Realignment Chronicles: Texas To The SEC? Absolutely!
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 9:40 AM CDT
in Conference Realignment
Email
Print
What?!?
So having been given this forum to write about realignment and how it would affect Texas, I decided that I would do my best to avoid stories consisting of pure speculation or advocacy and instead focus on trying to learn more about specific issues which will influence UT's decision.
But I've seen that there's a piece of the pie missing. If and when realignment occurs in a way that the Big XII will be negatively impacted (and I think that is inevitable), Texas has five choices: (1) stay in a patched-together Big XII, (2) go independent, (3) move to the Big 10, (4) move to the Pac 10, or (5) move to the SEC.
I've seen arguments made about why moves to the Big 10 and the Pac 10 would be best for UT's athletic programs and for the university as a whole. I've also seen plenty of arguments why staying in a retooled Big XII would best.
I have yet to see, by contrast, a substantive argument why a move to the SEC would be the best for Texas. Many of us here on BON, me more than most, have dismissed the possibility of a move to the SEC on purely academic grounds without further exploration. Meanwhile, those who have on occasion poppoed up to advocate a move to the SEC have tended to go no deeper in their advocacy than commenting on the improved quality of the tailgating scene.
Enough national sports writers have suggested that the SEC could be an option that I want to explore why such a move could be good for the school. Unfortunately, these writers never get beyond a one-sentence, football-oriented opinion as to why it might work.
So given this absence of serious analysis, I thought I'd give it a shot myself and try to construct the best argument possible for why Texas should consider the SEC amongst its option.
(0) Unbelievable football dominance. I am listing this as factor #0 because I think it is important to emphasize that "TEXAS + SEC = FOOTBALL POWER 4EVER" is not a reason to make the move.
Remember, everything is cyclical. Of course the SEC has been the top football conference over the past several years, and of course Texas has been one of the top two or three programs in the nation over that time period.
But who would have guessed, writing 10 years ago today, that the decade which was to follow would see Boise State win more BCS bowl games than Florida State, Tennessee, UCLA, Wisconsin, Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama and Nebraska combined.
Yes, it's a simplistic argument, but it illustrates quite well that one should not look at the specific balance of power in football today as a reason to choose a conference affiliation which should last for decades. It should be as important a factor as the supposedly enhanced tailgating of the SEC.
Keep in mind that this string of SEC titles has included a title in a year in which a two-loss team captured the title, a year in which the Big XII tiebreaker procedure spit out the weaker opponent for the SEC champion, and a year in which the SEC champion's opponent lost its most important player on the fifth offensive snap.
Keep in mind that this period has coincided with a period in which some traditional powers, like Florida State and Michigan, haven't been firing at all cylinders.
Keep in mind that no team (or teams) has broken out of the expanded ACC yet to compete on an annual basis for national titles. It's puzzling as to why it hasn't happened yet, but rest assured that it will happen.
And keep in mind that whatever conference Texas joins will be the best football conference in the country on Day One. Of course, as of today, the gap on day one between the SEC+Texas and the other conferences would be greater than the gap between, say Texas+Big 10 and the other conferences, but, again, everything is cyclical.
So moving on to the arguments that do matter...
(1) The academic gap isn't as great as SEC detractors claim. Let's address the elephant in the room head-on. Yes, the SEC, from top to bottom, would not be as strong academically as the Big 10 or the Pac 10, even with the addition of Texas (and, presumably, Texas A&M as well).
But you know what? The Big XII today, with Texas and Texas A&M, is not at the same level academically as those two conferences. And I've never seen anyone, even those of us who have dismissed the SEC on purely academic grounds, argue that Texas is too good academically for the Big XII.
The gap narrows if one concentrates on the schools at the academic top of each conference. This is important because, if we moved to the Big 10, we'd be comparing ourselves to Michigan, not Michigan State. And in the SEC, we'd be comparing ourselves to Vandy and Georgia and Florida, not Mississippi State and Kentucky.
Using the admittedly flawed US News rankings as a very rough guideline for comparison of the academic reputations of the top tier schools of the Big 10, Pac 10 and an SEC with Texas and Texas A&M, all three conferences would have one private school (Northwestern/Stanford/Vanderbilt) ranked in the Top 20 and four or five additional schools ranked between 21 and 61 (using 61 as that is the ranking at which the SEC would pick up its fifth school [A&M]).
As of today, even with Texas and A&M, no other Big XII school cracks the Top 75, and the fifth Big XII school isn't ranked until Iowa State at 88. (Author's note: would you have guessed that the three highest ranked Big XII schools after Texas and A&M would have been Colorado, Baylor and Iowa State? Me neither.) So it's arguable that a move to any of the three realistic conferences would be an academic upgrade for Texas.
Moving beyond the US News rankings and looking at research dollars (link for 2006 dollars here -- note that the link opens an .xls file), there is a greater discrepancy between the Big 10/Pac 10 and the SEC with the Texas schools. Ignoring some of the apples/oranges problems with the data (a lot of the Big 10 schools report as "all campuses," while UT-Austin, which lacks a medical school, is broken off independently from other UT campus), the SEC would still land four schools in the Top 35 in terms of overall research dollars. (And, again, the Big XII of today lags far behind what the SEC with Texas and A&M would be in this metric as well.)
The SEC also has started to take steps to booster the overall academic profiles of its member schools. In 2006, the conference created the Southeastern Conference Academic Consortium, which could be considered similar in nature to the Big 10's CIC.
In sum, is the SEC as strong as the Big 10 or the Pac 10, even if just focusing on the top academic tier of schools? No, of course not. But is the gap so wide or so insurmountable that the academics of the SEC should be an automatic disqualifier if all of the other pieces fit, given UT's tolerance of the similarly weaker academics of the Big XII? No.
(2) Demographics is Destiny. Southern and western states have been growing for decades at the expense of states in the Midwest and North, and that trend shows no sign of letting up in the near future.
Estimates of how U.S. congressional seats will shift after reapportionment is completed after the results of the 2010 Census bear this out. The states of the present-day SEC and Pac 10 will each net two additional seats, while the states of the present-day Big 10 will lose a whopping seven seats. In fact, there are only four seats being lost in the entire rest of the U.S. outside present-day Big 10 territory, and two of those four seats are in states contiguous to the Big 10 into which the conference is rumored to be considering expansion as well (New York and New Jersey).
(Oh, and Texas will gain four. No other state will gain more than one. And the remaining states of the present-day Big XII remain the same.)
No wonder the Big 10 has been rumored to be looking to the south more than originally anticipated. Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delaney was recently quoted as saying: "In the last 20 or 30 years, there's been a clear shift in movement to the Sun Belt. The rates of growth in the Sun Belt are four times the rates in the East or the Midwest. You do want to look forward to 2020 and 2030 and see what that impact would be on our schools."
So why move north to join a bunch of dying midwestern states? Move to where the growth will be for the lifetimes of most of us reading this today.
(On the flip side, one of the participants on Frank's blog commented, seemingly seriously and without irony, that global warming will soon render Texas, the Southwest and Florida uninhabitable, so the Big 10 shouldn't sweat these demographic arguments too much. For what it's worth.)
(3) Baseball is a Grand Slam. Baseball matters to Texas, and it matters in a way the Midwest's longer winters (well, at last until global warming hits!) dictate it never will to the Big 10, a conference which last crown an NCAA champion during the first year of the Johnson Administration. And though I argued against using recent history as a predictor of future football dominance, practically any historical measure of time would reveal that a Texas move to the SEC, particularly if accompanied by A&M and OU, would create a collegiate baseball monster no other conference could dare match for the foreseeable future.
In 2009, eleven of the presumed schools of the expanded SEC qualified for the NCAA tournament, while a mere three qualified from each of the Big 10 and Pac 10.
And as of this writing, eight of the presumed schools of the expanded SEC are in Baseball America's Top 25, while the Pac 10 has four and the Big 10 has, um, well, none.
Even a Big 10 advocate like myself has never had an adequate answer, or even an inadequate answer, to the potential devastating effect a move to the Big 10 would be for our baseball program.
(4) Near-Perfect, Top-To-Bottom Athletic Compatibility. Texas competes in 18 varsity sports, close to the minimum in which it can compete and retain Division I status. Texas fields teams in football, basketball (M & W), baseball, softball, volleyball (W), track and field (M & W), swimming and diving (M & W), tennis (M & W), golf (M & W), cross country (M & W), soccer (W) and rowing (W).
The SEC, much like the Big XII is today, is an excellent fit for a school exhibiting this sort of minimalist approach to fielding varsity teams. The SEC offers championships in 18 sports, offering a championship in only one sport (women's gymnastics) in which Texas does not compete, and failing to offer a championship in only one sport (women's rowing) in which Texas does compete.
Schools of the Big 10 and Pac 10, by contrast, often have broader athletic ambitions, and this is reflected by the number of conference championships member schools compete for in sports for which Texas does not field teams. These include sports like men's soccer, men's volleyball, wrestling and field hockey. Additionally members schools field nationally competitive varsity squads in a number of sports, including ice hockey, lacrosse and water polo, for which the NCAA offers championships but their conferences do not.
