The best "Texas to the Big 10 analysis" yet
I found this link through a post on Hornfans, which I still visit from time to time, when we have a championship game coming up and all. The author of this piece articulates extraordinarily clearly what I have been theorizing about for a couple of years.
It's gonna happen, folks.
over 2 years ago
Hopkins Horn
27 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
To point out something in particular . . .
. . . there is a comment purportedly from a UT Classics professor named Tom Palaima. And all I can say, after reading his comment, is who the hell is this prick?!?
Faculty
Palaima is a real faculty member. I wonder if he truly commented. I doubt someone would try to use his name to post comments.
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
I believe it is a real comment from a real professor . . .
. . . and his comment reads as though Palaima was sent from Central Casting to play the cliched role of the beleaguered professor who earns street cred with his fellow academics by talking crap about his own school’s athletic department.
Dodds already stated that it's not going to happen
But then, that’s what an AD in his position would say up until such a move were announced, so it may not mean much.
I do seriously doubt that UT’s interest is the Big Ten is as high as is stated. The value the conference would give to UT just isn’t that high.
Parse Dodds' words carefully
“Geographically, we are where we have to be,” Dodds said. “I don’t see the Big Ten impacting the Big 12. I think the Big Ten would turn to Notre Dame or the East. We’re in a good place.”
“We’ve not talked to anyone about it,” Dodds said before Texas’ 103-90 win over North Carolina at Cowboys Stadium. “We’re a member of the Big 12. We helped put the Big 12 together. It [the Big Ten] is a long ways away.”
It very well could be that these quotes reflect a genuine position that Texas has no plans to move to the Big 10 and would not do so if asked.
But imagine for a moment that Texas does accept an invitation in the next 6-18 months to join the Big 10. At that point, if you looked back at these quotes, I don’t think you could say that Dodds lied. Instead, I think you would read these quotes as containing a series of general observations (“We’re a member of the Big 12”) and conjectures (“I don’t see the Big Ten impacting the Big 12. I think the Big Ten would turn to Notre Dame or the East.”) which might be intended to give a particular impression to the casual observer but do not contain any sort of explicit, Shermanesque denial.
And I guess we differ on what constitutes a “high value” to Texas if a move to the Big 10 would bring the school at least $10 million extra a year in TV revenue as well as the academic intangibles which would come from being associated with a better group of schools.
I don't think the article has its numbers right
Texas would gain in TV revenue, but:
(1) What academic intangibles would come from being in the Big Ten? Being in another athletic conference isn’t what would make UT better; improving scholarships and academic curriculum would.
(2) Texas stands to lose in terms of recruiting by ceasing to be a Texas-centric player.
(3) The $10 million per year from media revenues, if that number is even correct, would be largely offset or even completely lost by playing half of all UT athletics competitions in regions other than current Big 12 country. Remember, Texas would have to pay a lot more to finance the travel, room, and board for half of all men’s and women’s volleyball, track, cross country, baseball, wrestling, debate, and all other types of intercollegiate competitions that are bound by conference affiliation.
(4)
by burntorangehorn on Jan 7, 2010 9:12 AM CST up reply actions
Sorry, meant to continue
Think about the other sports in areas other than revenues, too. Baseball takes a huge hit, for example.
Also think about the fanbase. Traveling to Lawrence or Boulder is a long trip, but can be done by car, both ways, over a weekend. Traveling to Wyoming is a once-a-year deal, if that. Traveling to Ann Arbor, State College, East Lansing, and wherever the Big Eleven championship game would be (don’t kid—it wouldn’t be in Texas) requires air travel every time. Sure, a lot of UT fans showed at UCF and Wyoming, but those are rare trips. Think about doing it 4-7 games per season. That’s not only going to make for much worse road showings, it’s also likely to hurt alumni or foundation giving due to pissed-off alumni or even because there’s left money left over in a household’s “Longhorns budget” after paying to go see games in the rust belt all the time.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 7, 2010 9:28 AM CST up reply actions
But the administration isn't going to pass up $10 million+ a year in revenue to satisfy a few thousand traveling fans!
