Texas to the Big 10?
by Wrangler86 on Jan 19, 2010 5:20 PM CST
Email
Print
An intersting blog article from Frank the Tank who is an Illini sports blogger. He assigned point values to determine that we would make sense for the Big Ten to court. Also, he has some interesting propositions about why it would be a financially smart move for Texas. We could always schedule A&M and OU as nonconference games I suppose. I don't really know if there is any serious talk about this, but I thought y'all might enjoy it.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
96 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think that's exactly the same article HopkinsHorn posted a while back
by burntorangehorn on Jan 19, 2010 6:15 PM CST reply actions
It is exactly the same article Hopkins Horn posted a while back
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 19, 2010 6:22 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, there's one correct thought I've had all day.
That means I’ve met my quota.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 19, 2010 6:23 PM CST up reply actions
That means you can get bck to bashing my gal Carrie
You know, if you’re moving on to incorrect thoughts and all. :)
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 19, 2010 6:28 PM CST up reply actions
Excuse me
Eva Green had my concentration. Looks like I have time to do yet one more thing right today. :)
by burntorangehorn on Jan 19, 2010 7:02 PM CST up reply actions
Hopkins Horn was merely parrotting BOH
Hopkins Horns does that sometimes. The Bob Dole of posters.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 19, 2010 6:45 PM CST up reply actions
i think...
we’ve covered all of the conference switching/reorganizing possibilities ad nauseam. I don’t like this move personally due to the much more difficult time we’d have getting to a national championship game ever again, imagine the Big 10 schedule, with OU and A&M out of conference. This A. leaves no room for other interesting OOC opponents without making it even more difficult (i.e. an SEC or PAC 10 team) and B. it’d make the vast majority of us still in Texas have a very difficult time attending away games.
Financially it makes sense, but from a fan’s perspective i don’t really think its gonna make things better for us
I wondered if our players would be against it
Why go play in the north in the cold and snow. Of course Texas looks appealing since our program is so profitable.
If they worked out a crazy deal,
and the Big 10 expanded to 14 instead (I know, unlikely but still possible), they might take A&M along with either Missouri, Syracuse, or Rutgers. This switch makes sense financially for all parties; former Big 12 members almost double TV revenues (including UT with the unequal sharing system we have now) while Big 10 schools gain TV markets in St. Louis and Texas as well as a 15+ million dollars from conference championship game. If they ended up taking Missouri, it might look like this:
Big 14(?)
South:
UT, A&M, Mizzou, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
North:
Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
With this setup, all of the Big 10’s permanent matches (the Big Ten football schedule is set up with each team having two permanent matches within the conference, with the other eight teams in the conference rotating out of the schedule in pairs for two-year stints) are played out every year. Almost all of the traditional rivalries are played out, with the exceptions of Illinois-Ohio State and Indiana-Michigan State. The divisions may seem a little lopsided, and I considered switching Iowa and Northwestern to make it a little more even, but I think the permanent matches and traditional rivalries are more important than temporary parity.
UT could burn one non-conference game on OU, and then have three left to do whatever they pleased. With A&M in the same division, UT could play 9 games in Texas, with 6-7 of them at home, 1-2 neutral sites, and then the Thanksgiving day game in College Station. If UT worked it out right, they could even avoid playing too many cold games, as the last conference game, other than A&M, would be the first weekend of November.
Conceivably a schedule could look like this:
1. Cupcake non-con
2. In-state neutral site game (Rice at Relient, etc…)
3. Cross-Divisional game 1
4. Divisional game 1
5. Divisional game 2
6. Off
7. OU in Dallas
8. Divisional game 3
9. Cross-Divisional game 2
10. Divisional game 4
11. Divisional game 5
12. Last non con game (probably home cupcake)
13. A&M Away
14. Off
15. Conference Championship Game
UT enjoys enormous alumni giving
I know I’d consider it a slap in the face if I were an alumnus who suddenly found that all conference road games would be no less than a thousand miles away.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 19, 2010 8:08 PM CST up reply actions
I get that, but UT would still be playing at least 8 games instate (plus A&M would technically be a conference road game every other year), with a setup that is basically a home and home with Penn State, Ohio State, or Michigan. Most alumni that travel to conference road games wouldn’t mind a little extra time on the flight to land in Chicago, Columbus, or Ann Arbor instead of Ames, Lincoln, Stillwater, or Lubbock. Also, I don’t think it would cost too much more for those flights, as most are closer to major airports than Big 12 schools.