The SEC, in sum, offers Texas the least amount of time and resources wasted at the conference level in sports in which Texas does not compete.
(5) Better Geography. Joining the SEC makes much more geographic sense than joining either the Big 10 and Pac 10.
The average school of the present-day SEC is 836 miles away from Austin, in contrast to an average of 1,209 miles for the Big 10 and a staggering 1,686 miles (and two time zones) for the Pac 10. When looking at these numbers, keep in mind that Texas would be more likely to bring along schools like OU and Texas Tech to the SEC than to the other conferences, so that discrepancy would only widen after realignment does all it's going to do.
It should go without saying that those extra miles and time away from Austin add up rather quickly for student athletes. And while advocates of a move to the Big 10 or Pac 10 might point out that travel to urban areas like Columbus and Los Angeles would be faster and cheaper that trips to many of the smaller college towns of the SEC despite the greater distance, the logistics of traveling to and from cities like State College, Pullman and Corvalis dwarf any similar issues Texas would face in the SEC.
Beyond the measurable quantifiables of time and distance, though, lies the psychological importance of the greater geographic cohesiveness the SEC would offer. Though I personally have discounted the importance of geography, I know that a number of BON members have expressed various concerns about being so distant from most, if not all, of the other schools of the conference Texas is in. Being in the SEC, and being in a state bordered by two, if not three (if OU joined as well) other SEC states, would alleviate many of these concerns about geographic isolation.
(6) Simpler Politics. Sometimes the battle best fought is the battle not waged.
As discussed in a previous edition of the Realignment Chronicles, it appears probable, though by no means definite, that Texas alone, or Texas and Texas A&M together, could leave Texas Tech behind even if Tech and its considerable political resources waged a battle in the Texas Legislature to prevent the schools from leaving for greener pastures.
But would it be wise in the long term to wage such a battle and to potentially alienate those in the Legislature before whom Texas will have multiple issues year in and year out? If there is a solution which would allow Texas (and A&M) to move to greener pastures without having to leave Tech behind, then why wouldn't that option be the most politically optimal to pursue?
No matter how much the Big 10 or the Pac 10 might want Texas, having to swallow Tech as well would be an absolute deal-breaker. But would it be for the SEC? I think not. Check out the words of SEC Commissioner Mike Silve in an interview with a DFW radio show last week:
I can’t speak for anyone else, but we’re in the state of Texas neighborhood, and we watch and enjoy the success that Texas, and [Texas] A&M and [Texas] Tech have all experienced and respect it greatly. And we understand, in many ways, the goals and aspirations of the schools in Texas are the same as the goals and aspirations of the people in the SEC.
What's particularly interesting is that, according to the transcript, Tech wasn't mentioned in the question at all. A rather gratuitous, and shrewd, mentioning of Tech by Silve, signaling that Tech would probably be acceptable to the SEC.
So if Tech would be welcome in the SEC, why complicate things unnecessarily by moving elsewhere?
(7) The SEC Offers An Easier Schedule. WHAT?!?!?
OK, not necessarily easier, but counterintuitively and perhaps uniquely for Texas, the projected football schedule the Longhorns would face as a member of the SEC wouldn't be much more difficult than projected scheduling being in the Big 10 or the Pac 10.
(I know discussing current strengths of football programs runs counter to what I discussed in factor #0 above, but I do want to alleviate concerns that, short-term, the SEC would be too much of a buzzsaw for Texas or any other school.)
Consider these factors:
- It's quite conceivable that A&M and OU would join us in a move to the SEC. There's no chance in hell OU would be invited to join the Big 10 and Pac 10, and it's questionable whether A&M would want to move to either of those conferences, even if invited.
- Texas would seek to keep OU and A&M on the schedule if no longer in the same conference.
- If a Big XII quartet joined the SEC, the most logical divisional alignment would see the two Alabama schools move east.
So let's look at a couple of sample schedules for the 2012 Longhorns. First, one for Texas as a member of the Big 10:
| Week | Opponent (Conference Games in BOLD) |
| Week 1 | NORTH TEXAS |
| Week 2 | @ Rice |
| Week 3 | PENN STATE |
| Week 4 | @ Iowa |
| Week 5 | @ Nebraska |
| Week 6 | Oklahoma (in Dallas) |
| Week 7 | MINNESOTA |
| Week 8 | @ Notre Dame |
| Week 9 | MISSOURI |
| Week 10 | ILLINOIS |
| Week 11 | @ Wisconsin |
| Week 12 | TEXAS A&M |
| CCG | Ohio State (in Indianapolis) |
Compare that schedule with a Longhorn schedule in the SEC:
| Week | Opponent (Conference Games in BOLD) |
| Week 1 | NORTH TEXAS |
| Week 2 | @ Rice |
| Week 3 | ARKANSAS |
| Week 4 | @ Ole Miss |
| Week 5 | WYOMING |
| Week 6 | Oklahoma (in Dallas) |
| Week 7 | @ Georgia |
| Week 8 | MISSISSIPPI STATE |
| Week 9 | LSU |
| Week 10 | FLORIDA ATLANTIC |
| Week 11 | @ Texas Tech |
| Week 12 | TEXAS A&M |
| CCG | Alabama (in Atlanta) |
Which schedule is tougher, top to bottom? It's debatable. But that's the point: a move to the SEC for Texas doesn't necessarily lead to the toughest possible schedule. So don't be afraid.
(8) Financial Windfall. We've debated what the better option financially would be for Texas: moving to the Big 10 and reaping the sure thing of the profitability of the Big Ten Network (BTN), or finding a conference alignment through which Texas could attempt to achieve the theoretical greater profitability of the proposed Longhorn Sports Network (LSN).
In our continuous cavalier dismissals of the possibility of Texas moving to the SEC, we have ignored the fact that the SEC would offer the best of both worlds: an opportunity to reap the benefits of an insane conference television contract (the conference is entering the second year of 15-year deals with ESPN and CBS worth, combined, more than $3 billion) while also being permitted to launch the LSN as well (an option which, presumably, would not be available to the Longhorns in the Big 10 due to the BTN).
SEC Commissioner Silve, from the same interview cited above:
The SEC spent a couple of years evaluating whether to do a network, like the Big 10 network, the Mountain network or the NFL network. And we weighed that against the more traditional sale of rights that we ultimately decided to do. And one of the most compelling reasons for us to move to the more traditional method is we’ve had a long standing culture where we permitted our institutions to have their own local packages, which generates, for many of our institutions, substantial revenue.
(Emphasis mine.)
Looking at the potential revenue stream a move to the SEC would provide, it would come close to committing financial malpractice not to move to the SEC if the potential moves were analyzed solely from a financial perspective.
So, persuaded yet? Ready to go discuss the relative merits of beef versus pork BBQ at tailgates for the next 50 years? I'm looking forward to seeing what holes you can punch in my arguments, because the last thing I'll want to wake up to one day in the future is a headline which reads "UT Announces Move to SEC; BON Blogger Proves Persuasive".
276 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’m in favor of Texas joining the SEC.
Academics. We need to stop deluding ourselves that our athletic department has anything to do with or should be tied into the academic reputation of the school. It is all about business and making money. College sports, especially football, is a business. If you think otherwise just look at the BCS. We need to get over our attitude of academic elitism and being a public ivy when it comes to the athletic department.
Geography. I’m prepared for the mass meltdown that will be coming in a short while from everyone here, so here it comes: We are more similar to the SEC than we are to the Big 10 and or Pac 10, overall. And the Aggies would fit in beautifully.
We call the shots at this point. Can a contract be negotiated so that Texas gets their own network, plus join the conference? Why not? Obviously the ESPN network contract would supersede any televised events, but lawyers can work out any deal. I just shelled out $20 over the past two weeks to watch (very bad quality) online streams of the K-State and Missouri baseball games. (And I cannot emphasis how lucky we are that Texas’ online feeds are free and great quality. Email the athletic department today and thank them profusely.) This type of thing is the future of more revenue for schools. Why not televise/online feed of open-to-the-public football practices? The athletic department could get very creative about they do with the network and alumni/fans would pay whatever they wanted to get this access. Don’t deny it. You would.
Texas Tech & OU. The bottom line is that Tech really doesn’t have the political clout to call the shots to follow along. (We all know little brother is coming.) The SEC would be stronger with OU than without them. I don’t know their situation with OSU, which is the equivalent of their little brother.
Recruiting. This is a concern. Giving SEC teams more access and visibility to our incredible talent pool is not good. The up side is that we will have the same to their talent, as well. So maybe it all evens out?
The idea of a baseball rivalry with LSU is appealing.
Yes, I’ve gone to the dark side.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions
How is UT more similar to the SEC than to the Pac-10?
I really don’t think Texas has the dirty south flavor of the SEC. Whenever I’ve gone to SEC towns it’s been like I’m in aggieville, although Athens (and I guess Tuscaloosa, to a certain extent) was a notable exception. I go to Berkeley, Stanford, Seattle, or heck, even Eugene, and it feels much more similar to Austin, and that’s without even getting into the SW flavor of ASU and ’Zona.
