Texas Reportedly Talks w/ The Big 10
by drbadass on Feb 11, 2010 12:09 PM CST
Email
Print
"People will deny that, but it's accurate," the source said.
Until now, the Texas-to-the-Big-Ten talk had been purely speculation. Ever since the Big Ten announced in December that it will actively explore the possibility of expansion, a lot of junk has been thrown out, particularly the recent bogus rumors about Pitt. But this is the first legitimate news outlet to report discussions between the Big Ten and an institution.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/19529/texas-reportedly-talks-with-big-ten
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
206 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yip
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/2/9/1303744/now-its-the-pac-10s-turn-to#30649686
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 12:15 PM CST reply actions
Yeah,
I heard Collin Cowherd getting into this today, he was saying it makes perfect sense dollar wise for Texas to go.
I don't see how this makes any sense competitively.
We already make more money than anyone else. Why would we want to have our teams be subject to longer travel and harsher weather for away games?
3/19/2009 & 12/15/2009 - Games Where Dogus Balbay Made a Three-Pointer. Never Forget.
Longer travel, harsher weather
Plus all the spring sports are in the crappy situation for early games. Heck, baseball finds itself in a terrible conference. Recruiting ins are given to some long-established rust belt schools. Sports with mid-week games face a lot more problems with classes. Sure, Boise State makes it work, but why do it when one doesn’t have to do it in order to be the highest-grossing athletic program in the country?
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 1:00 PM CST up reply actions
There is nothing about the Big 10 that is appealing other than tv $$$
and we have enough of that to go around last I looked. Weigh an extra what, $10M in tv revenue against the negatives. $10M is maybe a Red McCombs annual donation? Plus I suspect we’ll strike our own TV deal in the future, or modify the current one. This meeting may have been about leveraging that future deal.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 6:36 PM CST up reply actions
what else matter besides tv $$$?
really?
I tend to agree with him
The money is the main thing. The academic issue is a matter of appearances only, unless the conference were to agree upon some heightened academic standard (higher than the NCAA standards) that all student-athletes in the conference must meet in order to compete. Simply having an athletic conference whose members have generally good reputations for academics is meaningless if the athletes aren’t part of the reputation.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 8:32 PM CST up reply actions
If it wasn't for potential tv money we would be having this discussion
- fans- what do the fans want? This after all is the basis for success, monetary or otherwise. Would most prefer playing TT every year or Illinois? Oklahoma State or Wisconsin? Top tier teams aside.
- players- who do they want to play? Part of the fun for Texas HS players is playing against people they’ve known in HS, guys they’ve grown up with. Schools who have recruited them or spurned them.
- rivalries- OU and aTm aside we’ve played Tech and Baylor for decades and we’ve developed something of a rivalry with Okie lite, Kansas, KState, Nebraska in one sport or another. It takes time for rivalries to develop, do we want to just throw the current ones out the window because we can get another $10M a year?
- Travel- with a capital ‘T’. Cost aside there are other factors. Longer flights, more delays, less time for school work and practice. Many of the Big 10 home cities/towns are snowbound part of the year, especially in the basketball part of the year. We practice football in the heat for the heat. East Lansing, Ann Arbor or Madison in November or December?
- culture- most of the teams we play, especially in the Big 12 South, share a common culture. Barbecue, cattle, music, ’ya’ll’, hot weather, cowboy hats and boots. We share little in common with Illinois culturally.
A philosophical question, sort of… What is the purpose of Texas football? To generate tv revenue? If not then the factors above weigh decidedly in favor of staying in the Big 12. If so then I beg to offer that we are moving in a decidedly wrong direction with regard to college sports. We have an $16B university endowment. Why do we need $10M more a year for the university? So we can say we now have a $22M tv contract instead of a $10M tv contract. Do you seriously believe that our athletic department is in danger of going broke anytime soon?
Why do we need additional tv revenue?
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 8:53 PM CST up reply actions
...wouldn't be having this discussion
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 8:53 PM CST up reply actions
It's not "just" TV revenue -- it's protection from "SWC Part II"
I have long stated my belief that Texas will move to the Big 10.
The reason I feel strongly about this isn’t just the money. I think Texas is, as I have phrased it before, grudgingly accepting of the status quo and could live with the current disparity in TV revenue.
But underlying my belief that Texas will wind up moving are two separate but related theories: (1) there will be another round of major realignment, spurred by the Big 10 and, to a lesser extent, the Pac 10, and (2) the Big XII will be in the crosshairs of any logical expansion efforts by the Big 10 which do not include the words “Notre Dame”.
I believe that the Big 10 will try and pick off a Big XII member to join it. Once that happens, imagine the conference minus a Nebraska or a Mizzou and with a replacement team like TCU. The conference will be weaker, and the disparity in television revenues will become much, much wider once the Big 10 adds its conference championship game.
The Pac 10 could then swoop in and grab a Colorado, weakening the Big XII even more. The resulting Big XII, weak as it already is with television markets, will be even weaker, and the overall strength of the conference will start to wilt. Think “SWC Part II.”
My theory is therefore based on a belief that Texas would not sit back and be a part of another failing conference and will do what it can, proactively, to move to a much more stable long-term environment which, by the ways, also provides much more television revenue and gets us into a much more desirable neighborhood academically.
So, yeah, TV revenues are part of it, but I don’t think this can be written off solely to a drive for more TV revenue.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 11, 2010 9:06 PM CST up reply actions
We've had this discussion before
and I’ve argued that the Big 12 will remain viable as long as Big 12 schools can recruit in Texas. And the converse is true, Big 12 schools will be able to recruit in Texas as log as the Big 12 is viable. TV money aside I don’t see us falling seriously behind anybody.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 9:13 PM CST up reply actions
whats better?
Texas vs ou or Texas vs Ohio State
Texas vs Nebraska or Texas vs Penn State
Texas vs a&m or Texas vs Wisconsin
Texas vs TT or Texas vs Michigan State
by Longhorns84 on Feb 14, 2010 10:56 AM CST up reply actions
Beyond Football
There exist many reasons to leave the Big XII beyond football. As the infintely more informed blogger FrankTheTank states in his in-depth three part series on the issue, simply put, don’t think like a football fan. Put yourself in the shoes of a university president.
Sure, TV revenue is a huge part of this. But even more beneficial to UT is the membership into the CIC that would come.
Many, many more in depth pros. Sure there are many cons as well, but moaning about bot playing Tech and Kansas don’t really bother me.
Spirit, I’ve enjoyed your commentary since last December, but I think you’ve posted emotionally.
by DaGoose on Feb 14, 2010 8:53 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Slow news day, evidently.
Sure, Texas might talk to the Big Ten. What’s to lose? UT might even leak it out, if the intent is to send a message to the rest of the Big 12 that “Somebody may want us; you better lean our way on issues that come up in the future.”
If UT had no thought at all about leaving the Big 12, the school could still use the Big Ten’s interest to boost its power/clout in the Big 12.
How’s Texas at Michigan State in late November sound? Indiana at Texas for Senior Day?
Every-other year, atm @ Texas would be Senior Day, no?
In the alternating seasons, I think UT could manage a game at least as exciting as KU @ UT 2009. I mean, that was almost a groaner of a game, yet fans were all still in the stadium and on their feet as we watched Colt McCoy and the rest of the seniors make their way around the perimeter of the field, slapping hands, banging the drum, firing the cannon, and dogpiling on the 50yd. line. It was my favorite gameday experience I’ve ever had in person, and it was against a team that was underachieving even for KU.