That is a weak argument that the article (or perhaps it was an update) debunks.
The travel expenses also wouldn’t increase all that much. The team must fly and book hotels, etc. for all their games but those against Baylor and A&M. Its easier, shorter, and cheaper for non-revenue sports to fly into Chicago, Detroit and Columbus than it is to fly to Manhattan, Ames, or Lincoln. The added travel expenses would ultimately be a drop in the hat compared to the $10 million in added TV revenue.
Also remember that $10 million is the low-ball, status quo number. The revenue could easily increase by a third when Texas is added to the mix. Texas alone could easily double their current TV revenue from the move and that would be guaranteed money whether the football program is fighting for a national championship or struggling through a couple of 7-5 seasons.
I am not sure how leaving the Big 12 hurts recruiting…I think killing off the SWC actually helped our recruiting in the long run as players saw the advantage of playing on a bigger-than-Texas stage and could also ignore all but 4 schools in state. What happens when they find out they get to play on an even bigger stage? Do they even consider Tech, Baylor, or A&M when Texas is offering them a national presence? While it might open in-roads for the other Big 10 schools they would be much less appealing options than if we were to move to the Pac 10. It would potentially hurt OU in recruiting Texas players, but if the Big 8 were to come back and go with relaxed academics they could potentially benefit by getting more academically-marginal players. I think the biggest possible damage to our recruiting would be if A&M could get itself into the SEC. They could go back to bending the rules with impunity…though I wonder if Texas would be quicker to give them the full Fulmer if they were no longer sharing a conference.
On the academic side the Big 10 has a huge research consortium and big money gets funneled to all the schools through this cooperative. Texas would benefit big-time from that relationship and it is one that they couldn’t get from any other conference.
I still think it is a big reach, but the article is about the best piece I have seen on the realities of the Big 10’s options. I think it would prove to be a plus for UT in the long run and would make much more sense than going to the Pac 10 or trying to get into some 14 or 16 team superconference.
Just curious . . .
. . . since it seems that you (and I) seem be in agreement about the logic, what makes you think it is still a “big reach”?
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 7, 2010 10:01 AM CST up reply actions
Supposedly this expansion review is something they do on a regular schedule...
I am not sure that this review period has any more likelihood of getting them to really pursue expansion than any of their previous reviews. I suppose if Texas were really pushing them to make the offer it might be different. I have a feeling the Big 10 will see where ND truly stands and then pass for the time being on expansion if ND says no.
I think it will take a proactive approach on Texas’s part to make the Big 10 feel comfortable in the pursuit and I don’t think Dodds is ready to close shop on the Big 12 just yet.
Have you been a student-athlete in college?
I’m not trying to belittle or anything, but mid-week games are a major problem if one has to travel more than a couple of hours, and it would be an extremely common occurrence if UT were in the Big Ten.
Seriously, the Big Ten is a horrible idea for Texas. UT already has the highest revenues in the nation. Being in the Big Ten would not help the bottom line much, if any.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 7, 2010 10:05 AM CST up reply actions
if one has to travel more than a couple of hours
Getting from Austin to nine of the other 11 Big 12 cities already requires this much travel time.
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 7, 2010 10:08 AM CST up reply actions
Okay...
If you’re not going to acknowledge that it’s much more time-intensive to travel from Austin to the average of all Big Ten schools than to the average of all Big 12 schools, then there’s really nothing left to say.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 7, 2010 10:12 AM CST up reply actions
You're missing my point
Of course the average time to travel to the typical Big 10 school is more than the average time to travel to the typical Big XII school, but I don’t think the disparity is as great as people would imagine — see Rickypub’s point about the ease and cost of traveling to Chicago and Detroit as opposed to Ames and Manhattan.
If Washington State can do it in the Pac 10, we could certainly manage it in the Big 10.
But I hardly think that a concern about slightly increased travel times for mid-week travel for non-revenue sport athletes will derail this if there is a desire to get it done.
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 7, 2010 10:25 AM CST up reply actions
That issue alone won't
But the large number of other reasons will. I don’t bet money, and I don’t do material bets over the internet at all, but I’d be willing to do an avatar or sig line bet with anyone, anywhere, that Texas does not join the Big Ten.