I could definitely be wrong, because my experience at UT has been almost entirely with culture and sports (not as a student, in other words), but I definitely felt UT was more similar to Pac-10 culture than SEC culture.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
by burntorangehorn on May 25, 2010 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions
I actually love the town of Tuscaloosa. My favorite place to stop on the way to Atlanta. I love the Cypress Inn.
by dimecoverage on May 25, 2010 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Austin is somewhat different…at least my part of town. But I travel out of my area when forced and I see some of our city population eerily similar to those I meet when I drive to Atlanta. And they wear Longhorn stuff. I don’t know if they are grads, but they certainly are fans.
I’m not even touching Waco, College Station, Lubbock, etc. Those places speak for themselves.
by dimecoverage on May 25, 2010 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Heh, go too far toward the outskirts of Tucson, and...
…well, you get the idea. Of course, go ANYWHERE in Corvallis or Pullman, and you’re basically the sticks.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
by burntorangehorn on May 25, 2010 8:21 PM CDT up reply actions
:-/
CS and Lubbock are far worse than Waco. There are quite a few Austinies and Horn fans who need to get over the “Baylor, Baptists, and Branch Davidians” mentality about Waco. Sure it’s not Austin, or even a less-awesome large city, but it is a great little place if you take the time to get to know it and find the best places and people.
Agree to disagree about Waco, K?
"I live in the tower with Coach Brown." -Bevo
by run Bevo run on May 26, 2010 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Lived there, and I too agree to disagree.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 26, 2010 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Plenty of people who live there don't bother to find the good stuff.
I lived there 20 years and just happened to have awesome parents who aren’t into the whole Baptist church and chain restaurant thing. Again, not saying Waco is the most awesome place ever, but it is better than CS or Lubbock.
Very solid argument, but what would happen with the SEC’s new deal with ESPN if the Big 12 quartet joined? Wouldn’t each of the teams be losing 25% of their share of the deal with 4 new teams? Would they want to take on all of these teams if it meant they would be making less money? Or would the deal be restructured? Sorry for all the questions, I’m not too familiar with these types of contracts though.
I'm sure they would not expand if they couldn't renegotiate after expansion.
This debate has to assume they can renegotiate.
by Texas Wahoo on May 24, 2010 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions
I think it's a safe assumption
The choices for CBS and ESPN:
(1) Renegotiate and pay the SEC more as a result of adding Texas.
(2) Not renegotiate and see Texas wind up in the Big 10 and its BTN or in the Pac 10 broadcast by Fox or NBC/Versus.
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't see why ESPN would renegotiate
You forget that ESPN has the ability to take their first choice of games every week in the Big Ten and Pac 10. If they want to broadcast Texas games, they could do so regardless of the league that Texas winds up in. Considering how expensive the SEC contract was, I doubt they’d be willing to renegotiate until much later in the deal.
My question is would they be able to take OU without OSU?
If they are only expanding westward, there may be a fight between Tech and OSU for who gets to be the fourth team.
I would consider that to be OU's problem
If my political argument is correct, Tech might be the third school (remember, we’re the prize), and OU would be the fourth school. And if OU can’t work out the internal state politics? Well, then, hello Baylor, again. (Or, if we’re particularly devious and want to further boost the academic reputation of the conference we’d be joining, we’d champion Rice.)
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions
We’d champion Rice...
Those SEC schools would appreciate an easy game on their schedule once in a while. :-)
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions
I’m an OU Grad, and all over this expansion talks.
It does seem that OU could in theory go with out OSU.
One key point is the state’s gubernatorial race this year, and one of the leading candidates is an OSU grad. The Governor would have to sign off on a school moving. So, it will get “Sticky” for OU to ditch OSU.
For the Record:
OU’s Options:
1) Join the SEC
2) Hope the Big 12 stays intact, and doesn’t lose more than 3 schools. (and gets a TV deal with the Pac-10)
3) in the event of a Big 12 collapse, join with the best of the MWC/WAC/Big 12 left overs to form a new conference. (and also hope for a TV deal with the pac-10)
I don't know anything about Oklahoma politics.
How strong is your state governor? The Texas governor is not necessarily a strong office. The power lies in the legislature.
What is the political make up of your state legis. in terms of OU vs. OSU grads? Who wields the power?
Boone Pickens would invariably make a lot of noise.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions
I don’t Oklahoma politics that well either as I’ve lived in Denver for ten years. But I do know that Oklahoma and Oklahoma St, are in two separate systems with their own regents. Those 2 systems can make decisions independently. However, the Governor is the head of each of the systems and has to sign off on any decision the regents make. Usually that’s not a big issue.
Both schools receive funding from the legislature, but that’s the only control or involvement they legislature has over the schools.
I understand that the current Governor is an OU grad, but a leading candidate is an OSU grad so that could be a factor in making decisions.
As for power, I’d say it’s evenly split. Mostly Oklahoma, and individual Oklahomans look at the two schools as being one family, as both are state schools of Oklahoma. They may be a fan of one or the other or both, but I don’t think anyone would want to see either one hurt at the benefit of the other.
Now..if the question is Both get hurt, or one gets hurt and the other gets a boon….that gets tricky.
Traditions v Business
There would be grumbling but if we left the Big 12 and did not take OU with us, but I would survive. They were not in the SWC so they do not need to come with us.
A/m? I could live without them too.
Totally with you
Fantastic argument. Thanks for sharing!
Watch out, I bite.
by EddieTheAlbinoSquirrel on May 24, 2010 10:35 AM CDT reply actions
Partial Qualifiers?
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 24, 2010 10:36 AM CDT reply actions
Good point
Is anyone familiar enough with the SEC to know whether partial qualifiers could be a negotiable if the prize were Texas?
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions
I somehow doubt it.
There was institutional will in the old Big 8 for that change, as evidenced by the unanimous opposition to Nebraska. I think Texas may get the issue on the table, but I doubt the other schools will vote to ban it.
FYI, here’s a breakdown of academic policies for the various conferences.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions
Of note, considering last year’s debacle, we may have trouble in the Big 10. Not so much in the SEC.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm counting on you today
I’ve handed you a rifle, and I’ve put on a giant target on my chest daring you to fire away.
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions
Planning on it
Though, I’ll have to do it later today.
I think this is about the best case that can be made for the SEC, but I’m dubious as to whether it is as persuasive to the cluster of Pac 10/Big 10/Ivy grads who tend to helm the university as it is to the average fan.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions
Seems to me
that it is never a good idea to hand over your university to a cluster of rank outsiders.
by GwinnettGamecock on May 26, 2010 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions
my only concern about expansion
is one no one seems to be mentioning, at least anywhere I’ve read, which is how a 16-team conference is going to work
You remember when the WAC expanded to 16 teams after the Big 12 formed in the last round of expansion? I believe they went to a discombobulated system of four-team ‘pods’ for conference play, a system which precluded some traditional rivalries from continuing after the first two years of conference play were over. This is what caused the defection of BYU, Air Force, Utah, Colorado State, et al. for form the Mountain West Conference.
Are we sure a move to a 16-team super conference would mean a continuatino of just divisional play, and not a move to some bastardized form of ‘pod’ play? Remember that the SEC is not like the Big 12 in that they don’t simply rotate members of the opposite division on the schedule every two years; they have permnent ‘rivals’ that never move off their schedule. I didn’t see you address this in your argument.
Of course, this could work to texas’ advantage; OU could be in the other division, but still be on texas’ schedule every year because of this exception.
The Academics
What makes the SEC look like a much worse academic conference is the fact that only 2 of their current schools are members of the AAU (as compared to 7 in the Big XII).
Doesn't the Big 10 negotiate research dollars with the government collectively?
I could see that as being a huge factor in favor of the Big 10 vs. the SEC (which does not have such a system). Research money at UT dwarfs football revenue and is responsible for countless jobs on campus.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 24, 2010 11:52 AM CDT reply actions
The school currently gets those research dollars. Why would that change if Texas went to the SEC? Who can say it would improve if Texas went to the Big10?
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm asking...
What would improve, stay the same or get worse in an SEC vs. Big 10 debate? What are the current figures of our research dollars vs. what schools get in the Big 10?
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Round numbers?
In FY 2008
Wisconsin – Madison ONLY – 881 million
Michigan all campuses – 876
OSU – all campuses – 702
PSU all campuses – 701
MN all campuses – 682
Florida – 584
A&M – 582
Illinois – Champaign ONLY – 501
Texas – 493
Purdue – all campuses – 429
Indiana all campuses – 411
LSU – All Campuses – 391
Michigan State – East Lansing – 356
UGA – 350
KY – all campuses – 336
Iowa – Iowa City – 293
Tenn – All Campuses 250
The rest of the SEC is below Oklahoma’s 192.
The rest of the SEC
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions
To make that even starker, every school on that list that has a medical school (besides Texas) reports main campus + medical school research dollars. Texas’ medical schools are split from the main campus (hell, MDA alone has 110% of the research dollars UT Austin does).
Pardon me and FWIW
UGA has no medical school. If we got the benefit of the Medical College of Georgia’s $$, we’d be right up there with Emory. MCG’s in Augusta, if anyone cares.