I think the Thanksgiving game and RRS would have to stay intact for UT to even consider changing conferences, but I may be overrating the rivalries.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 1:11 PM CST up reply actions
In no way
are you overrating the rivalries
4th and 5.
by BMC237 on Feb 11, 2010 1:12 PM CST up reply actions
I didn't think so, but I'm a bit, ehmmm...pro-Texas
I mean, Texas vs. Ohio State has become a great non-conference rivalry of sorts, with three big games in the past five seasons, but I don’t think there’s any desire to replace the state fair setting and bitter rivalry of the RRS with it. The idea would be to retain those more valuable games and add the Big Ten slate, and let additional rivalries develop. Texas-Michigan has good potential, as does the “good guys” games between Brown, Paterno, and Ferentz.
Somehow I’m just a bit less enthusiastic about Texas vs. Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, or Purdue than I was even about Texas vs. Baylor or K-State.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 1:22 PM CST up reply actions
No doubt
would the excitement of Texas v. Michigan and OSU be incredible. But what happens when we have an incredibly demanding and brutal schedule that includes old rivalries. I’m not happy with 10-2 like Ohio State usually is. Baah who knows
4th and 5.
by BMC237 on Feb 11, 2010 1:36 PM CST up reply actions
I wouldn't be happy with it either
And face it, if Texas is playing OU, atm, plus the Big Ten slate, that’s tougher than any schedule tOSU has played to get to 10-2, and tougher than Alabama, Florida, etc. have played. Texas could and should be good enough to have 11- and 12-win regular seasons, but always having to be “on” takes its toll, and it’s more likely the team would drop the odd game here and there to fall out of the driver’s seat for the title game.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 1:48 PM CST up reply actions
We can schedule tOSU, Michigan and Penn State in ooc games currently
and not have to play Illinois, Iowa, Michigan St., Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Those are not exciting games and travel does wear on you after a time.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 7:09 PM CST up reply actions
Keeping the rivalries
I think the Thanksgiving game and RRS would have to stay intact for UT to even consider changing conferences
I know we’re on different sides of this argument, but let me ask you this one question I’d been thinking about.
Let’s say that Texas decides it’s in its best interests to move to the Big 10. Let’s also say Texas reaches out to OU and A&M about maintaining its traditional rivalries. And let’s say one of the schools — I would assume OU, since what’s the point of being an Aggie if there’s not Texas to play? — tells us that there will be no continuation of the rivalry if we move.
The question is this: would you want Oklahoma to be able to dictate Texas’ future?
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 11, 2010 3:45 PM CST up reply actions
Nope, I wouldn't
I would tell them that they’re not going to be the deciding factor, or even close, even if they were.
However, OU and aggie need the money and exposure of the rivalry games with UT more than UT does, don’t you think?
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 4:07 PM CST up reply actions
Agreed . . .
. . . certainly for A&M. OU wants the exposure in Texas, but I imagine they’d be able to compensate for not playing us much easier than the Aggies could.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 11, 2010 4:09 PM CST up reply actions
I concur
It’s pretty much Texas, then OU, then aggie as far as the three schools’ power goes.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 4:10 PM CST up reply actions
It's also mental, not just power
OU hates us, but I don’t get the overall sense of penis envy that you get coming out of College Station. The Aggies’ entire sense of identity comes from not being UT. They’d have to keep us on their schedule.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 11, 2010 4:12 PM CST up reply actions
Agree
We are their entire reason for existence, athletically speaking.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 6:22 PM CST up reply actions
How’s Texas at Michigan State in late November sound? Indiana at Texas for Senior Day?
Not good. How about Texas at Michigan basketball in a snowstorm? Does Michigan even field a baseball team? Would we have to form a hockey team?
This is a no go.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 6:39 PM CST up reply actions
The Big Ten does not play hockey as a league
The Big Ten schools that play hockey are in different conferences for that sport.
How can we increase our power any further?
We already pull in the most TV revenue in the conference at $12mm, which is $10mm less than Northwestern pulled in this year.
What network gives the Big XII an SEC-sized contract when our current contract is up in 2011?
Culturally we are a better fit in the Pac 10, but still better in the Big 10 than here.
by DaGoose on Feb 14, 2010 9:04 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
In fact, right now I’m probably against it. How would we schedule games with OU and A&M? You can’t tell me those rivalries would just stop. So therefore we’d have to schedule them non-conference. I think a gauntlet of a schedule including OU and A&M plus all the Big 10 teams AT their stadiums in 10 degree weather is favorable for Texas.
4th and 5.
by BMC237 on Feb 11, 2010 1:07 PM CST reply actions
No way, no how to Big 10
The increase in travel expenses should be reason alone not to going to join the Big 10(11).
We should create our own Gulf Coast Conference comprised of:
UT
A&M
Tech
UH
TCU
OU
OSU
LSU
Arkansas
Memphis
Tulsa
Tulane
Need Tulsa and Tulane for some easy wins.
Hook 'em
I'd love it
But the media money just wouldn’t be there. Too few markets. But why Memphis? I think they’d be really out of place in the conference.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 1:14 PM CST up reply actions
Memphis
They are solid in basketball and not a real threat in football. I doubt Bama would ever want to leave the SEC and Auburn, whereas I feel (not sure with any authority) that LSU and Arkansas aren’t as dedicated and have no true rivals.
Hook 'em
no school is leaving the SEC. They make more money with their tv contracts
including the Piggies. Big 12 couldn’t offer them the same money.
Your tongue can't repel flavor of that magnitude!!
what is the appeal of adding a Memphis?
addiing another mediocre football team just makes the Big12 less competitive and less watchable.
Texas is probably still Arkansas' biggest rival
along with aTm. They had a lot more success in the SWC, should have stuck with us. One of the reasons I’m leery about conference hopping is that you lose old rivalries.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 12, 2010 3:44 PM CST up reply actions
I would think one of the Mississippi schools over Bama
As long as academics aren’t the concern, and as long as they’re including lower-money schools like Tulsa and TCU, maybe Southern Miss, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, or for higher academics, maybe Rice?
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 1:24 PM CST up reply actions
Go here and read up http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/
This blog has already discussed the issue and travel budget are in no way a concern if we upgrade with the Big 10 TV contract.
Your tongue can't repel flavor of that magnitude!!
I think the blog's wrong
It does not seriously consider the fallout of the potential move. First of all, if the total pie averages out to $22 million per school, that doesn’t mean that each school gets $22 million. It means that it’s the average, and the actual number is a lot less. Lots of money goes toward conference operating costs running the media network that brings a big part of that pie, etc. And it looks at travel issues from almost exclusively the perspective of the major spectator sports. The writer also bases the sentiments of Texas fans on message boards, which is silly. Very shallow analysis, IMO. I’ve articulated a long list of reasons that discount any and all of that blog’s arguments, and honestly, it’s just not worth repeating them once again. It’s just not a very good idea, and there’s a lot to lose by moving to the Big Ten.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 2:01 PM CST up reply actions
UT will never be in the same conference with Memphis and Tulsa
Money and academics preclude the possibility.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Feb 11, 2010 4:39 PM CST up reply actions
UT in the Big 10 would be so unnatural, it'd be queer
Let those yankees stay together & freeze in their arctic circle. While the Big XII is not quite as natural of a group as the ol’ SWC or the Big 8, it’s still a great mix regionally. Screw the rest of the country who thinks the Big XII is weak. It’s a great mix of teams, all year long, in all sports.
Besides LSU & Arkansas, there are NO other teams that would interest me to be in UT’s conference. In a perfect world, if we could get LSU & Arkansas, I’d be in hog heaven. While no bad blood currently exists, LSU is regionally adjacent to UT & a&m (esp.) and always fights for the same swamp-area Houston / Beaumont recruits. Arkansas, of course, is probably tied with the suckin’ sooners as Texas’ 2nd-most notable rival of all-time. Kick Iowa St. & Mizzou to the Big 10, then look at the new “Big Southwest” conference divided into 2 divisions. The traditional Big 8 division: Nebraska, ou, OSU, KU, KSU, & Colorado. The traditional Southwest division: UT, a&m, TTech, Baylor, Arkansas, & LSU. Awesome!!! If ISU & Mizzou don’t leave, then put them both in Nebraska’s division and give us Colorado & Houston. Either way, 12 or 14 total teams, that’d be a natural fit of a conference.