By the way, you’ve brought up the Pullman angle in the past, and while I did type out an extremely lengthy response (including analysis of all travel distances for the relevant conferences), here’s a more succinct one I replied to you:
On the geography issue, the BC-UMD proximity (approximately 430mi.) is about half that between Texas and the nearest Big Ten school, which is Illinois (860ish miles). Illinois would be the only opponent within a thousand miles. The farthest distance between any other BCS conference opponents is BC to Miami, which is about 1500mi. by googlemap estimate. I believe UT’s distance to the farthest-away Big Ten opponent would not only be the longest in the nation, but I went over the distances between Austin and the other eleven schools, and unless I’m forgetting someone, Austin is an average of about 1200mi. from the other conference programs. Outside of BC to Miami, I think there’s only one other BCS intraconference distance of over 1200mi., and that’s the Pullman-to-Tucson one you mentioned.
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2009/12/15/1202498/bevos-daily-roundup-december-16#27242701
by burntorangehorn on Jan 7, 2010 10:41 AM CST up reply actions
But if we're talking travel cost/time for non-revenue athletes . . .
. . . Pullman is in the middle of nowhere — it’s not strictly distance as the crow flies. It’s about two hours from Spokane (the nearest mid-major airport with cost-efficient SWA flights). I guarantee it takes WSU athletes much longer than two hours to get to any other Pac 10 campus, unless they have their own fleet of charter jets.
So if a much smaller school like WSU can find a way to have its non-revenue athletes compete in a conference like the Pac 10, Texas could get it done in the Big 10 if it chose to go that route.
(And this isn’t even bringing up schools in the much lesser-revenue and even more geographically-disparate WAC.)
But I agree that there are many other issues which could derail it — as simply as ND giving up its Irish Exceptionalism to join the Big 10, for example.
But I’d make a bet. I get something from you if Texas joins the Big 10, and if Texas never, ever, ever joins the Big 10, you get something from me. :)
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 7, 2010 10:54 AM CST up reply actions
I didn't calculate distance as the crow flies
As I said, those are all google maps estimates.
Anyway, let’s go with a more realistic timeframe, since the Big Ten is looking to add for 2012: if UT announces joins the Big Ten for conference competition beginning with the Fall 2012 semester, then…
by burntorangehorn on Jan 7, 2010 11:00 AM CST up reply actions
Let me refine what I am arguing a bit . . .
My precise argument is that, if the Big Ten expands, and it does not add Notre Dame as a member, it will add Texas instead of any other school.
And I would look more for timing of an announcement, not the beginning of competition, as it could take a couple of years after a summer 2011 announcement that Texas is on its way to successfully merge Texas into the conference.
So how’s this:
If, by Labor Day 2011:
(1) Texas has accepted a bid to join the Big Ten, I win the bet;
(2) Notre Dame has accepted a bid to join the Big Ten, or the Big Ten has not announced any expansion plans, the bet is a push; and
(3) a school other than Texas or Notre Dame has accepted a bid to join the Big Ten, you win the bet.
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 7, 2010 11:18 AM CST up reply actions
Done
What bet? Bragging rights? Sig line for a month?
by burntorangehorn on Jan 7, 2010 11:21 AM CST up reply actions
Sig line for a month works
OK, about time to go pickup my friend at the airport and drive to VInce Young Stadium.
But his flight is delayed. And he has the tickets.
No, I’m not worried. Not at all!