Eight games in state?
Five at home in conference, two more vs. atm and OU. That makes seven. Two more non-conference games could be in Texas. That makes up to nine. But that’s for a sport that goes one team vs. one team, unlike swimming, track, cross country, wrestling, and a lot of others. Those teams suddenly drop to zero in conference road game support, too.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 19, 2010 9:35 PM CST up reply actions
What if the Big 10 sweetened the deal with an extra home game for UT
to account for our “special” circumstances…
It could be really attractive
Not that concession . . .
. . . but perhaps there are other, more common-sense concessions. For one, I think the Big 10 currently has a rule which bars night conference games in November (which explains why the most important game of the season for the conference, Iowa-OSU, was not in prime time). Makes sense in snow country, not so much for Texas.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 20, 2010 1:30 PM CST up reply actions
If Hawaii can find a way, I’m fairly sure we can too.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Jan 20, 2010 1:41 PM CST up reply actions
Or, instead of a travel stipend . . .
. . . try and work out more compact road trips for our teams. Somewhat akin to what the Pac 10 does (in men’s hoops at the very least). I’ve noticed, for example that if UW has a road game at Arizona on a Thursday or Friday, it will also have a road game at Arizona State on Saturday or Sunday.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 20, 2010 1:53 PM CST up reply actions
Bad idea-- discussed at length last year...
…when we were angry at the Big XII rules that kept us out of fhe conference championship and MNC games. First, any special incentive/consideration UT would get regarding scheduling, travel, etc., would soon be resented by the other schools, who would see UT as a having an attitude of entitlement.. Second, there is the distance involved, which is costly for the school and supporters. Third there is the cold weather factor. It is unrealistic to expect them to allow us (and A&M too, if included) to play all our late Oct and Nov games in Texas. Fourth, there is the matter of leaving behind some great rivalries. We don’t just have rivalries with OU and A&M, but also with Tech, to some extent Baylor, and are developing a great rivalry with Neb. We are going to trade that to play Purdue, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Northwestern? Finally, in recent years in football, the Big XII has a better reputation than the Big X. Recall how an undefeated Iowa early ih the season wasn’t getting much attention? A much better idea is to strengthen the Big XII by replacing Baylor and perhaps iowa State with some combination of Ark, LSU, or TCU.
"Only angry people win football games." --DKR
No way any SEC school jumps ship, they're making bank with the SEC TV contract deals
TCU gives us nothing. No fans, no new TV sets.
First, any special incentive/consideration UT would get regarding scheduling, travel, etc., would soon be resented by the other schools, who would see UT as a having an attitude of entitlement.
Looking at consolidating travel is hardly the type of “concession” which would be seen as having too much of a sense of entitlement. It’s a common-sense request. I’m not going to bother to look it up, but it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that Penn State’s softball team might be scheduled to visit Iowa on the same trip it’s visiting Minnesota, for example.
Second, there is the distance involved, which is costly for the school and supporters
It’s also been discussed at length that any increase in travel costs would be more than made up for, many times over, by the increased revenue we would be receiving from joining the Big 10. And increasing travel costs for a handful of traveling supporters is very, very far down the list of reasons why this wouldn’t happen.
Third there is the cold weather factor. It is unrealistic to expect them to allow us (and A&M too, if included) to play all our late Oct and Nov games in Texas.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting this in any way, shape or form. Going to the Big 10 means we’ll be playing road games in November just like everyone else in the conference.
We don’t just have rivalries with OU and A&M, but also with Tech, to some extent Baylor, and are developing a great rivalry with Neb.
We would presumably look to keep the OU and A&M games. Would we give up $10M+ a year to keep a rivalry with Texas Tech?!? And as to “developing a great rivalry with Nebraska,” that is correct, but it is a relatively recent phenomenon, and there isn’t any reason to think that a similar great rivalry wouldn’t form with one, or more, of the traditional powers of the Big 10.
Finally, in recent years in football, the Big XII has a better reputation than the Big X
Everything is cyclical, and one could argue, based on this season and the bowl results, that the cycle is turning again. Plus, the Big XII with Texas is marginally better at best than the Big 10 in football, but the Big 10 with Texas is demonstrably better than the Big XII without us.