I may be jumping the gun on this, but
If talks between Texas and the Big Ten get serious, Texas might use this as leverage to reopen negotiations with the PAC-10.
Fiat Lux
Why?
If Texas wants to go to the Pac 10, why not just open negotiations there?
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 11, 2010 3:47 PM CST up reply actions
Stronger bargaining power
If they think UT would be fine walking and going to another conference, or sticking with the Big 12, it improves UT’s leverage. Same goes with leverage vs. the Big 12 and Big Ten.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 4:08 PM CST up reply actions
I'm curious what the reactions around the Big 12 were when this story ran across desks
I’m guessing there may have been some cursing.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kinda a big deal.
Meeting with the Big Ten has its advantages
And I think the least of them is actually finding out what the Big Ten has to offer. Making the Pac 10 make itself more appealing, and making the Big 12 crap its pants, would be far more fun, and possibly more valuable.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 2:27 PM CST up reply actions
If Texas were to join the Pac 10 wouldn't the conference have to change the name?
There is nothing Pacific about Texas. I wouldn’t mind seeing them go to the Big 10 though
There's nothing big about Syracuse, either
Yet the Big East remains the same.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 2:56 PM CST up reply actions
Think he's hitting on the "Big" part,
not so much geography. He’s either being punny or pointing out something less relevant than Texas not being Pacific.
by Infield Elephant on Feb 11, 2010 4:44 PM CST up reply actions
I was pointing out that misnomers in conference names aren't exactly new
The Big East has plenty of smaller schools. The Pacific Ten already has two schools in a state that doesn’t touch the Pacific (Arizona and Arizona State). The Big Ten has eleven schools, for the time being. Misnomers? So what?
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 4:51 PM CST up reply actions
Never thought of "Big" being in reference to the actual size of schools,
by Infield Elephant on Feb 11, 2010 5:26 PM CST up reply actions
Looks like just Baylor and NWern are small
The rest are 20K+, which is kind of the minimum for something to be a big university, IMO.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 5:35 PM CST up reply actions
no prob
I guess all I was trying to convey was that the conference name is probably the last thing that could dictate future conference alignments.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 8:34 PM CST up reply actions
It's penis envy
Who would want to be known as the Little 12?
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 9:19 PM CST up reply actions
Louisiana Tech is in the Western Athletic Conference.
Besides, if not for Stanford, Texas would be playing PAC-10 teams right now.
Fiat Lux
I'm against it unless
OU and or A@M go with us. If we leave they have to stay on the schedule. I guess it may be manageable depending on how the division’s shake out. It would still be a brutal schedule most years. I’m all for a challenging non conference but not 2 big rivalries. I would rather improve the Big 12.
"big-time players make big-time plays in big games."
a&m has GOT to stay with UT in whatever conference
don’t care about the suckin’ sooners. We went so long without ‘em in the SWC, I’m used to them not being a part of conference anyway.
I wonder if we could have a lengthy discussion about this and not mention football
Because if Texas is considering this for only football reasons, I’ll be disappointed.
"I live in the tower with Coach Brown." -Bevo
This will not happen.
It only makes sense financially, and we’re not exactly hurting in that department.
Disciplina Praesidium Civitatis.
Thank you
There is no need to squeeze the last penny out of this one.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 7:29 PM CST up reply actions
why you want this.
I’ve been trying to figure out where I stand on this for a while and here’s why this would be a good thing for Texas sports.
1. Football wise, this doesn’t damage your ability to win championships – both conference and national. Texas would still own Texas recruiting. If anything, this would enhance national recruiting. Conference strength alone would also dictate that a one or two loss Big 10+Texas champ could still compete in MNC. Most likely, it would pretty much be SEC vs Big10+Texas.
2. More $$$. Let’s face it, the Big12 includes states with vast amounts of open spaces and sparse population. Outside of Texas, there are few populated areas that care about this conference. The Big12 will never have a CBS-SEC deal, and it won’t get a Big10 Network of its own either. While CBS & ESPN will continue to pay more and more for the SEC, the Big12 has completely tapped out revenue wise for TV deals and it won’t change because of the lack of an audience.
3. National spotlight for all sports. Step away from the 10 win seasons and think about where we would be right now as a 6-6 football team. We would maybe have 1 or 2 nationally televised games depending on how interesting the Aggies or the OU are. Put a few seasons like that together and we’re back to the 80’s and the 90’s, struggling and forgotten. Now consider that schools like Indiana & Illinois are routinely shown on the Big10 Network regardless of their record, just as Ole Miss or Arkansas get on TV several times a year thanks to CBS. Not only does joining the Big10 bring in $‘s, it also brings longterm stability regardless of the ups and downs on the field.
4. Bring basketball to the big time. There’s no doubt that the Big10 is a better conference from the top down in terms of viewership, level of competition, and tradition than the Big12. Texas basketball would benefit tremendously from the association, not to mention bring in plenty of additional revenue. Home conference games would be packed and buzzing, and Texas would only land more coveted big Monday and Saturday afternoon time slots.
If you think about the longrun this is a no-brainer.
Agreed
I’ve been arguing these points for months. I think it’s happening.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 11, 2010 3:47 PM CST up reply actions
Also, keep in mind the academic side of the equation
UT would much rather be mentioned in the same sentence with Northwestern and Michigan (or Stanford and Cal) as opposed to Baylor and Missouri.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Feb 11, 2010 4:48 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Baylor?
Their medical school is a top 15 in many categories and their law school in the top 40 I believe. I might agree with the statement aTm or Tech and Missouri. But yes, overall it would be an upgrade.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 6:51 PM CST up reply actions
I'm not saying Baylor is a bad institution
But it is not in the same universe of academic notoriety as NW or Stanford, nor am I aware that they aspire to be – and I still get quarterly requests for donations.
As a side note Baylor College of Medicine hasn’t been affiliated with Baylor University for approximately 40 years and the law school isn’t considered a tier 1.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Feb 11, 2010 7:00 PM CST up reply actions
If I am not mistaken
Their trial advocacy program is ranked 8th in the nation. Princeton Review cited them as having the ‘most competitive students’ , for good or bad, and they are in the top 40 as I said in most rankings.
True about the medical school, however.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 7:23 PM CST up reply actions
Their trial ad program is stellar
And some of the best litigators I know were educated at Baylor. Baylor’s legal education is unique in that emphasis they place on trial work in the third year, such that I’m actually surprised they were as low as 8th using whatever strange metric Princeton review uses (moot court finishes or something equally ridiculous?).
I tend to think all law school rankings are BS (creative fictions at best) but I have never seen an overall ranking of Baylor in the Top 40, or even one that placed them above SMU. If you know where you saw that, let me know and I’ll pass it along to some Baylor grads.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Feb 11, 2010 7:44 PM CST up reply actions
Is the Baylor medical school even associated with the undergrad?
Wasn’t Baylor Medical thinking of teaming up with Rice University?
no they aren't, my bad.
My point was that Baylor would compare favorably to Missouri academically.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 9:03 PM CST up reply actions
BCM
The Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) has no affiliation with Baylor University. In fact, it has been suggested that BCM may be absorbed by Rice.
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
Woops Sorry Learned. You already cover this.
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
Again, it's meaningless unless the student-athletes earn the academic reputation as well
If student-athletes aren’t held to the same standards, why are academics a factor in conference alignment? I personally think it’d be great to have a conference set a higher standard, like zero of the modern-day equivalents of partial-qualifiers, stringent academic requirements for juco transfers, and higher GPA, ACT, and SAT requirements than the NCAA minimum for freshman eligibility. But I doubt anyone bites on that.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 8:38 PM CST up reply actions
Agree
Sports affiliations have no parallel with academic affiliations. Any talk of such is political to justify the sports side of it.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 9:24 PM CST up reply actions
That's a myopic view
Membership in the CIC carries no small amount of cachet in the academic world, along with commiserate opportunities for faculty and students.