by Hopkins Horn on Jan 7, 2010 11:26 AM CST up reply actions
I disagree that travel would be easier
Texas has 11 road trips in the Big 12. Only Texas Tech is located in a city with major airport service (using cities that Southwest flies into for the definition of “major”). Here are the post-flight travel distances for UT in the Big 12:
St. Louis to Columbia: 124 miles
Kansas City to Manhattan: 121 miles
Austin to Waco: 102 miles (no flight)
Austin to College Station: 120 miles (no flight)
Oklahoma City to Stillwater: 66 miles
Omaha to Lincoln: 57 miles
Kansas City to Lawrence: 40 miles
Des Moines to Ames: 35 miles
Denver to Boulder: 30 miles
Oklahoma City to Norman: 21 miles
In the Big 10, Minnesota, Northwestern and Ohio State are located in cities with major airport service (using cities Southwest flies into as the benchmark for “major”). Here are your travel distances from major airports to other Big 10 cities:
Pittsburgh to State College: 136 miles
Chicago to Champaign: 136 miles
Des Moines to Iowa City: 115 miles
Detroit to East Lansing: 90 miles
Milwaukee to Madison: 79 miles
Indianapolis to West Lafayette: 65 miles
Indianapolis to Bloomington: 57 miles
Detroit to Ann Arbor: 40 miles
Thus, in the Big 12, UT can bus it to two of their locations, and can fly directly into another (Lubbock). It would have to fly into all 11 Big 10 locations, and eight of those locations would have drives of varying lengths afterward. On top of that, those drives generally are longer than the post-flight drives in the Big 12. When you consider the effect that would have on the travel budgets of non-revenue sports and the increased time off campus for the student athletes, I think it’s a stronger consideration than you’re allowing.
I’m not saying that it would be the deciding factor, but I don’t think it can be discarded lightly.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Jan 7, 2010 1:14 PM CST up reply actions
On average there is a 20 mile driving difference...
That is ultimately negligible and some of it depends on the distance from the airport ( for example, the Indianapolis airport is on the west side of town and is actually somewhat closer to both Purdue and Bloomington than the city itself…Detroit is the same way, while KC’s airport is farther away from Manhattan than downtown and Stillwater is farther from OKC’s airport but Norman is closer). This would also have a negligible effect on the cost.
The flight times will be the biggest difference and I am sure the average flight time is likely to be 2 or 3 hours more. Sure it would require an extra 2 or 3 hours of the students’ time but I think the money involved would make that a moot point. I wouldn’t be surprised if the average flight cost isn’t that much different considering the bigger hubs you are flying into for the Big 10 schools. The biggest expense would be losing the two drive-able trips that would have to be replaced with flights and hotels. But still the money we are talking about makes those expenses seem small, even when multiplied by all the various sports.
Add in the immense amount of research dollars that would flow in from that side of the picture and the added expenses and time just aren’t on the same scale to make them big considerations.
I wouldn't go by SWA
Most schools don’t use SWA, I don’t believe, because of the unreserved seating. Also, SWA doesn’t necessarily go to major airports only, or to all major airports. Around here, for example, SWA only flies to the smaller of our area airports, Baltimore-Washington International (BWI). Southwest doesn’t fly to Washington-Dulles, which is actually busier, nor to Washington-National (Reagan), which is almost the same size as BWI.
But your point stands, for the most part.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 7, 2010 2:17 PM CST up reply actions
Since when to administrators pay anything more than lip service to the student-athlete?
The only real problem travel for UT in the Big 10 is Penn State. I’ll agree that getting to Lubbock and Okla City only require short flights and the teams can go by bus to Waco and College Station, but I bet the costs of flying to Lubbock and Okla City are only marginally cheaper than flying to Chicago or Detroit. While I bet flying to Ames, Manhattan or Lincoln is more expensive and probably longer with lay-overs than any destination in the Big 10 outside of State College and maybe Madison.
Do you really think the AD is going to find student travel times to tip the scales against $10+ million dollars in revenue? Heck that money could probably be used to fly even the non-revenue teams by charter and still leave the department with a net revenue gain over staying in place.
Sigh
The problem with this is that all the assumptions are being made in favor of the change and against the status quo, when that’s not particularly realistic.
Yes, I do think the AD is going to go against $10 million, easily. The singular reason to be in the Big Ten is money right now. All the other reasons, from the non-football athletics, the almost certain decline of baseball, the uproar it would cause with fans and revenue-producing alumni, the impact on student-athletes, the regional market problems, etc. all tip the scale easily against joining the Big Ten. It’s a real reach.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 7, 2010 2:21 PM CST up reply actions
Really good find, thanks
Nice 15 minute distraction for today. Now back to pulling my hair out in anticipation.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