I don't think any of us are attempting to slight Georgia
But while we have a bulldog rep here, can you shed any light as to why Georgia wasn’t invited into the AAU along with Georgia Tech?
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 25, 2010 11:13 PM CDT up reply actions
I realize there was no slight to Georgia
My comment was spontaneous and entirely superfluous, viewed retrospectively. I understand the general tenor of comments has been that there would be no shame for UT to align itself with the likes of Vandy, UF, and UGA. Without naming names, it’s some other institutions that wouldn’t be as attractive. And I appreciate the general acknowledgement that the Big XII, as a whole, isn’t exactly the Ivy League of the plains.
I wish I could shed some light on the AAU situation. It’s a mystery to me, but I’m not privy to the process, of course. Without question, the North Avenue Trade School in Atlanta has a stronger academic reputation than does Georgia. I do think our (UGA’s) lack of both a medical school and an engineering program (we have token engineering studies and even a couple of NAE members, but it’s nowhere near an emphasis) are huge impediments to major research dollars and, possibly, AAU membership. We do pretty well for a school that, from an enrollment perspective, is fairly modest in size among major state universities (about 35,000 total).
And I have to admit that the University’s status as a highly regarded school (and I honestly believe it is) is a somewhat recent phenomenon. When my parents enrolled in the 1950s, all you needed was a diploma from a Georgia high school. When I started in the 1980s, it wasn’t a whole lot more competitive. To the extent that quality of undergraduate enrollment helps drive over-all instutional quality, it wasn’t until the advent in the early 1990s of our state lottery-funded scholarships started keeping much of the state’s top students in state that admissions became truly competitive. (You can go to Wake or Vandy and accept a ton of debt or go to Athens for free.)
And some of our best programs just aren’t big-bucks programs. Law, public affairs, journalism just aren’t the kind of fields where major chunks of cash get dropped. The vet school (Restasis, anyone?), the ag school (4th in the nation in research expenditures), and the still-young College of Public Health hold their own, but when the closest medical school is a private one 70 miles away (Emory), it’s hard to get more cash flow. There are plans to develop a satellite campus of the Medical College of Georgia in Athens, but I’m afraid that state politics might be an obstacle: the folks in Augusta might get nervous.
I’m a little ashamed to admit the AAU think rankles a little bit. I mean, I know we’re not Michigan or Cal. But Arizona? Iowa State? That just hurts my feelings.
Arizona is no slouch.
I don’t know anything about Iowa State.
by Texas Wahoo on May 26, 2010 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions
As I mention in my original post...
…ISU, to my surprise, is the fifth highest-ranked school in the Big XII in the latest US News rankings. I know the US News rankings are flawed, but there does seem to be a rough correlation with reality in the rankings.
by Hopkins Horn on May 26, 2010 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions
"I know the US News rankings are flawed, but there does seem to be a rough correlation with reality in the rankings."
I’m not sure I’d even go that far.
Neither Arizona nor Iowa State is a slouch
But it still can hurt my feelings. Yes, ISU is the 5th-ranked Big XII in the (admittedly flawed) US News rankings per Hopkins Horn’s comment immediately above. Slip UGA into the Big XII, and we’d be second, behind only Texas (and ahead of almost half the Big 10). So yeah. My feelings are hurt by the AAU deal.
Is there any way to know what kind of a research bump Texas would get?
Did Penn State get a huge bump when they joined the Big Ten?
by Texas Wahoo on May 24, 2010 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions
It's pretty shocking actually
Penn State joined the CIC, at 256 million in total research, in FY 1990.
UT was 228 at that time.
For those scoring at home, U.T.‘s research budget rose 265 million while PSU’s rose 445 million in the same time frame.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Just curious.
Why can’t UT start their own, with A&M, Rice, etc. Why does this type of consortium have to be centered around an athletic conference?
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Dunno, ask the Big 10, ACC, and Ivy League.
People like competition, even research geeks.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Somewhat off-topic, but it might interest you. The Austin Chronicle had a good article about UT’s future and the Legislature’s idea about bringing several Texas state universities into top tier status to get research dollars.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions
oh . . .
we have decided to bring them up to top tier status? you mean we could have done that all along?
by rumplestiltsglenn on May 24, 2010 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Interesting Article, though Rice isn't a "tier 1" research institution
At least by those standards, at 150th in the country.
It does a good job making a case that UT establish its peer group as top national Universities rather than SWC part deux or the SEC. And if you think the legislature puts much more thought into it than that, you’re more optimistic than I am.
I’m very disappointed that our legislature is trying to reinvent the wheel instead of following the California system. They may not need 7 tier one Universities with better resources than Texas (that’s what they have), but Texas certainly needs more than 2.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions
“And if you think the legislature puts much more thought into it than that, you’re more optimistic than I am.”
Not to get into politics, but I have absolutely no faith in our politicians to do anything constructive or to put any thought in any decision.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 6:06 PM CDT up reply actions
The Big 12 conference doesn’t have the requisite academic qualifications to pull this sort of thing off. A&M and UT are really it when it comes to Tier I research institutions.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 24, 2010 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions
This wouldn't be a Big 12 consortium.
Why align it with athletic ties? Texas, A&M, Rice, Missouri, Nebraska, Tulane (if they aren’t already aligned with another group), etc. It wouldn’t have to be geographically based, either. Stony Brook in NY could join forces. This is a hypothetical, but it isn’t like it can’t be done.
The athletic department will never have the academic interests of the school at heart, and the inverse is also true.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Good points.
I think the CIC cannot be replicated, it can only be joined. It has such tremendous momentum (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Institutional_Cooperation ) that I don’t think there’s room for another. Nothing inherently flawed with making such an organization without the athletic affiliation, but it would be far easier to join the CIC than to compete with it.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 24, 2010 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions
I do agree with that.
I’m thinking in terms of what is only best for the athletic department, not for the institution as a whole. In the end, I’m sure that the two will be tied by the Tower, but the athletic department’s hands are tied when making the best decision in relation to revenue and prestige.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions
yes, but . . .
we don’t just hang out a shingle and the bids come running.
the cic has what . . . a hundred year head start?
also, we have had the ability to form a cooperative environment for a very long time and haven’t done it. i don’t know why you think we would now.
by rumplestiltsglenn on May 24, 2010 5:31 PM CDT up reply actions
oh, good grief . . .
ppk has already said what i was trying to say.
by rumplestiltsglenn on May 24, 2010 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions
There's the magic number
Where did you find that?
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions
NSF archives
I’m headed out the door but I’ll email them to you later.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Learned, would you mind posting the link?
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
Not a problem
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/rdexpenditures/
Click on Data tables for recent years, click on detailed statistical tables for early 1990’s.
The 1992 tables actually have data going back to the 1980’s.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Shocking.
A&M get more research dollars than Texas.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Even more shocking - the difference is primarily attributable to state funding.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Why is that? What state funding? State-based grants?
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Yep
I haven’t broken it out any more than that.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions
I wonder if it a way to make up for the disparity of dispersed funds from the PUF…
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions
Possible but doubtful
The PUF money doesn’t go to research, at least not directly. It’s typically earnmarked for capital and operating expenses. So yes, PUF money could be used for a research lab/equipment, but couldn’t actually pay the profs/grad students.
I suspect the difference stems from the Vet school and the various other land grant things A&M does. That the antagonistic relationship UT has had with the leg at various times.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Not strictly true.
You have to add to UT’s numbers there the research funding due to UT-affiliated off-campus research labs, such as those found at J.J. Pickle research campus. Given those, the funding that UT brings in per year would go up by about $100 million.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 24, 2010 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions
You also have to consider A&M’s numbers include their medical school funding. UT’s numbers include the PRC, but do not include any of the medical schools nor MD Anderson (which brings in more research money than UT main campus).
So our overall research dollars are significantly higher than what was listed?
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions
More if you're inclined to count UTEP/UTSA/UTA/UT-Dallas as part of the system
Though I do not.
Of institutions without an affiliated med school, UT is behind Cal, A&M, Georgia Tech, MIT, and Illinois.
I suppose the real conundrum is, will the medical schools (and other system schools) join as part of the CIC, and if so is Penn State’s growth over a 20 year span replicable? If yes, this shouldn’t be a hard decision.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions
Not according to the NSF. Could be a clerical error.
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10311/pdf/tab35.pdf
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions
not that shocking
We’re a land/sea/space grant institution with research in all areas
texas has a designation as a space grant college, that’s it
What does land/sea/space grant mean?
I actually do not know.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 25, 2010 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Each different grant carries a block of federal money with the quid pro quo that the school use that money to perform research in that area.
IIRC correctly, being a land grant is by far the most lucractive. The program has existed since the late 1890’s and each university receives “morrill grant” funding. I seem to remember that it brings about 30ish million into A&M, I can’t remember, but I think I’ve posted it somewhere. Sea grant, space grant, and sun grant are much less lucrative programs.