Just like the CIC is currently the Big 10 plus U of C (though they were in the Big 10 when the CIC was founded), athletic conferences do tend to create a shorthand for measuring institutions academically as well as athletically. Right now, Texas stands over the conference in an even more dominant position on the academic side than it does on the athletic side with little to spur it to further improvement. A healthy competition and cooperation agreement with U of M, U of C, Northwestern and Wisconsin would change that.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Feb 11, 2010 9:26 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Forget the parenthetical, U of C left the Big 10 a decade before the CIC was founded but an invitation was extended anyway.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Feb 11, 2010 9:32 PM CST up reply actions
Is an athletic affiliation necessary for academic cooperation?
If it’s academic prowess we’re after we should look towards MIT, Cal-Berkley, Princeton, etc. cooperatives.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 9:42 PM CST up reply actions
I'll wager
That the University of Chicago, Northwestern, University of Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Penn State, Ohio State, Purdue, Iowa, Indiana and Minnesota would exceed whatever academic cooperative UT could form out of the ether.
Given a mandate to join an athletic conference with high academic standards (this is a significant reason UT didn’t go to the SEC – props TB), the UT joined the Big 12 in a shotgun marriage. After that, I don’t have a lot of confidence in the ol’ alma mater becoming the driving force in the formation of an academic super-consortium.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Feb 11, 2010 10:10 PM CST up reply actions
Maybe not
but I don’t think this is about academics, more about TV money. I’ve read that article before, a good recourse in Texas politics.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 10:51 PM CST up reply actions
Oh, I don't disagree. This is primarily about the money
But the academics will help to create buy-in for a move in certain corners and provide some tangible non-athletic, non-monetary benefits to the university as a whole. Rather than merely benefiting the student-athlete this move provides some benefits across the entire student body. That’s not something I’m inclined to discount lightly.
Because of the CIC, rather than a straight athletic money vs. athletic logistics argument (which wouldn’t really get my attention), this becomes an athletic money & university academics vs. athletic logistics debate. Personally, I find anything that enhances UT’s academic merits & reputation to be persuasive at the outset, coupled with a ten million dollar incentive. You can put the swim/track/tennis/etc teams on a lot of airplanes for that kind of money, so I’m less inclined to see that is significant. If anyone has the financial info for projected costs, I’d love to see them.
As for revenue sports and their fans – probably the biggest logistical concern – I would find the deal more persuasive if A&M tagged along, the RRS continued, and perhaps if some sort of rotating neutral site game in Dallas/Houston/San Antonio were arranged with the historic Big 10 schools. Fan movement is a concern, but how many fans who attend games in Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri or Iowa currently drive? Often, I would think it would be more convenient and less expensive to deal with Big 10 airports than the Big 12 North.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Feb 12, 2010 5:47 AM CST up reply actions
Omaha and KC are big, relatively nice airports, and Denver sucks, but is very big
Much better than dealing with anyplace near Bloomington or Champaign. The pains in the North are K-State (Topeka’s serviceable, but there’s no Southwest and it’s still just a municipal airport), Iowa State (Ames is a tiny airport, but Des Moines isn’t terrible, just 20-30min. away), and Mizzou (at least 1.5hrs. away from St. Louis or KC airports). KU, CU, and Nebraska are fine.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 12, 2010 6:50 AM CST up reply actions
K-State actually has...
…direct service from Dallas now on American Eagle. It’s getting direct service from Chicago soon, I hear.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Feb 12, 2010 7:52 AM CST up reply actions
I remember how Bill Snyder was excited about that
It’s certainly a big help for both current and prospective athletes. It’s probably American Eagle (or whatever their turbo-prop sevice is called now), but it’s definitely better than a bunch of connections. Austin to Dallas to Manhattan is probably easier than Austin to Chicago to Bloomington or something.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 12, 2010 8:37 AM CST up reply actions
Indy has a nice shiny new airport!
45 mins from West Lafayette, maybe an hour to Bloomington. And for fans who make a weekend of it Indy is a pretty fair sports town. Not to go all Chamber of Commerce on you, but Indy is known for hosting a few sporting events and their fans. (Indy 500, Final Fours, 2012 Super Bowl.) I’m a transplanted Texan, (and Indy’s no Austin,) but it’s not a bad place…
41-38 !!
err discourse
…getting late.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 10:55 PM CST up reply actions
CIC has nothing to do with athletics, though
And as I’ve pointed out countless times, why not affiliate with universities along a different alignment, rather than with the same universities with which one is athletically associated? It’s just plain silly, and pointing that out is far from myopic.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 11:53 PM CST up reply actions
Arranging the vast majority of the political representatives for a country of 300+ million into two parties is plain silly, but it happened. Administrative convenience trumps optimization more often than any of us would like, particularly for an institution as politically hamstrung as Texas.
And the part I was describing as myopic is the view that the athletic conference would only impact that academic lives of the student-athletes. “Wrong” would have been a more apt description.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Feb 12, 2010 5:09 AM CST up reply actions
But you didn't even describe what I said
And the part I was describing as myopic is the view that the athletic conference would only impact that academic lives of the student-athletes.
I didn’t say that it would only impact the academic lives of student-athletes. I said that it’s all for show unless the student-athletes are held to a heightened academic standard. I think a lot of people get wrapped up in looking down their noses at the academics of the SEC, Boise State, aggy, OU, etc. but the fact is that their student-athletes aren’t held to any lower standard than the student-athletes at Michigan or Indiana, and certainly not lower than at Ohio State or Iowa. So what’s the point? Why not just try to join the CIC without joining the Big Ten?
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 12, 2010 6:35 AM CST up reply actions
A lower standard than Michigan or Indiana, but comparable to Michigan St.
Texas brings up the rear either way.
Football Graduation Rates: Big 10
Northwestern 92%
Penn St. 78%
Iowa 75%
Illinois 70%
Michigan 70%
Indiana 68%
Purdue 63%
Wisconsin 63%
Ohio St. 52%
Minnesota 51%
Michigan St. 51%
Football Graduation Rates: Big 12
Texas Tech 79%
Baylor 78%
Nebraska 78%
Colorado 75%
Kansas St. 67%
Oklahoma St. 62%
Missouri 59%
Texas A&M 56%
Iowa St. 55%
Kansas 53%
Texas 50%
Oklahoma 46%
This is the part of your post I was addressing.
If student-athletes aren’t held to the same standards, why are academics a factor in conference alignment?
Sure, I readily agree that defining an academic consortium based off an athletic conference is silly, but when the CIC was founded that was an explicit the intent. Again, it’s a matter of administrative convenience.
UT could try to join the CIC anyway, but thus far they haven’t to my knowledge. They could try to form a consortium out of the ether, but they haven’t achieved anything remotely comparable in the history of the institution. Or they could follow the path of least resistance if the sports teams make a switch. Which of those seems most likely?
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Feb 12, 2010 6:47 AM CST up reply actions
I think the path of least resistance is the status quo
And I strongly doubt the people making the decisions are weighing the CIC very heavily in their determinations.
If I had my ‘druthers, I’d have Texas playing in a competitor to the NCAA that actually has academic standards that don’t warrant the scorn of those who can read.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 12, 2010 6:52 AM CST up reply actions
Texas and football graduation rates
That number includes players who transfer and don’t graduate (like Brandon Collins) and They also include players who leave for the NFL after their Jr. year (like Vince Young and Earl Thomas. That’s why OU and Texas are ranked that low because they get the best talent and do have players transfer to other schools due to playing time and being released from the program.
Sorry, those numbers are adjusted for transfers
The GSR does not penalize schools for outgoing transfers; rather, the GSR excludes outgoing transfers from the graduation rate calculation, so long as they were academically eligible when they left. The GSR also includes incoming transfers in the graduation rate.