A much better idea is to strengthen the Big XII by replacing Baylor and perhaps iowa State with some combination of Ark, LSU, or TCU.
Seriously? Not meaning to be rude, but why would any SEC school contemplate leaving that cash cow to play a bunch of schools in the middle of the country? And TCU highlights another issue which, I believe, will drive a proactive move by Texas to the Big 10. TCU adds NOTHING to the Big XII in terms of markets, and it has a very small fanbase. There is no feasible way that the Big XII will not wind up being weakened if the Big 10 poaches any of its members it would conceivably want and that school is replaced by a school which would realistically join the Big XII.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 20, 2010 3:35 PM CST up reply actions
Not if suddenly your home game slate swaps out
OSU for tOSU and Tech for Penn State. Hey, now those Foundation season tickets are looking pretty good…
For those who don't actually want to use the tickets themselves....
by burntorangehorn on Jan 20, 2010 3:16 PM CST up reply actions
And for those people who want to watch the games in the stadium
Remember how big the TX-OSU home and home was? Well, that would become nearly a permanent fixture.
The stadium in those games would be crazy.
Maybe a little bit
But I think the novelty would wear off a bit. Sure, UT-tOSU would be an important game, but not nearly as important as in 2005-2006. An annual event is generally a lot smaller deal than something that might not happen for another twenty or so years.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 20, 2010 3:37 PM CST up reply actions
Very true
“Stadium atmosphere for the Ohio State game” isn’t on my list of reasons why the move makes sense to me.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 20, 2010 3:38 PM CST up reply actions
My point is that you wouldn't have to worry about the Alumni getting as upset about "losing" their close away games
When UT would be strengthening their home game slate and improving their TV coverage at the same time ( less PPV games ).
I’m still wildly in favor of this, or any other proposal that involves UT moving to the Pac 10 or the Big 10, though for academic reasons as much as the athletic potential. I suppose the Big 10 is preferable in that regard.
proud to swim home
Agreed.
How exactly does being in the Big 12 benefit Texas?
It makes about a zillion times more regional sense than any other conference?
And Texas is the big fish that can flex its muscle. Not sure that it’s any good at this point, now that the conference has already been formed, but I really doubt UT would have as much relative political capital in a conference with Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 19, 2010 9:15 PM CST up reply actions
Well...
…you hadn’t won a national title in football in 20+ years when this conference was formed, and in the 14 years the Big 12 has been in existence, you’ve won one and played for another. Not to mention your athletic department budget is now the largest in the nation, whereas I highly doubt that was the case in 1995.
I think the better question is “How does being in the Big 12 not benefit Texas?” From the academic side, I could understand the desire to move to the Big 10, but athletically, I don’t see a lot of areas where the Big 12 has been bad for UT.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Jan 20, 2010 7:23 AM CST up reply actions
It's a legit question . . .
. . . and Texas is certainly in a better place now than it was in 1996. Joining the Big XII has certainly been one of the primary catalyst, though I think one could argue that leaving the SWC, rather than joining the Big XII, was more precisely the conference-driven reason for this improvement.
As a “join the Big 10” believer/advocate, my reasoning is not based on the status quo but rather from a selfish concern of protecting Texas’ interests based on the way intercollegiate athletics is moving. If there were no conference movements on the horizon and the status quo could be maintained — or if the Big 10 pulled off its Hail Mary and successfully lured Notre Dame — I think Texas would be satisfied, grudgingly or not, with the way things are now, despite the TV money being left on the table being in a conference with a geographic footprint with a much higher number of eyeballs.
Once conferences start what I believe is the inevitable next round of realignment, I think the Big XII will be weakened. It’s the most unstable major conference out there (Big East doesn’t count), and once the Big 10 starts trying to pick off a member (Mizzou/Nebraska/Texas), the conference will be weakened no matter what possible replacement school (TCU/Arkansas/Utah/Colorado State) you can reasonably think of. The disparity in TV revenue between the Big 10 and the Big XII will increase that much more, and you’re looking at Big XII schools, 10-15-20 years down the road, being in a much weaker position than they are today.
That’s somewhat of a long-winded way of saying that the Big XII has been good for Texas, but the expiration date on the conference’s ability to be good for Texas might be nearing.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 20, 2010 9:15 AM CST up reply actions
I guess the question, then...