No school is going to turn down the money, but they simply don’t carry the benefits that land grant status brings. The flip side is that much of the land grant funding has to be used for agriculture.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 25, 2010 11:07 PM CDT up reply actions
a trivial fact about land grant schools
The original purpose of the Morrill Act was to create schools to train soldiers for the Union army in the Civil War. This fact is one of the main reasons most land-grant schools were not started in the South until after the War.
This pretty much sums it up.
This represents a tangible benefit of going to the Big 10, that has to be considered at least as important as anything else (I would argue academics are inherently more important for a University, but that’s a discussion for another time).
Those figures for Texas do not include (I presume) funding generated due to J.J. Pickle research campus, which is not insignificant. The research dollars at J J Pickle annually are at least equal to that of the College of Engineering (~120 million depending on the year).
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 24, 2010 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not sure, but my inclination is that it does
What is pickle’s primary area of research, if any? It’ll be easier to check if I look by government agency.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions
A lot of Pickle’s money comes from the Department of Transportation, the Office of Naval Research, and NSF.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 24, 2010 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions
TxDOT, to be specific.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 24, 2010 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Pickle is not broken out like other research facilities in the UT system, so I assume they are. The breakdown of UT’s Federal research budget also includes 105 million coming from the DOD, and 76 million from the NSF, and I’d be inclined to believe much of that went to Pickle because only about half goes to the college of engineering (at least as far as DoD money goes).
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions
"Who can say it would improve if Texas went to the Big10?"
You could very well ask the same questions of all the advantages the SEC provides. Nothing is certain in any of this debate. I only bring up the CIC because it is a stark difference between the Big 10 and the SEC, and so it has to be considered.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 24, 2010 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions
True.
But without knowing that it would actually improve our research bottom line, the SEC is a better deal.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree that a move to the SEC wouldn't neccessarily mean a tougher schedule,
but didn’t you say earlier that this kind of thing is cyclical? So in ten years, it could be a complete gauntlet.
Guns don't kill people, screwdrivers kill people.
The schedule would be much more difficult if OU doesn't come along.
What if the SEC just plucks FSU and Clemson to combine with Texas and A&M?
We would play OU (out of conference), LSU, Bama, A&M, and Auburn every year? While it may be cyclical, that’s a pretty tough murderers row.
by Texas Wahoo on May 24, 2010 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions
Bringing along our rivals
What if the SEC just plucks FSU and Clemson to combine with Texas and A&M?
Instinctively, I think a move to the SEC would allow us a greater opportunity to insist upon which schools we’d bring with us, as I couldn’t imagine that any of the four logical Big XII schools (A&M, Tech, OU and OSU) available for a presumed expansion to 16 would be objectionable to the SEC if packaged with us.
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions
It makes more sense to add a Western quartet
of Texas/A&M/Oklahoma/4th than add Clemson and Florida State with the Texas powers.
New markets add more money than a second team in the same market, the geographic split be easier, and (often overlooked) there is at least one SEC school with strong incentives to fight the admission of both Clemson and Florida State. I think you could possibly add Georgia to the nay votes on each. Though many of their fans would like to see Clemson return to their football schedule, I don’t know if their coaches and admin would be keen on giving two programs less than an hour from the state line the SEC cachet to carry into recruiting wars.
by GwinnettGamecock on May 26, 2010 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions
You mean a gauntlet like this?
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missour, Texas Tech?
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 24, 2010 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Gauntlets
So in ten years, it could be a complete gauntlet.
Of course. As could a Pac-10 gauntlet of USC, UCLA, UW, Oregon and ASU. UCLA and UW have underperformed for years, and I’ve always thought ASU could be a perennial Top 10 school if it ever got its act together.
You never know, and I don’t think it’s the right basis on which to choose a conference affiliation.
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Well one thing is for sure we have a great Def. Cordinator for the move to the SEC
And we are starting to run the same D as SEC play
It always amuses me to no end that UT is stuck with TAM
Honestly, it’s hilarious how dependent on us TAM is for just about everything. No wonder Beergut and his ilk have such an inferiority complex they can’t even spell Texas with a capital T. Haha.
In-VINCE-able.
We are the two flagship institutions in the state and where we go, so goes little brother. That is what happens when lawmakers are Aggie grads.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Or at least they'd have to get a similar deal
in their new conference if they do tag along.
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on May 24, 2010 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions
if they don’t tag along, rather.
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on May 24, 2010 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Do you think it's possible
that aggie goes to the SEC without Texas? Just curious, I think it is.
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on May 24, 2010 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Good question.
They wanted to when the SWC broke up. I don’t know how the Leg. would view A&M’s independence of big brother.
But then when have Aggies ever had an original thought…(other than the aforementioned) :-)
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions
any idea whether the sec would want ags this time?
i mean by themselves.
by rumplestiltsglenn on May 24, 2010 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions
They know they don’t have a choice. If they make a play for Texas, little brother is just part of the deal. It wouldn’t matter if they wanted the Aggies or not.
A&M is a good school and is considered one the most valuable college football programs (if you believe Forbes). The SEC will get a good deal with the two programs.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 6:14 PM CDT up reply actions
I'd love to see it happen
if texas goes to the Pac-10 or Big Televen, and we went to the SEC, such a move would hurt texas’ football program, and strengthen A&M’s program
Partial qualifiers
quickest way back to relevance?
nope
wasn’t even thinking of partial qualifiers
If A&M was in what the media hypes as the best college football conference in the land, we can sell being the only Texas school in the SEC, and that would be a helluva lot more enticing to HS recruits than, “hey, let’s travel across two times zones to play Washington State”.
Right.
Because nothing is as enticing to a high school football player as the thought of getting routinely wasted by LSU and Arkansas. That would be a hell of a lot more fun than traveling to the West Coast to play USC.
If the world was a school, we'd be homecoming king...
I hate that you're making me do this.
But lay off of him man, he’s making a reasonable point. If A&M has something to offer that UT doesn’t (ie: playing in the SEC) it might help them recruit. I don’t necessarily agree with his assessment that it would be a large difference maker, but you’re being kind of a jerk about it, which is too bad because I generally agree with your posts.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 25, 2010 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions
Mississippi State says hello
A&M & Mississippi State would have a helluva rivalry if that scenario would to happen. They’d replace Baylor as your chief competition (for last place). If Arkansas can pants A&M, what would you think LSU would do to them?
We need them as much as they need us.
See mid-to-late 1990s for an example of when Texas A&M was the dominant school. Things haven’t always been as good for us as they are now.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 24, 2010 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions
I can’t agree with that statement. :-) Everything runs in cycles. That great run for Aggies (oh, and that 1939 national championship) as compared to UT’s overall success in athletics? UT does not, and will never need A&M. The inverse of that may or may not be true.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions
agree
That ‘success’ they had in the 90’s came at a price that ultimately helped force them into the cellar (probation, coaching changes, etc). It’s hard to say that we ‘needed’ them at the time and even more difficult to say that we need them now.
And they may not need us as much as we think, they might do perfectly well (by aggie standards) on their own.
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on May 24, 2010 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions
by aggie standards
It isn’t a high bar.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Reason #1 to avoid the SEC
Football commentary on CBS
Other than that, solid arguements.
Have you watched other conference games on many of the FoxSports channels? Some of those so-called analysts have CBS beat for hideous commentary, if that is even possible.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Fox represents the worst coverage of any network... across all sports.
by BrooklynHorn on May 24, 2010 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions
I think Fox is OK when it comes to pro football
No complaints from me when it comes to the NFL on Fox.
I strongly dislike the MLB on Fox, though. The producers for baseball on Fox seem to believe that the sport will appeal more to the average viewer with a shorter attention span if they try to cram six or sever rapid-fire camera shots in between each pitch. Ruins the pace of the game completely for me.
And don’t even get me started about the band-loving producers for Fox’s BCS games…
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions
By far the worst BCS coverage I've ever seen...
and FSN regular season college football is pure torture. My sentiments regarding baseball coverage exactly – too much drama created through editing. I absolutely LOATHE that ESPN lost the contract for Champion’s League Soccer, as fox’s coverage is unwatchable at times. And I’m still irritated about Fox’s highlighted puck for 1990’s NHL broadcasts.
That one network can so consistently screw up so many sports seems not to be a coincidence. It simply must be the result of a completely misguided mission-statement / philosophy.
by BrooklynHorn on May 25, 2010 4:51 AM CDT up reply actions
Gotta disagree
At least Fox displays graphics, like scores, downs, etc. There are times I’ve channel-flipped to a football game on ABC or CBS and not been able to determine the score for 10 minutes. Much less the total lack of informational graphics on downs and yards to go. Frustrating on these old-people networks.
Watch out, I bite.
by EddieTheAlbinoSquirrel on May 24, 2010 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Gotta agree with GoHorns on this.
CBS’ college football &, in particular, Gary Danielson, are pathetic. Maybe it’s just because I recognize the SEC as overrated. The only worse fall Saturday experiences are NBC’s Notre Dame lovefest and anything involving Brent Musburger.
If Texas did join the SEC
would our defense finally be considered “legit”?