Using the GSR instead of the federal graduation rate increases reported graduation rates. For all Division I student-athletes in all sports, the combined GSR this year is 15 percentage points higher than the federal graduation rate – the GSR is 78%, while the federal graduation rate is 63%. Call us cynical, but we think this may have something to do with the reason the NCAA created the GSR. It’s a lot easier to boost graduation rates and demonstrate improvement by just changing the method of computation than by actually graduating more athletes.
I’ll give you a few early exits to the draft, but remember Mack Brown is better about getting players to stay for four years than almost any coach in college football. I suspect the issue is many players are on the cusp of a Christian Scott predicament – they’re taking enough classes to be eligble but not classes that can be combined toward a degree.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Feb 12, 2010 2:00 PM CST up reply actions
Another issue is compromise of academic standards
As the article you linked states, some schools (Cal is one example it mentions) don’t steer and compromise as much for athletes in the academics.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 12, 2010 4:02 PM CST up reply actions
The Big10 has been mediocre in basketball for years
of course you have Mich St… and Ohio St and Wisconsin occasionally survive the first weekend but overall Big10 is filled with overrated teams who, when they make it, do terrible in the tournament.
by 7Swords of Salat on Feb 11, 2010 7:18 PM CST up reply actions
well they way we have been playing lately
tourny sounds kinda good
????
In the last 10 years the Big Ten has 5 teams to 8 Final Fours and 1 Championship
In the last 10 years Big XII has 4 teams to 5 Final Fours and 1 Championship
In the last 5 years the Big Ten has 3 teams to 4 Final Fours
In the last 5 years Big XII has 1 teams to 1 Final Four
by IUTex on Feb 11, 2010 10:30 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
in the 1990's
Big Ten has 5 teams to 6 Final Fours (making 6 teams to the Final Four in last 20)
Big XII had 2 teams to 3 Final Fours
You do not want to look at the 80’s where 5 Big Ten schools made the final Four and delivered 3 Titles
When I said "for years"
I meant that last 6-7 years. Sorry, that was a bit misleading. No doubt, Big 10 hoops was solid in the 80’s. Also, I was talking about the conference as a whole, not just the top teams. And I did mention Mich State (which made 2 of the Big10’s 4 final four appearances since 2003). So in the last 7 years, their have been 28 final four teams, of which the Big Ten was represented only 4 times. 4 out of 28.
Regardless, sending a team or teams to the Final Four does not necessarily make that conference good or their “level of competition” higher than another conference. George Mason made the Final Four in ’06, does that mean the Colonial Athletic Association was better than the Big East of ACC that year b/c neither of those conferences had a team in the Final Four? No. Memphis made the Final Four in ’ 08. Does that mean that Conference USA was one of the top conferences in college basketball in 2008? Of course not.
BMG had said that there was no doubt that the Big 10 is the better conference in terms of level of competition. This is what I was disagreeing with. The Big 10, overall, has been mediocre the past several years. Look at this year, the Big 10 currently has 4 teams who are under .500. The Pac 10, as atrocious as they are this year, only has 2 teams under .500. No other BCS Conference has more than 1 team under .500. At the very least, the level of competition in the Big XII is on par with that of the Big 10.
by 7Swords of Salat on Feb 12, 2010 12:25 AM CST up reply actions
3 is greater than 1
- At the end of the day the #2 team in the Big XII has been to 1 Final Four and that was 7 years ago!!!!
- Indiana and Iowa are rebuilding, don’t forget Indiana was in the final game only 8 years ago (only 1 year before Texas made its one and only appearance)….But beat a Pitt team pretty easily
- You mention George Mason…I am saying there are 6 + teams that have put together trips to the Final Four recently, I call the depth
- Nebraska, Iowa State, Colorado start every year with no chance of going anywhere
As I said before…
In the last 5 years the Big Ten has 3 teams to 4 Final Fours
In the last 5 years Big XII has 1 teams to 1 Final Four
Understood
But once again, I would have to say that sending a team or teams to the Final Four does not make the entire conference better than another conference. And if that is your criteria for an entire conference (how far the conference’s best team advances), why stop at Final Four appearances?
In the last 5 years the Big XII has 1 Nat’l Championship
In the last 9 years the Big Ten has 0 Nat’l Championships
1 is greater than 0
Now, do I believe the Big XII is the more competitive conference than the Big Ten b/c 1 is greater than 0? No, absolutely not. I’m talking about the overall quality of competition in the conference.
There was a similar discussion on BON last year before the tournament when a Minnesota fan started talking nonsense about how Minnesota was going to beat Texas in the first round b/c the Big Ten’s brutal schedule prepared them for the NCAA tourney. Please. If I’m not mistaken, it was a 15 point drubbing of the Golden Gophers. Don’t mistake low scores and close games for defensive battles or brutal conference hardwood showdowns. It’s a lack of athleticism and elite talent that has hurt the Big Ten the past several years. Let’s not forget the classic Penn St./Illinois epic battle from last year that ended in a 38-33 win for Penn St.
There were 24 McDonald’s All-American’s in 2009. Not one is playing basketball in the Big Ten. Of the last 72 McDonald’s All-American’s only 4 attended a Big Ten university (3 @ Ohio State, 1 @ Indiana), with one (BJ Mullens) being a complete bust. The Big Ten has been unable to attract elite basketball talent for several years now. The only aberration was 2006 in which 3 McD AAs ended up playing for Ohio St. And while this propelled tOSU to the Final Four, it hardly improved the overall level of competition throughout the conference. And the previous 2 years (‘04 and ’05), only 1 McD AA attended a BIg Ten school. Not including the aberration year of ’06, that brings the Big Ten’s total to 5 McD AAs out of a possible 120 since 2004. Hardly the mark of an good basketball conference.
The Big XII has had 21 McD AAs since 2004.
by 7Swords of Salat on Feb 12, 2010 8:35 AM CST up reply actions
Big 10 vs Big 12 bball
The Big 10 has several tradition rich basketball school in Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, and Wisconsin. Others like Ohio State, Purdue, and Illinois have had tournament teams and each has made runs in the tourney or competed highly in conference.
Conversely, the Big 12 has one team with the longevity of the top Big 10 teams, and that is Kansas. Texas, Oklahoma, and OSU all have had great moments recently or in the past. Texas is on the cusp of being a perennial power, but OSU is becoming more and more irrelevant. OU is the third best program in the conference.
As others have pointed out, the Big 10 has sent more teams to the Final Four in the last 5 years and the last 10 years.
Since 2000, the Big 12 has failed to put a single team in the Final Four 6 times vs 4 times for the Big 10.
Since 2000, the 4 different Big 10 programs have appeared in the Final 4 vs 3 for the Big 12.
Conference RPI
since the ‘02/’03 season, and including the current season, the Big XII has finished higher than the Big 10 in the RPI rankings 5 out of 8 years.
The Big XII has finished in the top 4 conferences 6 out of 8 years while the Big 10 has finished 5th or LOWER, 5 out of 8 years. (Three times finishing 6th)
The average final ranking for the Big XII was 3.5
The average final ranking for the Big 10 was 4.4
While I don’t think the RPI is the perfect indicator of how good a conference is, it certainly speaks to overall level of competition within a conference better than simply listing final four appearances.
Tradition has done jack for Indiana and Michigan lately. Congrats on your success in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s. But we are in 2010. Both the current and recent overall level of competition in the Big 10 is in no way superior to the Big 12. Rather, the two conferences are close, with the slight edge going to the Big 12.
by 7Swords of Salat on Feb 12, 2010 10:34 AM CST up reply actions
sucks
This sucks,there will be alot less chance for me to go to away games now that away games are going to be real freaking far.Past Oklahoma, Past Kansas,past Colorado, jeez most of the time people close to the school are going to be fans and people that went there usually from Texas and dont live that far from where they went.I know this is generalization but this will suck from a fans standing point
I more should come from dollars and cents but it more than likely won’t.
sorry forgot some
I think more thought should come from other pionts than dollars and cent but it probably wont.