…is “what are you going to do about it?” Is Texas going to take the same route it did in the mid-1990s and bolt the conference it’s in, or is it going to try to do something about solidifying the conference and improving it? If the conference could figure out a way to increase TV revenue, and then it would share it all equally, the best of both worlds would be accomplished. We could stabilize the conference membership, and everyone, including UT, would get more money.
Or UT could walk away to a geographically distributed conference. I know which one is easier, I don’t know which one is more appealing.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
Responding
Is Texas going to take the same route it did in the mid-1990s and bolt the conference it’s in
That’s a somewhat disingenuous way of describing what happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when everyone and their mothers saw that the SWC was in its death throes. It was a doomed conference regardless of what Texas could have done to “solidify and improve” the conference. Yes, Texas “bolted,” as did A&M, Tech and Baylor, and the other schools would have bolted as well if they had the opportunity.
If the conference could figure out a way to increase TV revenue
Is Oklahoma giving away free land again to the first ten million sooners showing up on its borders? If not, I’m not sure what realistic way exists to increase TV revenue in a conference lacking the population density other conferences enjoy. Don’t you think it’s realistic to think that TV revenue with the current conference make-up is already close to maxed out? I hardly think that DeLoss Dodds and the other 11 ADs haven’t considered all possibilities to increase TV revenues.
share it all equally
I get the dig, but again, speaking realistically, if Texas, receiving an “unequal” share of the Big XII TV revenue, given its much higher national exposure, is already close to half down on what it would be receiving if it were in the Big 10, how would “sharing it equally,” even with a bigger pie (which, as I explain above, I believe is a pipe dream) appeal to Texas?
I guess to (fairly, I hope) sum up our positions, you think the Big XII has untapped revenue potential which would make it more on par with the Big 10. I don’t.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 20, 2010 1:28 PM CST up reply actions
And you’ve nicely made all my points for me, Hopkins. I don’t think the conference is financially viable in the long term, and believe that sooner rather than later, schools like Kansas will cede the football arms race and focus on areas where they can make a profit without as much investment.
In my opinion, the Big 12 is much closer to becoming the Big East (strong in Basketball, relatively weak financially in football) than it is a Big 10 (which is somewhat the reverse).
That’s putting aside the academic reasons for a move to the Big 10, which are persuasive and don’t seem in dispute.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Jan 20, 2010 1:40 PM CST up reply actions
Great stuff HH...
You should add that part 2 and part 3 are linked. The Texas schools bring in the biggest viewing audience, why should they share it with schools in states that are the prime reason why the pot is so small. Iowa is the smallest state in the Big 10 but it is bigger than Kansas and Nebraska and is only slightly smaller than Oklahoma. Missouri is the second largest state in the Big 12 but is only barely bigger than smaller Big 10 states like Minnesota and Wisconsin. Texas brings in half the viewing population of the Big 12, but it would be dwarfed by the combined populations of Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
The Buckeyes, Lions, and Wolverines have the biggest stadiums in college football
Wait, except that Texas is up there too. Maybe we belong in that conference…
I wasn't saying...
…that we could equal the Big 10’s revenue. That’s simply not possible. But there avenues that could be explored to maximize revenue. One would be looking at creating a Big 12 Network. Another could be looking at Internet options. Still another could involve Comcast.
My point was only that I think it’s entirely possible we can get this league to the point where, even if it’s not bringing in as much money as the Big 10, it’s improved to the point where Texas wouldn’t consider it worthwhile to join a conference where the nearest school is Iowa.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Jan 20, 2010 3:00 PM CST up reply actions
The Big 10 had to kick and scream . . .
. . . to get its network shown on major carriers. How in the world would the Big XII Network be able to do the same with its lesser footprint?
(By the way, as an aside, I’m not sure you’re aware that Texas has apparently flirted with the idea of create its own cable network. For very much the same reason, I think that’s just an incredibly short-sighted idea. Texas-based cable systems would have to pick it up, but it would also mean our non-conference games like UTEP and UCF couldn’t be seen outside Texas state borders.)
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 20, 2010 3:03 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, it was hard for the Big 10...
…but they got it done, and now they’re getting $6 million per year per school for it. The carriers are always going to push back against increased costs, but when push comes to shove, the fans want to watch the games, and they’ll pay for it.