It's fun to do bad things. -Latarian Milton
The SEC represents all that is wrong with college sports
in everything from their marriages to CBS and ESPN to personalities like Tebow, Urban Meyer, Nick Saban, Les Miles and formerly Lane Kiffin.
Guess I’m not greedy enough to want to hang out in those circles, I’d never make it as an AD. I’ll prefer to maintain some self respect and stay in the Big 12. The entire infatuation with TV money as an end all is more than a little disturbing.
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on May 24, 2010 1:30 PM CDT reply actions
Individually it is a great way to live and is commendable. Collectively as an athletic department, it is a slow death. Money will drive the continued success of our football program.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Success will drive the continued success of our program
Our relative position hasn’t hurt either the bottom line or recruiting in the last year.
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on May 24, 2010 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions
But if the program (and facilities) decline, the recruiting and success will go as well.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Tebow doesn't belong in that group of douchebags.
He’s a good kid that performed well and had nothing to do with the media’s infatuation of him.
i mean baloney he didn't have anything to do with it.
he courted it like a lothario.
by rumplestiltsglenn on May 24, 2010 5:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Hype and TV coverage of course
Texas as a member school is not wanting for these but overall I think the SEC gets a great deal more national exposure than the Big 12 right now. The CBS marriage is understandable since there’s a TV contract there. The ESPN love of the SEC borders on sickening or at least last year it did. I’ve stopped watching anything on ESPN except strictly the games.
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on May 24, 2010 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions
SEC for me too at 14, bounce KY and Vandy
In a move to the SEC, if it came down to it, Id begrudgingly like the Sooners and drop the Aggies if it was a 2 add only in the West.
West
OU
Texas
Texas A&M
LSU
Arkansas
Mississippi
Miss State
East
Florida
Georgia
Tennessee
Vandy/Miami
Auburn
Alabama
South Carolina
Bounce Vandy and KY to the Big 10, add Miami to even the power. That would seem to make most any other conference irrelevant or at least the plus one bowl game scenario we have now would likely settle it barring a ND move to the Big 10 and a power move in the Pac 10. Let’s just say I’m renewing my season tix at least until we find out when the powder puff leagues end.
This idea is a non-starter . . .
. . . at the point you mention bouncing Vandy and Kentucky to the Big 10. Remember one of my Golden Rules of Realignment: no one’s leaving the SEC.
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions
why would texas NOT dictate that if joining a conference they would be able to bring in A&M and Texas Tech
Texas is being courted so they have the bargaining power. Why in the world would they not want to bring in allies, A&M and Texas Tech. This gives them 2 important allies, props up the 3 major Texas based universities (which is what is in best interests of the state), and gives them close at home in state rivalries.
No way do they ask for OU or OSU to come along over A&M and Texas Tech
Agree.
The Horns, in no way, should extend a hand of hope to the suckin’ sooners. They were in a separate conference for so long, it still seems unnatural to be attached so closely to them in the Big XII South. IMO, no way should UT join a new conference if they also don’t take a&m as a prerequisite. I hate aggie as much as the next longhorn but, geez, can we atleast honor some semblance of history?!
The question is what value does the SEC derive from gaining the Sooners as a member? OU is a good draw when they play on television, even though the state as a whole is not high up on the list of big tv markets. They win. People would definitely tune in if they played Alabama. I know I would.
The Land Thieves will fit fit right in with the other schools that have had NCAA probation/sanctions, etc. Texas would be the odd man out on that.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions
OU is a cultural fit in the SEC
redneck section of their fanbase, football-crazy, laiseez-faire attitude about NCAA compliance
sounds like aggie too
"I live in the tower with Coach Brown." -Bevo
by run Bevo run on May 25, 2010 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions
There is such a thing as overplaying a hand. Say you do have a pact the Texas trio of schools had to stick together. Do you think a PAC-10 or BIG-Integer would take all three schools based on the dictation of UT?
It's not what you've done but what you are doing that matters.
And the roses in this grand ol' stadium are once again Crimson. - Eli Gold, CTSN Broadcast of the BCS Championship Game at the Rose Bowl, 1-7-2010
by AlabamaJammer on May 24, 2010 8:15 PM CDT up reply actions
Do you think a PAC-10 or BIG-Integer would take all three schools based on the dictation of UT?
A&M? Possibly to probably.
Tech? No chance in hell, even if it meant (doubtfully) that they’d lose a Texas which would otherwise come.
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 8:18 PM CDT up reply actions
The “Tech has to go, too” is overstated. Despite Kent Hance’s perceived power, the school does not have the academic standing or clout to demand a place at the table. They will not bring any market share and they do not add to the package.
A&M is a different story. I’ve stated my thoughts on the school as a whole. As much as we like to make fun of the Aggies, they would add value to any conference.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 8:26 PM CDT up reply actions
More or less agree
My point with Tech in the original post was that, even if we could ditch Tech, and I think we could, the argument could be made that the politically savvy move for the long-term interests of the school would be to allow them to tag along if the opportunity presented itself.
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 8:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Politically savvy for Texas? No. It would only be good for Tech.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 8:48 PM CDT up reply actions
The goodwill created by giving Tech a lift could pay dividends in the Legislature down the road.
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 8:58 PM CDT up reply actions
The Legislature goes on whatever political whim is in the air at the time and they have short memories. The only legislators that will remember years down the line would be Tech grads, who may or may not still be in office. This doesn’t concern me. When it comes down to the final decision, Texas needs to look out for Texas and Texas alone.
It is cutthroat, but that’s the reality. Tech would never look out for Texas if the roles were reversed.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 9:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Tech would never look out for Texas if the roles were reversed.
We’ll never know because the roles will never be reversed. :)
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 9:14 PM CDT up reply actions
But I should say this about Tech...
Tech is the university that truly educates. Kudos to Tech.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 9:14 PM CDT up reply actions
sounds familiar
<a href="https://financialaid.tamu.edu/Types/aggie_assurance.aspxhttps://financialaid.tamu.edu/Types/aggie_assurance.aspx" target="new">Aggie Assurance
I didn’t know about A&M’s program. That’s great.
by dimecoverage on May 25, 2010 8:54 AM CDT up reply actions
Money vs Travel
Big 10 offers more money and there’s more travel. So the extra money helps the tennis teams and volleyball and softball teams make those trips to Happy Valley. Does the extra money eventually even itself out? Are 15 other schools going to come to Austin for the Conference track meet?
Go to the SEC. If the money’s not there now, it will be in a couple years down the road. Any team that’s packing a 100,000-plus stadium every home game shouldn’t really complain about money, especially when they have a chance to get Florida, Georgia, Bama, Auburn, LSU and Tennessee rotating themselves through Austin.
You lose Kansas hoops but gain Kentucky. Texas would make SEC the toughest baseball conference hands down.
As for football, ALL the talent is between Texas and the Atlantic Ocean, all along the Gulf Coast. It will always be the toughest conference. If you win that conference then you are definitely one of the best teams in the country. In the Big 10 it means you beat Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio St and Penn St.
"Excuse me while I whip this out."
Gymnastics
Now that you mention it, having Rowing but not Gymnastics seems to be an odd choice. Maybe Gymnastics is for younger competitors?
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
your idea of confrence play is a little off
your senario envisions big 10 getting Nebraska, and nd
and not picking up a&m with texas.
your SEC is only easier because you picked the easy opponents and a&m+ ou are conference games.
your SEC is only easier because you picked the easy opponents
I did the exact same thing for both conferences: I put together eight-game conference schedules in best-guess 16-game conferences, with seven games against best-guess division foes and one crossover game against similar non-divisional opponents (PSU & UGa). What the exact scheduling regimes would be for each conference if either went to 16 is anyone’s guess, but I applied the same methodology to each.
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 6:16 PM CDT up reply actions
…and failing to offer a championship in only one sport (women’s rowing) in which Texas does compete.
Alabama recently added women’s rowing as a varsity sport, though I wasn’t aware the conference as a whole didn’t have a championship. I do love their chant: “Row Tide Row,” which edges out our club hockey team’s “Frozen Tide” for best customization of a university slogan/chant/nickname.
RollBamaRoll.com - Also check out my music blog: Hear the World
Sorry, don't want you.
The SEC is hard enough to win as it is. Also, if we take 4 teams from the Big 12 most proposals i’ve seen have alabama and auburn moving to the east. That would ruin our sec championship rivalry with Florida. I’d rather keep the status quo.
What you're seeing is team spirit. It's like the Holy Spirit, but more powerful.
-Hank Hill
Divisions vs. pods
That would ruin our sec championship rivalry with Florida.
Not so sure about this.
When I did the sample schedules above, I did just what you suggested might happen: split the SEC into two eight-team divisions in the same manner you did and assumed an eight game conference schedule, with seven divisional games and one cross-divisional games.
Thinking about it today, I don’t think there’s any chance in hell this is how it would actually shake out. The big problem? For every game Georgia would play in Baton Rouge, Texas Tech would play eight.
I don’t think LSU, Ole Miss or Mississippi State would like sacrificing so many games with traditional SEC foes for annual games against Big XII refugees.
Instead, it would have to be some kind of pod system.