Maybe it will
and you are not alone. Accountants at the athletic department will not have the final say.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 6:56 PM CST up reply actions
Show me the MONEY!
Only Baseball suffers (if at all) with a Big 10 deal. Football, Basketball plus the lessor sports and womens benefit greatly. The deal would put Texas on the map and keep us there nationally. Keep ou game, dump atm (a rivalry in their minds only) and move to the next level. $$$$$ Similar and better Athletics, Academics and Alumni. Totally works for our prestige and bottom line.
How would the "lesser" sports benefit?
I think the opposite would be true.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 4:10 PM CST up reply actions
This should be our plan
Looks like y’all are in the same page as we are. Why not expand the Big XII instead and get some high population states in here. This increases our revenues, compensation and we kick Big X and Pac 10’s collective butts. Let’s get Arizona and Arizona State out of Pac 10, lets get LSU and the Arkies out of SEC and the Big East teams are always looking for upgrades and some of them are academically strong as well, so let’s pull a couple of those in, and we have a geographic coverage/population area that matches the revenues of Pac 10 and Big 10 and this helps us lure some of the teams from SEC and Pac 10. We create a power conference, let Pac 10 and Big 10 fight over Boise State and Utah. Let’s face it, Big XII has grown into a stronger conference than the Big 10 and the Pac 10, and they are crapping in their pants. Let’s bring in a few good teams, extend the geographic area and pre-empt what they are trying to do. If we move fast, we get the best pick and let Big 10 and Pac 10 fight over crumbs. I mean why spoil a good conference that we have created.
Welcome back
We’re on the same page as ya’ll, huh? Huh.
by Infield Elephant on Feb 11, 2010 4:48 PM CST up reply actions
For the last time: THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN... ever!
No way A&M or OU or anyone else lets this happen. games are too far, we would be less of a bigshot in the big 10 compared to the big 12, etc. etc.
F the offseason
PS- Muchamp to UCLA and Lache Seastrunk de-committed and is now going to Abilene Christian
"We'll be baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!"
by greenspointexas on Feb 11, 2010 4:43 PM CST reply actions
You realize we would be in the PAC 10 were it not for a single vote from Standford, right?
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Feb 11, 2010 4:45 PM CST up reply actions
just too many reasons why we wont leave
all UT is doing is trying to leverage the big 12 for more goodies… thats it
"We'll be baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!"
by greenspointexas on Feb 11, 2010 5:11 PM CST up reply actions
And we'd be in the Big Ten
If not for their mandated moratorium on expansion following the addition of Penn State.
Why would OU have any say over whether we leave?
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 11, 2010 5:17 PM CST up reply actions
I don't think Stanford's reasoning for that vote was ever publicly released
I’ve seen the following speculation, all alleged:
1) they didn’t want a school which competes at the varsity level in as few sports as UT,
2) Some institutional rivalry (I’m not sure I know how or why),
3) Lingering concerns over their athletic department’s logistics.
proud to swim home
Who's gonna cover hockey for BON when we go to the B10?
3/19/2009 & 12/15/2009 - Games Where Dogus Balbay Made a Three-Pointer. Never Forget.
I wish we had a hockey team
When I lived in Tucson, one of the coolest sporting experiences ever was going to Arizona hockey games (go Ice Cats!). College hockey is a blast and especially weird when you live in a hot climate.
Free Throw? Right On!
I will gladly
take that responsibility to liveblog every game. Houston Aeros Season Ticket holder here…lol
Get off your knees Greg, you're blowin' the game.
Two questions
Random thoughts to go along with the rest of the comments:
1. How much will politics, as they did before, play a role in the decision to go or not to go into the Big 10?
2. If Texas did go, will this increase the likelyhood Texas-OU becomes a home and home series?
If #2 did happen, could you imagine a year with home games consisting of LA-Monroe/Rice, followed by OU, tOSU, Michigan, Penn State, and A&M?
Interesting thought . . .
. . . though I’m sure the Athletic Department would do whatever it takes to make sure OU came to Austin, in a hypothetical non-neutral site continuation of the series, in the years we went to College Station. I think, as it is, we’re the “home” team in the RRS in years we visit CollegeS Station and vice versa.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 11, 2010 5:20 PM CST up reply actions
I'm an OU fan
and for #2….No It was a neutral site, non-conference game for almost 90 years. I don’t see why it wouldn’t be again.
as for #1…..well, a huge part. UT leaving the Big 12 hurts the Big 12. Leaving behind A&M and Texas Tech 2 other state schools might not fly in the state legislature, where they have to think about the good of all the state schools, not just UT.
"You have been banned from the Purple Row, for Inappropriate conduct, profanity, (&) telling site authors their articles are crap."
Legislative issues . . .
. . . are perhaps the biggest unknown here.
My instincts tell me that they will not be as much of a hurdle as they were back in the 1990s. Even if Texas were to leave, the other state schools would still be in a BCS conference, and the door might be open to another Texas school (TCU) to make the leap to a BCS conference. Back in the 90s, on the other hand, though the term “BCS Conference” did not yet exist, the political fight was to ensure that Tech and Baylor could join Texas and A&M in a major/BCS conference instead of being left behind to fates unknown.
Additionally, former LG Bob Bullock was Tech’s biggest advocate. He’s no longer with us. Baylor’s biggest legislative supporter, David Sibley, is no longer in the State Senate. I’m sure there are other A&M/Tech/Baylor advocates in their place, though it’s hard to imagine any being as effective as Bullock would have been.
That being said, I don’t know enough about the present composition of the Texas Legislature to know whether there’s an alum of one of those schools standing in the way at a potential legislative roadblock who could make life difficult for us were he or she to choose to be difficult.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 11, 2010 5:46 PM CST up reply actions
as I recall
Gov. Ann Richards a Baylor grad wouldn’t sign off on the Texas state schools joining a conference that didn’t include Baylor which is how the Big 12 got Baylor in the first place.
but I agree, the Legislative issues are huge and the big wild card here and the big unknown.
"You have been banned from the Purple Row, for Inappropriate conduct, profanity, (&) telling site authors their articles are crap."
That's actually somewhat of an urban legend as I recall
Richards is commonly credited with being the biggest Baylor advocate, but it was really Sibley in the Senate who did the heavy lifting. There’s a great article detailing the back-room maneuverings which is inevitably linked to when these issues start coming up (so whoever has the link, please provide!).
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 11, 2010 6:21 PM CST up reply actions
see this is the biggest issue
the back room dealings. There has to be enough A&M supporters and Tech supporters and even Baylor (to a lesser degree due to not being a state school) that I think would block UT bolting on their own to the big 10.
And the math doesn’t work for the Big 11 to add more than one team. Once you divide the pie to 12, and get a football championship game, the 13th school is just one more division of the pie, and takes away money from the other schools.
and the 12-Pac wouldn’t add much more money to UT over the Big 12, so I don’t see that as an option to even fight out in the backrooms.
"You have been banned from the Purple Row, for Inappropriate conduct, profanity, (&) telling site authors their articles are crap."
The Governor
He’s a pretty powerful Aggie. There just aren’t the powerful figures in the legislature that their used to be. The Speaker isn’t even from West Texas. That’s how much times have changed.
Texas Executives
The Governor, Land Commissioner, and the Ag Commissioner are Aggies. The Lt. Gov (and most powerful in all of this) is a former PAC 10 athlete. The Comptroller and the AG both went to UT for at least a degree. The Speaker is an SEC guy. Basically it looks like A&M would likely be protected by the powers-that-be.
This is why I like blogs and the internet
cause with all the crazy talk and speculation, there usually is somewhere, a conversation that actually gets to the root of the issue.