Yes, I am aware that Texas considered it. I don’t think it would work for an individual school, but it’s worth looking into for the conference. Getting more games on TV can’t be anything but good.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
The Big Ten has its own academic issues
IIRC, Purdue was one of a small handful of schools that rated among the nation’s five worst schools in terms of graduation rates for football and basketball. So despite the excellent quality of a handful of programs, mostly engineering, it’s an example of how academics in the conference are incredibly overrated.
Unless the new conference were to mandate uniform application of an academic standard for all sports, I don’t think academic association should be any issue. I mean, if Ohio State is going to let Seantrell Henderson possibly attend there, it’s obvious that the academics there are for the students, not the student-athletes.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 21, 2010 7:10 AM CST up reply actions
The academic advantages of joining the Big Ten have nothing to do with athletics.
The advantages are to research and being associated with such institutions as Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, etc.
Perhaps
But if that’s the case, what’s the advantage of being linked to universities for both academics and athletics?
I think it would make more sense to belong to one organization for athletics, and one for academics. The two need not be the same group. A research and/or humanities consortium need not be in the same region or even country. In athletics, it’s almost completely necessary.
I’m just not sure why UT’s athletic and academic associations should necessarily be aligned, unless there are heightened academic standards the athletes themselves must meet in order to compete in the conference. If the conference allowed zero “partial-qualifiers,” had higher GPA requirements, and instituted other standards (maybe a uniform standard of which majors athletes could pursue?), then sure, that’d make for a higher level of respectability for the athletic programs of the conference.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 21, 2010 9:59 AM CST up reply actions
Because the Big Ten is not going to invite Texas to join them just for academics
It would be a boon for research at the University to be in the CIC.
But there is another point. The University gets a ton of publicity from the athletics departments, and many people will begin to associate the school with those schools in the same conference. There is someting to be said for having the University of Texas come up in the same conversations as the University of Michigan and the University of Wisconsin.
But why join ANY conference for that?
Why not just team up with Australian National, U. of Tokyo, London Economics, etc.? Those are far and away better in research than any school in the Big Ten…and Texas.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 21, 2010 7:14 PM CST up reply actions
Because at the end of the day, it's both a school AND a sports team
It’s got to act like an organization that does both and puts both in their best interests. As he said, you cannot just think like a fan of the sports. You have to think like a CEO here and consider where to cut losses and where you can gain from an expansion or move in markets.
TEXAS FIGHT
And I think a CEO would soundly conclude not to move to the Big Ten
There’s really very little reason, other than the money and the false notion that being in the Big Ten is somehow good for academics.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 23, 2010 10:43 AM CST up reply actions
I don't think there's a chance in hell it would happen
And more because of the negative factors for UT, from recruiting to smaller-sport logistics to fanbase travel to…well, no point starting up this all over again. I guess I should just find the link to the last thread.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 19, 2010 7:59 PM CST up reply actions
Maybe so
But aren’t 10-3 and 11-2 seasons largely what UT’s been having in the Mack Brown era? In the nine-season streak of 10+ wins, six of them have been either ten or eleven wins. One was twelve, and the other two were thirteen.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 19, 2010 9:57 PM CST up reply actions
Not so sure
But aren’t 10-3 and 11-2 seasons largely what UT’s been having in the Mack Brown era?
To use a more recent sample of the last six seasons, we’ve had twice as many seasons with zero or one loss than we have with two or three losses.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 19, 2010 11:40 PM CST up reply actions
So UT is a game better per season, on average, in the Big 12?
I guess it’s possible, but I fully reject the notion that the SEC is tougher than the Big 12 year in, year out, as this line of thinking would suggest.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 20, 2010 7:22 AM CST up reply actions
if you look at the national recruiting scene, Texas would dominate that too.
if all of those kids up there could see and play for or against texas year after year, it would be a huge draw nationally. all the LB’s in ohio and michigan, all the other players else where. i think it would be a good move.