The two western pods would be easy to set up: one with the four Big XII refugees, and one with LSU, Arkansas and the two Mississippi schools.
As for the two eastern pods, you can envision pairs of schools which would be in the same pods (Alabama/Auburn; Florida/Georgia; Tennessee/Vandy; and, by default, UK/SC). How the two eastern pods would actually be formed from those pairs is debatable.
Pods would move on and off each of the other pods’ schedules to avoid the Georgia/Tech problem described above.
Now how you determine which two schools qualify for the championship game is anyone’s guess.
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions
This is purely superficial,
but I f*cking hate the word “pod”.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 24, 2010 9:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Going through your points one-by-one (albeit briefly):
Before I begin, I will say that I am a Michigan fan who is in favor of Texas joining the Big Ten and what I write in this post comes from a biased perspective.
Academics – The SEC is a step sideways academically from the Big 12 at best. The Big Ten is a huge step up and Texas would likely be in line for a windfall of extra research money via the CIC. Why take a mediocre product when you can have a great one.
Demographics – The population movement that favors the West and South is unsustainable for a variety of reasons, not including global warming. For instance, there is not enough water in either area (Florida is draining away the Everglades to support its population and most of the West is desert).
Baseball – Big Ten baseball is not good. The only thing I can say in its rather pathetic defense is that if you bring some good programs with you (like Nebraska), it wouldn’t be so bad. Some of the current Big Ten baseball programs, like Michigan and Ohio State, are not terrible, but certainly not nationally competitive.
Athletic compatibility – I disagree with the premise of this point. You view the lack of sports offered by the SEC as a positive because it means that fewer conference resources are expended on sports that Texas does not compete in. I would argue that this is an advantage of the Big Ten, because the resources expended by conferences (not individual teams, but the conference entities themselves) aren’t very large for non-revenue sports like Men’s volleyball (as in, all they pay for are the referees). In the mean time, all of Texas’ sports would have a home in the Big Ten (including women’s rowing) and should Texas add any varsity sports in the future, they would have a ready-made home as well.
Geography – While the SEC is certainly closer, most of the schools are sufficiently far away that driving for a weekend simply isn’t feasible. At that point, the difference between the Big Ten and SEC schools with regards to distance becomes moot.
Politics – While I do not know much about the Texas Legislature, outside of the fact that apparently it regards college football as more important than the academic well-being of its public universities, I will say this: the reason the Big Ten will never take Texas Tech is that the academics of Texas Tech are unacceptably poor to the Big Ten member institutions. This illustrates the difference between the SEC and Big Ten. Joining the SEC for the sake of political convenience does not make sense to me when making a choice that could affect your future for a long time to come. Of course, if taking Texas Tech is a political necessity, it makes sense that the equation would change for you.
Scheduling – This point doesn’t really need to be addressed.
Finances – If creating the LSN is very important, then joining the Big Ten is out. However, I would ask whether it makes more sense to join the network that is already thriving and is projected to bring in a lot more revenue over the years than the contract that the SEC is locked into or trying to make a network when you could well be forced to put a bunch of football games on ESPN (and by extension, not the LSN). To be frank, even without the ESPN problem, I don’t see the LSN as a viable earner compared to the BTN because there would be a much smaller population to air games to and a lot less content to use. The BTN has 11 schools and 25+ sports to air across a large footprint. The LSN would have 1 school and 18 sports to air across a much smaller footprint. Even in collaboration with other Texas schools, I would still question its viability. Also, while I say this with complete certainty, it is my understanding that ESPN would not have to renegotiate their contract with the SEC, should Texas join up. This would limit Texas’ TV revenue for quite a while.
Finally, I think you should also consider three things that the Big Ten has going for it that have yet to be mentioned. Firstly, the Big Ten is a superior basketball conference to the SEC, both historically and recently. Secondly, the Big Ten’s bowl bids would arguably superior to the SEC’s if Texas were to join the Big Ten, as the Big Ten has the Rose Bowl and the SEC has the Sugar Bowl. While this may be irrelevant from a pay out standpoint, the Rose Bowl definitely has more appeal from the standpoint of tradition and prestige. Furthermore, while the SEC currently has the Cotton Bowl, it is rather likely that the Cotton Bowl would become a Big Ten-SEC matchup if you joined. Lastly, the Big Ten football programs have generally demonstrated integrity throughout their existence. Recently, the same cannot be said for a number of SEC schools (exp. Alabama). While this may not bother you, it is something to consider.
All good points but this:
To be frank, even without the ESPN problem, I don’t see the LSN as a viable earner compared to the BTN because there would be a much smaller population to air games to and a lot less content to use…The LSN would have 1 school and 18 sports to air across a much smaller footprint.
You don’t understand our footprint or the support of our alumni. EDSBS had a good parody, but we would watch Bevo eat stuff and chew for an hour. Really, we would. We would pay to watch our receivers run drills for an hour. (If we had a TE, we would pay to watch him, too.) This mania has made our athletic department the cash cow that it is.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 8:58 PM CDT up reply actions
I can’t believe that the LSN would ever compare to the BTN no matter how doggedly we follow Longhorn sports. There’s just not that large of an audience.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 24, 2010 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions
But...
… we’d only need 1/12, or 1/16, of the audience to receive the same profits (to greatly simplify this).
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Before or after amoritizing start up costs and fees to providers?
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 9:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Profit≠Revenue
The LSN would still have a lot of the same costs the BTN has, a number of which are base costs. As such, it would take more than 1/12 or 1/16 of the revenue the BTN takes in to match it’s profit per member institution.
Texas, even with a big and devoted fanbase, is still only one school and would not be able to provide nearly as much content as the BTN. This means that there would be less advertising revenue available for the LSN as compared to the BTN.
Finally, the LSN could only succeed if it were able to consistently broadcast Texas football. This is not likely to be the case in either the SEC or the Big Ten, as ESPN would take most of Texas’ games if they played in the SEC and they wouldn’t be allowed to in the Big Ten. The same is true for basketball.
There are only two ways I could see the LSN being successful as a full time network. One is if Texas included some of the other Texas schools and went to a league with a terrible TV deal that didn’t put much on ESPN (hello Pac 10). The other is if they made it into a premium channel a la HBO and managed to secure a fair number of games (say 6) away from ESPN.
I'm not sure you really get it
texas, even with a big and devoted fanbase, is still only one school and would not be able to provide nearly as much content as the BTN. This means that there would be less advertising revenue available for the LSN as compared to the BTN.
Finally, the LSN could only succeed if it were able to consistently broadcast texas football. This is not likely to be the case in either the SEC or the Big Ten, as ESPN would take most of texas’ games if they played in the SEC and they wouldn’t be allowed to in the Big Ten. The same is true for basketball.
Texas is a football-mad state, unlike anything y’all have in the Big Ten. The proposed texas sports network could show nothng but repeats of texas football games non-stop, and it would draw high enough ratings to be profitable.
As for games not being shown on their sports network b/c ESPN or some other network would televise them, not every single texas game would be picked up by network television, and those would be the ones featured on the hypothetical tsn. This is exactly what the BTN does now. Then they could just show replays of the previous Saturdays games, also like the BTN. Similarly, not every basketball game would be picked up by netowkr television, so the tsn would have something to show there. Honestly, texas isn’t looking at creating their own network because it would lose money.
I don't define successful as profitable
I do not dispute that the LSN would, in all likelihood, be profitable. However, I define success as the LSN working as part of a deal that makes more money than any other set of options open to Texas. As I do believe that Texas stands to make more money as part of the Big Ten through network and BTN revenue, I think that the LSN is an inferior option.
The LSN would not be a stand alone network. It would be an expanded version of something like this, which is already making money for Texas.
by dimecoverage on May 25, 2010 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions
Thanks for the link
Out of curiosity, do you have any numbers for that? It would be highly interesting to see exactly how much money it was making.
wow...
..now THAT’S petty. You went out of your way to misquote him with your spelling of “texas”. Yet for the state, you capitalize it. You realize it’s the same word right? This is why you can never be taken seriously, no matter how valid your points might be.
by vy til i die on May 26, 2010 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
We don’t have the overall numbers that watch the BTN just because there are 11 school alumni, students, fans watching, but a Longhorn Network would draw a huge audience.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 9:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Thanks for the comments, Seth9
I know you’re new around here (welcome aboard!) so it might surprise you to learn that I am the Big 10 Guy around here and I am only wearing the SEC hat today to make the arguments no one else really has. To address some of your comments:
The population movement that favors the West and South is unsustainable for a variety of reasons, not including global warming. For instance, there is not enough water in either area (Florida is draining away the Everglades to support its population and most of the West is desert).
