with UT. The other two… Eh could go either way.
And having UT and TAMU would make Basketball road trips something for incoming schools.
Legislative, not legal, right?
Meh, whatever. The stupid legislature won’t let it happen, and whatever the benefits, I doubt they’d outweigh the negatives for UT fans, and the fans are a big part of what makes the program able to generate more revenue than anyone else.
I’ve been wishing some sort of domino effect would result in the opportunity to build a conference that includes most of the Big 12 South, LSU, Ark, and a few other gulf or SW states, but the ramifications of Big Ten expansion don’t look far-reaching enough to result in free agency for LSU or Arkie.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 10:53 PM CST up reply actions
Not sure about the legislative angle
In the 1990s, the legislative battle was much more do-or-die: be accepted into a BCS conference (before they were known as such, of course) or be doomed to mid-major status. That’s why Texas and A&M were forced at gunpoint to take the less prestigious programs along for the ride.
This time around, if Texas tried to go on its own, mo matter what direction, the stakes are a bit less important for the other schools. A&M, Tech and Baylor would all still be in a BCS conference, and Texas’ departure could open the door for another Texas school (presumably TCU) to gain BCS status as well.
So the other Texas schools would have a lot less to lose this time around. Plus, what’s to say that A&M and Tech could see the loss of Texas from the Big XII as a competitive advantage, creating more of a power void which they could fill, leading to stronger programs? (What I mean is, it might become easier to recruit for A&M football if the absence of Texas means that the program has a better shot of earning a conference title and a BCS bid. Look how Cincinnati’s program improved so rapidly once it became a member of a BCS conference with no resident 800-pound gorilla.)
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 17, 2009 11:05 PM CST up reply actions
That's the urban legend of the formation of the Big XII
David Sibley, a powerful state senator from the Waco area, was much more the driving force than Richards was to get Baylor into the new conference.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 17, 2009 11:43 PM CST up reply actions
The latest...
The latest rumor has the Big Ten looking at the possibility of expanding to 16 teams and creating four 4-team divisions. That would mean likely poaching Kansas, Mizzou, and Nebraska (also with Pitt and perhaps Rutgers). This is all speculation at this point, but the Big Ten has said all options are on the table. They won’t have any official recommendation until a year from now and an official migration would probably be 3-4 years away (that is how it was with Penn State).
If that happens, it will become very interesting to see what the Big XII does.
Not saying I necessarily buy it
But if the Big 10 pulls Missouri and they want to go to 14-16 teams, Kansas and Nebraska are logical choices—especially if Kansas’ biggest rival is taken. I know they can still schedule a rivalry game, but all I’m saying is that it isn’t all that far fetched. Traditionally (the Big 10 has more Final Four appearances 45-35) the Big Ten is a better basketball conference. Obviously, that isn’t the case this year with Texas/Kansas.
Speaking of that, I can’t wait for that game in Austin. I wonder how long before game time I will have to get in line to get a student ticket for that one.
Not saying I necessarily buy it
But if the Big 10 pulls Missouri and they want to go to 14-16 teams, Kansas and Nebraska are logical choices—especially if Kansas’ biggest rival is taken. I know they can still schedule a rivalry game, but all I’m saying is that it isn’t all that far fetched. Traditionally (the Big 10 has more Final Four appearances 45-35) the Big Ten is a better basketball conference. Obviously, that isn’t the case this year with Texas/Kansas.
Speaking of that, I can’t wait for that game in Austin. I wonder how long before game time I will have to get in line to get a student ticket for that one.
Makes no sense
Yes, recruiting in the midwest might pick up, but we’re doing just fine in Texas. And if you haven’t noticed, Texas dominates the midwest in putting out D1 players. Why would Texas give up a death-grip on the state of Texas for some additional Midwest guys? Our presence is better served in Texas. Making all of our home games that far away would decapitate us recruiting wise.
If Texas joined the Big 10, they would be amazed with the speed!
Has anybody that has ever played in the Big 10 ran a sub 4.5 40?….
Give Them Iowa State
replace with Arizona, Houston, TCU, if you want North to replace North then Utah, Colorado State, or shut the smurfs up and put Boise State in a true contentending conference, but expel the stupid blue turf.
I love the blue turf
It’s a little something different in an otherwise monochromatic football landscape. I wouldn’t consider CSU a legitimate consideration, though, due to the dilapidated facilities.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 11:06 AM CST up reply actions
You Love The Blue Turf?
I would hate to play them on it. It would seem like they pop right out of the ground like some sort of spawn or something. Maybe that’s the phsyche behind it but it looks horrible on TV.
Give me monochromatic.
From overhead, maybe
But from field level, I don’t see how it’d be any more confusing than a green team on grass or green turf.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 1:05 PM CST up reply actions
I agree the blue turf is cool
Something out of the ordinary that makes college football unique. I’m not sure why other schools haven’t tried doing it. It wouldn’t work for all schools—I’m not sure how I would feel about burnt orange turf. But what about black turf at Oregon State?
I hear Oregon's cooking up some scheme to install green turf
by burntorangehorn on Dec 17, 2009 3:16 PM CST up reply actions
I would like to see Oregon come up with an interchangeable field that can coincide with the 15 different uniforms they have.
by Infield Elephant on Dec 17, 2009 3:18 PM CST up reply actions
You mean like Oregon?
See what you mean, but to be so blue is just too loud. Gives me blurry vision watching them.
PAC 10
What was the Reason that we did not go out West? I remeber that we were courted by the four big conferences (Big 8, Big 10, SEC and PAC) but I forgot why we did not go out there. Was it Stanford?
I thought it had to be a package deal
That some other team had to go with us ????
I'm pretty sure it was Stanford . . .
. . . but did Stanford reject the deal because it was a package deal with A&M and they didn’t want the Aggies, or did they reject Texas regardless of whether the Aggies had to come with us? My recollection is the latter but my recollection is very weak in this case.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 17, 2009 11:07 PM CST up reply actions
What is your feeling on Texas moving to the Big 10?
I’m all for it.
And I know of one school who won’t miss Texas a damn bit.
by hskr4ever on Dec 20, 2009 10:30 PM CST reply actions
Of course, why would you go?
You already run the Big 12.
by hskr4ever on Dec 20, 2009 10:30 PM CST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