If You See Kay, Oh You
Not really
It’s far more likely that it would give the rust belt schools better access to Texas recruits, as Michigan had with Carr. Texas isn’t going to be a huge draw to most of those kids up there, because it’s not like that area offers as good a concentration of top recruits as areas in and around Texas do. The rare Hicks or Henderson (not that UT wanted Seantrell Henderson) will be there, but the increased access for UT to those recruits would likely be more than offset by the increased access of the other eleven or thirteen schools to Texas.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 20, 2010 6:42 AM CST up reply actions
fair enough, but Texas is fairly open to that as it is.
not as much as it is in the regional sense, but its still open to them. the thing that i see as being a huge draw on the national scene is that Texas would supersede any regional boundary in something like this. Texas would get its name out there even more than it has already and the draw for recruits nationwide would be tremendous, especially those who want to be on tv and be watched.
If You See Kay, Oh You
Do you not think Texas already has a nation-wide draw?
Muschamp might operate differently when he takes the reins, but I sincerely doubt that the current staff would take a much different recruiting approach, in a regional sense, if Texas were currently in the Big Ten. I think the main difference right now would be that the Big Ten schools would be able to recruit Texas with greater regularity, with schools like Ohio State, Michigan, and possibly PSU snagging the occasional recruit who’d otherwise go to UT or OU, and a number of otherwise TT/aTm/OSU types going to Wisconsin or Michigan State.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 20, 2010 11:37 AM CST up reply actions
I've lived in OH, IN, and IL (we might need heavier jackets)
It would be pretty cool to go to Happy Valley and to the Big House in Michigan. With Texas in the Big 10, especially if two more teams are added also, it would almost surely be better than the SEC or any other conference. We would have a very tough schedule.
I agree
Living in IN and likely to settle in OH, I would find this awesome as I could actually watch every game and even go to some. Plus I would have a rational reason for my hatred of tOSU and its fans.
That's one of the reasons I don't find a move to the Big 10 illogical on geography
UT has an absurd number of alumni and fans across the country, and those of us who have left Texas tend to gravitate to major population centers. I’m pretty confident that there are more UT alumni/fans within a reasonable distance of Evanston, Columbus and State College than Ames, Manhattan (Kansas) or Lincoln.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Jan 20, 2010 6:57 PM CST up reply actions
State College is a major population center?
by burntorangehorn on Jan 20, 2010 9:02 PM CST up reply actions
No, but it's a helluva lot closer one than Ames
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Jan 20, 2010 9:05 PM CST up reply actions
Omaha is more distant to Ames than Philly to State College,
And only just closer than NYC to State College.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Jan 21, 2010 1:50 PM CST up reply actions
I think you're wrong on that
I think Philly to State College is marginally closer than KC to Ames, but marginally farther than Omaha to Ames. Chicago, the nearest big-four city (of which I count NYC, LA, Houston, and Chicago), isn’t quite as close as NYC, but is close enough for game purposes.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 21, 2010 2:38 PM CST up reply actions
Following up:
Yep, it’s about 20mi. less from Ames to Omaha than from Philly to State College.
Plus, no one with a college degree goes to Philly. ;)
by burntorangehorn on Jan 21, 2010 2:39 PM CST up reply actions
You're right by about 14-20 miles depending on which route one googles
Of course the population difference between NYC/Philly and Omaha is more than worth it if we’re relying on UT alumni who’d care enough to drive to either college town.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Jan 21, 2010 3:26 PM CST up reply actions
But then there's the proximity
I know it’s not realistic to say there are as many UT alumni in Omaha, KC, and Chicago as there are in NYC, Philly, and Pittsburgh, but it’s definitely realistic to say that there would be a higher per-capita ratio. People are more likely to move from Texas to elsewhere in the midlands than to the far northeast, in most cases.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 21, 2010 4:02 PM CST up reply actions
I think that's incorrect
I think alumni are more likely to move to one of the big population centers than to Nebraska, Iowa, or Kansas.
You didn't read my post
Because two of the three states you mentioned contain none of the three cities I mentioned, unless one counts Kansas City, KS instead of Kansas City, MO. And trust me, as someone who grew up in Kansas, we don’t even notice KCK.
And Omaha, KC, and Chicago are big population centers.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 21, 2010 7:16 PM CST up reply actions
Chicago is emphatically Big 10 country
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Jan 21, 2010 7:20 PM CST up reply actions
What does that have to do with the discussion of where alumni move?
by burntorangehorn on Jan 21, 2010 7:21 PM CST up reply actions
My comment, that you responded to, that started this tangent
Unless you just care that passionately about the physical distance between two points.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Jan 21, 2010 7:25 PM CST up reply actions
Absolutely the heart of it
And I was an alumni that was recruited out of UT to move to Chicago and I did. Moved back to get out of the cold, but had fun while there!
tOSU fans gave us plenty of reason to dislike them after we beat them in 2005
They were throwing things, lighting things on fire, and rioting like nutjobs. It was insane since it was the beginning of the season. They are terrible fans and deserve their crappy reputation.