Because of this discussion, I don’t think UT goes to the Big 10. I don’t think it gets through the legislature, because UT leaving would wound the Big 12, and those left behind including A&M.
"You have been banned from the Purple Row, for Inappropriate conduct, profanity, (&) telling site authors their articles are crap."
But . . .
. . . A&M, Tech and Baylor would be “left behind” in a BCS conference, one in which it suddenly becomes much easier to have a chance to win championships without us in the way. Plus, TCU would have a legit chance to move up to a BCS conference immediately rather than waiting for the MWC to qualify.
In contrast, in the 1990s, being “left behind” was far more detrimental.
That’s why I don’t think the political situation is a dicey as it was the last time around. But the great unknown is the extent to which those individual personalities will inject themselves more than necessary.
(And as an aside, this is one of those moments when it is a damn shame that the SBN Aggie-related blog is in the hands of an imbecile. I’d be very interested in getting an intelligent Aggie’s thoughts on the situation — how much would they, ans their influential alums, care if we decided we wanted to leave?)
One thought I had — floating this news that the Big Ten and Texas are talking is a great trial balloon for both sides. For Texas, it provides an early opportunity to take the Legislature’s temperature. For the Big Ten, if they would really prefer Notre Dame in the end, this is the shot across the bow to tell the Irish that it might be now or never.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 12, 2010 10:41 AM CST up reply actions
yes BCS, but really a conference that would be the lower level of the BCS conferences. Some where just above the Big Least and the Mtn West (who if they don’t lose BYU and Utah would be a BCS AQ conf). The Big 12 has a few premier schools and programs, and UT is one of those, & the biggest by far when it comes to Alumni, Fans and TV Markets. The loss of UT will really hurt the Big 12 and those schools left behind by millions of dollars.
And I agree having this negotiation/talks come out in the open at this point serves deeper/other purposes.
Personally I think the Big 10 adds either Notre Dame or Rutgers. I think the Pac 10 does take CU. But I hope, the Big 12 adds Arkansas. Which I personally think would be a better Big 12.
"You have been banned from the Purple Row, for Inappropriate conduct, profanity, (&) telling site authors their articles are crap."
Ask and ye shall receive
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Feb 11, 2010 8:36 PM CST up reply actions
from Mr. K-state no less
thanks! very interesting stuff!
"You have been banned from the Purple Row, for Inappropriate conduct, profanity, (&) telling site authors their articles are crap."
And as for #2 . . .
. . . of course the series could resume its OOC nature, but it seems plausible to me that OU could give us a big F-U and cancel the series if we decided to abandon 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 Feb 11, 2010 5:48 PM CST up reply actions
No way
No more than Batman could get rid of the Joker. A lot of what makes the 2 football programs great, is that very unique game every year in Dallas.
We need each other, or at least that game more than either side would want to admit.
"You have been banned from the Purple Row, for Inappropriate conduct, profanity, (&) telling site authors their articles are crap."
I'd certainly want to keep the game . . .
. . . and I’m sure most Horns fans would as well. You just never know how these thing splay out at levels above our pay grades.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 11, 2010 6:22 PM CST up reply actions
Most Sooner Fans would as well
I just can’t fathom any scenario where OU and Texas don’t play in Texas. I know it comes up from time to time, but the last contract the teams signed, had enough money in it to make it not as much a financial loss as it once was compared to home and home ticket sales.
"You have been banned from the Purple Row, for Inappropriate conduct, profanity, (&) telling site authors their articles are crap."
Joining the Big 10 would be weird...
…not playing the usual Big 12 suspects anymore, but it would seem to make a lot of sense in both exposure and financial terms. As mentioned, playing ATM and OU can be relegated to OOC games, which would definitely strengthen our SOS. Mind you, not that I would miss playing the Sooners or the Gomers. The TV exposure of playing in the Big 10 daily would lessen the loss of a showcase game with the Sooners every year, and honestly, they would suffer more than us. Likewise with the Gomers.
In-VINCE-able.
Indie?
I think TX is trying to shoot some sort of message across the bow of the Big 12, and I do agree that if the sole consideration is the most $ then Big 10 probably wins but everything else seems bizarre about the arrangement. Which begs the question: does TX even need a conference right now? Exploring the Notre Dame model of being an “indie” is intriguing, especially considering how attractive a similar package of 7 home games plus one neutral-site game – hello, Jerry Jones – would be to ESPN/ABC (b/c they want everything), CBS (to complement SEC f’ball), NBC (to complement – or replace – Notre Dame), or FOX (to get in the college game). Obviously this way TX can also keep OU and A&M on the sked, and fill out the rest to their hearts and wallets content. No more pesky conference championship, and Texas can surely get the same “favored nation” status with the BCS that ND has. Other sports could remain with the Big 12 or, if that bridge is burned, bolt for the SEC, Pac-10, etc. Keep in mind that TX… 1) has recently had the #1 selling merchandise nationwide; 2) always spikes the ratings – that’s why they’re almost always on ABC Saturday Night Football; and 3) has the two most-watched BCS games in history in Texas-USC and Texas-Alabama. I don’t think a program like ND is even in our league anymore as far as being a “national” brand. The market value of Texas football has never been higher, and doesn’t look to wane anytime soon – and it will be interesting to see how Texas leverages that, and whether they even want to share the spoils with anyone else.
nd is roally screwed when it comes to tv deals
it makes 9 mil a year which used to be the highest but sucks by todays standards
which is why ND is a candidate to join a conference
and if UT goes the Big 10..I’ve seen ND’s name as a potential candidate for the Big 12. ND still brings enough that coupled with a major conference (and the Big lEast ain’t it) would help TV and TV deals out a ton.
"You have been banned from the Purple Row, for Inappropriate conduct, profanity, (&) telling site authors their articles are crap."
Also
Even if we play OU, the rivalry wouldn’t have the high stakes that it currently does. We play for bragging rights, the big 12 championship, and a shot at the national championship. Being a ooc game would just make or resumé look really good. I think we should stay. If anything I would prefer the pac 10. Well the road trips over there would be nice
by Javi on Feb 11, 2010 7:08 PM CST via mobile reply actions
Indiana/Minnesota, etc. make more football money off TV than Texas!
Texas should consider making the preemptive move to the Big Ten and go with a financially and academically strong conference (besides Texas and A&M, the Big 12 is academically challenged). With the risk of a Colorado defection to the Pac 10 (and the loss of the Denver marketplace and St. Louis in the case of Missouri) the Big 12 is vulnerable.
Even if Texas has to bring its little cousin in College Station along, it would be great financially for Texas to join the big Ten and would raise its national position…….Big Ten Markets include, Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Columbus, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Milwaukee, etc…….without Missouri and Colorado and what Texas brings to the table the Big 12 has Tulsa, Des Moines, Omaha, …..
Maybe TV money doesn't matter
and I don’t like any of those places.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 7:11 PM CST up reply actions
I think I asked this question last month in similar post
Is Philly really a Big10 market? College Station is a good 3 hours west of Philly. I think it’s actually closer to Ohio than it is to Philly.
The city of Philadelphia has Villanova, Temple, La Salle, St. Joseph’s, and Penn. 1 Big East, 3 Atlantic 10, and 1 Ivy League. Not sure how it’s a Big10 market.
by 7Swords of Salat on Feb 11, 2010 8:04 PM CST up reply actions
* College Station should be State College (Penn St.)
by 7Swords of Salat on Feb 11, 2010 8:06 PM CST up reply actions
Can you say Football Revenue
- State College is not near Ohio
- By your analysis Dallas is not a Texas market but a TCU market???? as it is 3 hours away
- Penn State is the biggest school in the state and Philadelphia is the biggest city in the state…I bet there are a few alum there!
Penn State, behind Maryland, seems to have the most alumni here in Maryland as well
Lots of PSU grads in my office, in fact.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 11, 2010 8:57 PM CST up reply actions
map
State College is approx. 160 miles to the Ohio border. and approx 200 miles to Philly. Philly is closer to NYC (90 miles), Baltimore (105), and DC (156) than it is to State College. This area from DC up to NYC is a Big East market, not a Big 10 market.
