But the gallery is correct: the interest isn’t mutual. The list of reasons is numerous and extends well past academics, although that’s a convenient one to throw out there to indicate the whole thing’s a non-starter.

In a move of Texas to the SEC, all the benefits flow one way. And it’s not ours.

as several people have recently pointed out. This is where the real funding for public universities lies and with states cutting budgets this is where bottom lines could be improved if it were deemed necessary.

As PB mentions independence is a possible course of action if Nebraska or Mizzou were poached; it would be interesting to know how the Texas legislature would react in the case of the little brother, A&M. Also this might or might not provide much in the way of increasing Texas’ ability to garner research funds. The independence route hasn’t worked out particularly well in athletics recently for Notre Dame but the bottom line is not driven by athletics money in their case either. PB might know more about the inner workings, it certainly didn’t stop him from pursuing academics there.

IMHO Texas will not make any move out of the Big 12 until the status quo changes substantially meaning the Big 12 is weakened substantially in some metric other than TV revenue.

have been in that conference since 1932, long before most of these concepts we’re bandying about came into play. That sort of history will trump most anything (which is why people who think the Big Ten would “swap” out a school like Iowa or MSU for another school are misguided). Plus, there are fewer of the academic “powerhouses” in the South for Vandy to compete with. I think they enjoy their clear-cut position as the academic big dog (yes, Florida and Georgia a fine institutions) in the SEC.

Also, those SEC schools swim in far less cash than Big 10 member schools. The Big Ten Network, with its equal revenue distribution, makes even the “worst” member more than the SEC members with the biggest take. This is to say nothing of a) the conservative estimate that the addition of UT would net each member an additional 6 to 8 million yearly and b) the cash bonanza that is the CIC. Academics, while not as visible as football, are still the financial life-blood of major universities.

I’m not nearly as eloquent as Illini blogger, Frank the Tank, but any discussion of this subject should be paused until his last entry on the subject has been read. It’s long, but if there is any interest in this subject at all I highly doubt one could possibly be bored whilst reading it.

The senator from Dallas. Then A&M loses a lot of negotiating chips. Either way it’s an ex-cheerleader from an alma mater figuring in a large way. Texas politics at its best.

I’m not going to touch the details of this until we get into the hoops offseason, but I’ve got two comments:

1) Okay, three. First, I agree with much of what you’re saying. The comment is appreciated.

2) The recent run of success doesn’t have a whole lot to do with the viability of the plan. The sustainable model being contemplated will look at many factors — Texas not sucking being one of them, but it’s at or near the bottom of the list. For one thing, ND isn’t proving that you can’t be Independent. ND is financially doing just fine, and they have a very diffierent AD model than we do. ND hasn’t been winning, but that’s not proven they can’t remain Independent. They can, they are, they have no reason to believe they can’t be. For another, demographics and growth changes of the last 30 years have changed Texas’ position, which was already strong to begin with, but has ballooned to super-mega status for reasons related to Mack Brown’s Renaissance, certainly, but also to the tremendous growth in Austin, Central Texas, and the state generally. And finally, as if our super-mega status needed an extra benefit, we have no competition for the many, many TV sets in our state. The game of football continues to thrive and remains a central part of the state culture, which is a good thing for all involved (including Texas), while there remain no big ticket TV-drawing programs with which Texas has to compete. OU gets some Dallas love, the Aggies some Houston love, but these are Texas’ two primary rivals, as likely to watch a Texas game as anything else. In other words: the TV market is big, and it’s not a crowded field. When you consider whether Texas can pull this off, you have to think about the unique circumstances that could make it possible, and assuming you find enough, decide whether they’re lasting. It’s at the very least more than a non-starter.

3) Last, I just want to note that the trend is as likely to run opposite as it is the way you’re suggesting. The overall trend is clearly a weakening of the TV networks; decentralization of entertainment and the rise of mobile entertainment have more slowly, but in similar ways, taken their tolls on TV networks like they have newspapers. The media used to be Gatekeepers — you needed them. Today? Far, far less so. What about 5 years from now? 10? If I had to guess, my money would be on technology and wireless/mobile distribution technology making the middle men increasingly less needed, and if they’re slow to evolve, obscure.

Let me ask you this: if you had to wager on whether you’d be watching Texas games brought to you by Texas, served to you on Google technology (or whatever the dominant in-home competitor in 10 years, if nor Google) that you use for most everything in your digital life, or on an ESPN channel, brought to you by Time Warner, making you overpay for stuff that you know can be produced and delivered to you both cheaper and better, which would you bet on?

(Wisconsin, sure)

Suppose the SEC/ESPN marriage continues to gain steam in terms of TV revenue. That’s what mainly drives most of these discussions- points regarding TV markets and packages. Hypothetically, if the Big 12 were guaranteed the most lucrative TV package then the entire discussion of Texas conference shopping would be irrelevant.

What are the chances of an action against the SEC/ESPN succeeding under the Sherman Act? Or is this laughable? It does seem to be provide the SEC with an unfair competitive advantage versus say, the Big East.

That’s how we know we’re doing something right. While I agree that there’s a familiarity with Baylor and Tech, and a certain familial rivalry, I think Texas nationalism couldn’t be redirected.

The popularity will hinge greatly on A&M joining us (as the other primary draw in the state) but beyond that I think it will depend on how its presented to the people (I tend to think the average person will like anything that’s cleverly marketed – see every national election since the advent of radio). If it’s presented to the general Texas fan base as a blatant money grab it will not go over well. If it’s presented though a looking glass of Texas national pride “i.e. to show we’re the best we need to beat the best year in and year out” there will be excitement around the move. (This may play better for a Pac 10 move setting up a USC rivalry, but should work reasonably well against Penn St. and Ohio State). As far as the average Texas alumnus/alumna, I think the move may be easier to sell by adding the academic reputation angle.

If Texas does jump to the Big 10, I think Belmont will consider that an adequate increase of the national footprint for some time. I may be naive, but if politically selling the move and its increased revenue requires playing an OOC that consists primarily of Baylor, Tech, UTEP, Rice, Houston, UNT, SMU, TCU, OU (the RRS isn’t going anywhere), OSU is necessary to sell the move, it would be a more than even trade. After a few years the political firestorm will have moved on and people will be used to it, and we can start working Howard Schnellenberger back into the schedule.