It was the ESPN night game; we were preseason 2 and they were 4. You had to park across from campus. On the shuttle bus over in the early afternoon the older tOSU were very politely telling us we were welcome there and to have fun and to ignore any fools. We thought it strange, but nice. Then walking out of the game we had drinks thrown at us, and going back to the shuttle you could see that they had pulled sofas into the street and were lighting them on fire.
You would think they had never lost a game in the shoe before. I really thought everything about them and their stadium was overated…but I would like to go and beat the crap out of them again.
If you do move then be sure
to join to Cincinnati Texas Exes. We’re a big Group that would certainly travel to Texas-Big 10 games.
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
I have!
being in law school in IN keeps me away for most of the year but I was there for last year’s Fiesta Bowl watch and this year’s championship gamewatch. My SO is from the area so I spend a lot of breaks there, and I interned in Covington last summer.
It would be a good attempt for Texas football to focus on Marquis games
You could have TX-OU, TX-tOSU, TX-Michigan, and TX-Penn in the same season? Maybe even TX-A&M in there?
If the focus is big TV contracts for football, that would have to be appealing, regardless of travel issues.
The appeal to the Big 10 isn't so much Texas-Ohio State . . .
. . . as it is Texas-Purdue. Or Texas-Illinois.
Texas is a school which, when playing even moderately well, can command a national television audience virtually no matter who it is playing. (See this year’s UTEP and UCF games, for example). Michigan, OSU and PSU are similar schools — how many times have we witnessed those three schools playing some scrub team in the 11 am Central national ESPN slot?
A Texas-OSU game, though great from a competitive standpoint, is a somewhat redundant match-up in terms of maximizing a national audience for Big 10 games. Texas playing Purdue, though, gets a mid-tier Big 10 team one additional national broadcast it might not otherwise have.* Same with Texas playing anyone else in the Big 10.
That’s one of the reasons why rumors of the Big 10 focusing on Mizzou don’t make sense. Ultimately, who cares about Mizzou-Purdue? Or Mizzou-Minnesota?
- I know all Big 10 games, at least the home games, are shown nationally due to the Big 10 Network. But the Big 10 also wants to maximize its dollars from ABC/ESPN, and the more games it can offer to ABC/ESPN involving a marquee team like Texas when negotiating a deal, all the better.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 20, 2010 2:57 PM CST up reply actions
Dont know why the * formats as a bullet . . .
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 20, 2010 2:59 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, I agree
If you look at television audiences, even the small games become national television, and there would be even more PrimeTime exposure via the other large football schools.
The only thing that makes as much sense as this, is my TexaCali conference plan, where all the schools in Texas and California band together to form a two-division conference.
TexCal Conference
Interesting idea since we are the two biggest states in terms of highschool football recruits. So we have Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC and ? who else with Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and ?
Would you include OU (Oklahoma) and OSU—and OU (Oregon) and any other Pac 10 teams?
I would honestly much prefer the Pac-10 to the Big Ten
I mean, a number of the regional issues would still be there, but I think the value added for both Texas and the Pac-10 would be higher. Texas brings the central and rocky time zones into the equation, especially if Colorado joins as well.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 21, 2010 7:07 AM CST up reply actions
Hmmmm, you're right... we might need the O's
So take Texas, California, Oklahoma and Oregon.
West:
Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, Oregon, and Oregon State
East:
Texas, A&M, Tech, Baylor, OU, and OSU
Two biggest states of football recruits… and number of households owning television sets! Big Money!
I'd rather UT just join the Pac 10
Along with CU or maybe atm.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 22, 2010 10:40 AM CST up reply actions
Unless UT joined the Pac 10 with some more good teams
I’d hate to see the Horns playing it out with some garbage schools.
TEXAS FIGHT
CU's not a garbage school
And I don’t think any of the other Pac 10 schools are, either. Maybe Washington State.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 23, 2010 10:43 AM CST up 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.