Philly is a basketball city and other than the Eagles, most people there could care less about football. I lived in Philly for a while and don’t remember seeing much of a Penn State following there, if any. Now as you move west in the state towards Ohio, you will find a bigger football following.
by 7Swords of Salat on Feb 11, 2010 9:17 PM CST up reply actions
I know lot's of people in Bucks County (wealthy suburb)
who made lot’s of weekend trips to State College….Penn State Football is big in the whole state, plus it is a big ass state
You do not have to Go...
Yeah I guess Ames, two trips to the third World state of Oklahoma, College Station Lubbock, Lincoln are real gems.
I would definitely prefer College Station
to Philly or Pittsburgh or Detroit or…native Texas you see.
"If worms carried pistols, birds wouldn't eat 'em"- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Feb 11, 2010 7:25 PM CST up reply actions
all these comments about...
getting a better deal with the Big 12… I don’t get that.
We’ve already got as good a deal as we’re likely to get there. In fact, everybody else resents us because we’ve got it as good as we do. So what’s left? They pledge their undying love and affection? Promise not to stab us in the back anymore? Promise their population centers will grow?
The truth is that the Big 12 isn’t ever getting any better. And it’s likely to get far worse, if Mizzou or CU or both bolt (which they would do in a heartbeat if they were asked). The TV deal stinks, and it very likely is not going to ever be better. The money would be better in the Big 10 (or would that be called the “Bigger 12”?), and for all the caterwauling about playing Indiana, it’s not nearly as bad when you think about them replacing Iowa State.
The travel would be somewhat worse, as we’d lose the Waco, Bryan and Lubbock trips, but most of the Big 10 venues are probably easier to reach by plane than some of the Big 12 North venues are. And a lot nicer when you get there. Sure, there’d probably be some bad-weather late-season games, but there’d also be some early fall afternoon games that would absolutely rock. On the whole, I remember the tie-breaker voting from the prior season, and I think the Big 12 will look just fine in our rearview mirror…
I have no problem us going to the Big 10 just because of the storied programs such as Ohio St, Penn St and Michigan
but will this hurt or help our in state recruiting? Will prospects decide to head up to OU or go to ATM because they won’t want to play in a colder enviorment. So not really sure if this would backfire on us. But on that same coin it could help because it would better prepare these guys at the next level playing the above teams that I mentioned opposed to playing the Baylors, Iowa State, Colorado and Kansas State. I could see this helping our recruiting Nationally I just would hope it wouldn’t hurt us in our backyard
You could also make an argument that you could recruit better w/ better TV contracts
You wanna play on national TV son? Then come to Texas. We’re on TV every weekend. PRIME TIME!
Couldn't the Big 10 expand to 14? Or 16?
14: Texas joins, bringing A&M for political reasons (see the SA Express article, no reason to believe similar posturing/politiking wouldn’t occur again); also joining would be Mizzou or a team from the east. Two divisions of 7, leaving 6 divisional conference games, 3 non-divisional conference games, and 3 true non-con games (or 4 non-div conf. games and 2 non-cons).
16: Texas joins, bringing A&M and another Texas/Big 12 team (Nebraska??), Mizzou joins, and an eastern team joins. 2 divisions of 8, 7 divisional conf games, 2 non-div conf games, 3 non-cons. I know 16 is a lot for football, but it could be an athletic and financial powerhouse.
That said, neither is likely to happen. But it’s fun to think and talk about.
the reason it wants to expand to 12
is so that it can then hold a conference championship game which nets 15 million dollars…
expanding to 14 or 16 provides little additional benefit and just shares revenues out among more schools making less of the pie for each school.
Can still have a conf champ game with 14 or 16.
It will take longer for each team to play every other team, but a conf champ game will still be played. Also, if the expansion is done correctly the pie will be massively larger, so having a few less pieces won’t be a loss. Adding the viewership that UT and a large eastern school bring could be a very impressive number.
Super-Conferences...
the wave of the future with the current setup for NCAA football which is the prime money maker in college athletics.
As far as Texas going to the Big 10, this seems like posturing, but this move might make more sense in the next couple of years. Politics of the legislature is indeed the biggest hurdle in all this…not so sure Texas could bolt on their own when all is said and done.
I put this in FanShots a few hours before you put this in FanPosts.
by Ryan2907 on Feb 12, 2010 8:55 AM CST via mobile reply actions
Didn't someone post this in a reply to the fanshot about the Pac 10 expansion first?
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 12, 2010 8:59 AM CST up reply actions
"I live in the tower with Coach Brown." -Bevo
by run Bevo run on Feb 12, 2010 11:36 AM CST up reply actions
Big 10 and Big 12
If the Big 10 want’s to take a Big 12 school the Big 12 should pick a team to give them. Say Iowa St so Iowa and Iowa St can hav an in conference rivalry and the Big 12 can pick up another team.
by Ryan2907 on Feb 12, 2010 1:32 PM CST via mobile reply actions
another thought
Who says that the Big 10 had to keep their current 11 and only add one? Why not mix it up and make it a super conference by going with Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Texas and Iowa as a starting piont or base, then drop the other schools and invite Nebraska, OU, and see who comes calling to fill the other 5 spots. Who else would you add to the list? Michigan State, A&M, Missouri, OSU to include the rivals of the ‘base’ schools.
by Ryan2907 on Feb 12, 2010 3:31 PM CST via mobile reply actions
then add 3 more, Florida, Florida St. and Alabama
by Ryan2907 on Feb 12, 2010 3:42 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
miscounted
Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa, Texas, Texas A&M, OU, OSU, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Missouri and Florida makes 12
by Ryan2907 on Feb 12, 2010 3:48 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
How about:
Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Notre Dame, Georgia, Nebraska, Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Miami, LSU, and Penn State? A sixteen-team super conference, and it would contain pretty much the only teams likely to compete for a national championship with any regularity (argument could be made for FSU, I guess). Am I missing anyone? We could add up to eight more, go with four six-team divisions, and have a four-way round-robin to determine the champion out of the division winners.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 12, 2010 4:08 PM CST up reply actions
Damn
Forgot the sarcastic font.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 12, 2010 4:09 PM CST up reply actions
would rather
just have 12 team conferences, maybe 14 max.
by Ryan2907 on Feb 12, 2010 5:32 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Notre Dame
wouldn’t do it I don’t think. One thing I don’t understand is how Notre Dame’s basketball team can belong to the Big East while their Football team can be independant. Shouldn’t be allowed in the NCAA because if Football were to join another conference, wouldn’t the basketball team have to change as well (plus all other sports).
That would be one killer conference.
by Ryan2907 on Feb 12, 2010 5:30 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
I agree- ND shouldn't get away with this
NCAA should make them all in or all out. Big East should require them all in or all out also. The BCS shouldn’t allow them be an automatic qualifier. $$$. They all play ND’s game because they want ND since they have such huge national audience—but I don’t think ND is half what it used to be.
Army and Navy should join a conference also. This “Independent” stuff is nonsense.
Split conferences happen more than you think
Why does it matter if they’re all in or all out?
Temple moved from the Big East to the MAC in football but is in the A-10 in hoops. (Not sure about its other programs.)
Richmond is 1-AA CAA in football but A-10 in hoops.
My other alma mater is D1 independent in lacrosse but DIII in all of its other sports. Several other schools have this D1 in one sport and DIII in all others model, and it was actually a point of contention a few years back, but JHU and the others schools were grandfathered in.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 12, 2010 7:02 PM CST up reply actions
Another option
- For political reason bring A&M
- If cannot get Notre Dame and I do not think Missouri brings that much I say Syracuse as a “Basketball specialist” for the conference. Syracuse basketball has great following in New York City (far more than Rutgers football)
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.