No offense, and I do NOT intend to open a door to a debate on the existence of ManBearPig global warming, but this is a rather silly argument against a move to the SEC or, presumably, the Pac 10, and I’ll just leave it at that.
should Texas add any varsity sports in the future, they would have a ready-made home as well
I would presume that this isn’t a concern for Texas. Texas’ philosophy is one of competing in few sports, but compete at the highest levels in all of them. It’s hard to envision what additional varsity programs UT would be adding in the foreseeable future.
most of the schools are sufficiently far away that driving for a weekend simply isn’t feasible
Keep in mind that joining the SEC would probably allow Texas to stay in the same conference as Tech and OU, and that logistics would probably dictate that schools in a 16-team conference play more frequently against those schools located closer. College Station, Lubbock, Norman, Fayetteville and Baton Rouge, as well as probably Starkville and Oxford, are all easy weekend drives for Texas-based Texas supporters. No Big 10 schools fall in that category.
college football as more important than the academic well-being of its public universities
That’s a bit of a cheap shot. What is more accurate is that the Texas Legislature is composed of members who are alums or, or represent, a multitude of Division I schools, and watching out for one school’s best interests might lead to conflicts with what might be in the best interests of other schools.
by Hopkins Horn on May 24, 2010 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Thank you for responding to me
Once again responding one-by-one:
No offense, and I do NOT intend to open a door to a debate on the existence of ManBearPig global warming, but this is a rather silly argument against a move to the SEC or, presumably, the Pac 10, and I’ll just leave it at that.
I am not using Global Warming as a point here. I am referring to the inherent difficulties of sustaining a population in areas where there is not sufficient water to do so. In desert areas, for instance it is highly expensive to maintain large populations and over time, this creates an economic burden that leads people in the area to leave for places with more local resources. I do agree that the Global Warming argument is pointless, but talking about the local availability of basic, essential resources is not because of its relation to economic forces.
With regard to your point about Texas’ philosophy on Varsity sports, I thank you for explaining it to me. I just know that Texas lacrosse is highly competitive in the MCLA and if they ever made the jump, they would have a home in the Big Ten. Furthermore, I still don’t think that the resources involved from the standpoint of a conference are very significant when it comes to producing a lot of non-revenue sports. The most expensive (hockey) is not a Big Ten sport, as there are only five Big Ten hockey programs and they are not all in the same conference.
Keep in mind that joining the SEC would probably allow Texas to stay in the same conference as Tech and OU, and that logistics would probably dictate that schools in a 16-team conference play more frequently against those schools located closer. College Station, Lubbock, Norman, Fayetteville and Baton Rouge, as well as probably Starkville and Oxford, are all easy weekend drives for Texas-based Texas supporters. No Big 10 schools fall in that category.
While this is a fair point, there are mitigating factors. First of all, I think that Texas could bring Texas A&M with them to the Big Ten if they wanted to. Second of all, even if Texas joins the Big Ten, my understanding is that there’s no chance that the rivalry with OU would ever cease. Finally, I doubt that the SEC would divide into rigid divisions with 16 teams. It strikes me as more probable that they would instead divide into four-team pods that would rotate in a fairly complex fashion, in order to ensure that the team’s within the conference all got to play each other. In this case, it is likely that the four Big 12 transplants would form one pod, further reducing the easy driving opportunities as Fayetteville and Baton Rouge would not be biannual destinations.
That’s a bit of a cheap shot. What is more accurate is that the Texas Legislature is composed of members who are alums or, or represent, a multitude of Division I schools, and watching out for one school’s best interests might lead to conflicts with what might be in the best interests of other schools.
Yes, I did make a cheap shot there. It was not based so much on the current situation though as it was based on the apparent threat to withhold funding from Texas if they didn’t take care of Baylor and Texas Tech when the Big 12 was formed. I found this to be incredibly distasteful because a) Baylor isn’t even a public institution and looking out for its athletic well-being should not extend to basically blackmailing the flagship public university of the state, b) as I understand it, the move to the Big 12 had no real effect on Texas Tech or Baylor academically, meaning this move was done for athletic reasons and I don’t like it when federal and state governments get involved with athletics as they should have more important things to do in my opinion, and c) there was no thought of making any provision for Houston, a public university that should, in theory, demand more support from the legislature than Baylor.
And she played only a minor role in getting Baylor into the Big XII
Former State Sen. David Sibley was Baylor’s champion in Austin.
by Hopkins Horn on May 26, 2010 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Good point.
I had forgotten about him since his son’s epic failure to win his old State Senate seat.
integrity?
Lastly, the Big Ten football programs have generally demonstrated integrity throughout their existence. Recently, the same cannot be said for a number of SEC schools (exp. Alabama). While this may not bother you, it is something to consider.
If you think Ohio State isn’t every bit as crooked as Alabama, you’re loving in a dream world.
In any case, this argument is a non-starter; if NCAA compliance were a make-or-break issue for texas, they wouldn’t be in the same conference with OU.
big ten integrity argument is a joke
To limit it to Seth’s school, Michigan’s most famed period of basketball success was built on cheating so flagrant the NCAA actually noticed and did something about it, and the football program just self-imposed sanctions for violations committed under their current paragon of virtue head coach.
I don’t remember details, but Michigan State football, Minnesota basketball, and Ohio State everything football have also either had recent image problems, or faced actual NCAA sanctions.
The big ten is no cleaner than any other conference in your two revenue sports. The main difference is you are dishonest with yourselves and others about your member schools’ dishonesty.
by GwinnettGamecock on May 26, 2010 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't suppose that you actually pay attention to case specifics...
I’m not going to bother to respond to most of your points, because by your own admission, you have not really paid any attention to any of the cases that you cite. However, I will briefly address Michigan’s NCAA problems:
The Ed Martin scandal, which affected the basketball team, was completely and utterly inexcusable. It was not, however, discovered by the NCAA. Instead, Michigan’s compliance office ran an internal investigation, fired everyone complicit, cut ties with the players and coaches the investigation found to have committed violations, and self-imposed heavy sanctions. This investigation was prompted internally and the NCAA was brought in by the university, not the other way around. If it weren’t for our own investigation, it is quite possible that we could have gotten away with this. Furthermore, the booster in question, Ed Martin, was not only a booster at Michigan, but at numerous other colleges. In reality, Ed Martin had spent years attaching himself to very good high school basketball players in the state, many of whom went to places other than Michigan. However, Michigan was the only university that chose to investigate his dealings with UM players and thus was the university that got punished because it was the only university in which the administration was not willing to involve itself with the shady dealings endemic in college basketball upon learning of them.
With regards to football, the allegations made by the NCAA can be summed up here and here.
In essence, the coaches committed violations by monitoring stretching sessions before and after practice, and by allowing QC staff to do more than they were allowed to, even though the rules regarding the QC staff are exceedingly vague and some of the violations they committed (such as sitting in on coaches’ meetings) are now legal.
Also, my point about a lack of institutional integrity in the SEC has more to do with the lack of rules in the SEC that allow fo unethical practices like massive oversigning. With regards to individual institutions however, Nick Saban, Steve Spurrier, and Houston Nutt are all employed by SEC schools.
I guess if you turn yourself in for paying players,
it doesn’t count. The NCAA must have vacated Michigan’s wins by mistake.
I can’t wait to hear how, in the words of the University of Minnesota’s president, “one of the most serious cases of academic fraud ever reported to the NCAA” discovered within the Minnesota basketball program actually proves the honesty of big ten programs. I stand by my statement that there are programs in the big ten as dirty as any in the nation, but the conference’s fans are not honest enough to admit it.
You mention Steve Spurrier. Please tell me how he is related to a discussion of institutional integrity, other than as an example of someone who does things the right way?
by GwinnettGamecock on May 26, 2010 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah.....right.....
Firstly, the Big Ten is a superior basketball conference to the SEC, both historically and recently.
Perhaps….., if you can tolerate 52-48 games, less athleticism, slugfests under the basket and games that are played below the rim. Not for me. BigTen basketball is good for one thing – naps.
I’d rather watch paint dry than watch the BigTen form of basketball.
--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---
Or Auburn. Or Alabama. Or Ole Miss. Or Georgia.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 25, 2010 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions
Definitely not a basketball powerhouse
If UGA is a powerhouse in anything, it’s tennis. I’d add, arguably, golf, swimming & diving (esp. W), women’s basketball, and women’s gymnastics.
All I’m saying is that, for the first time in a long time, we have reason to be optimistic about men’s basketball.
Or PennSt? Or NW'estern? Or Michigan?
Or Minnesota, Indiana or Iowa?
--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---
Allow me to retort, in hopefully not an overlong fashion.
Listen, I like the SEC. I really do. But their priorities are not as similar to Texas’ as Hopkins’ stated. (It’s okay, I won’t kick you out of the Big Innumerate club.)
Academics: Many (most? All?) of SEC schools do a fine job when it comes to pedagogy on certain topics. I didn’t attend one, so the only thing I can speak to from personal experience is the same thing most can speak to when it comes to universities – the alumni. In my experience, they’re by and large competent folk who know their way around a statute/scalpel/balance sheet.
However, there is a difference between paying tuition to be taught by someone who is knowledgeable about a topic and the person who invented the topic and wrote the book. Getting one takes tenure and a comfortable salary. Getting the other takes facilities, connections, access to top students (indentured servants), stipends, tenure and a more than comfortable salary. (Secret: Many of the top profs at UT have had better dollars and amenities thrown at them by one of the schools many, many competitors. Top educators/researchers are scare commodities and at the price of education are always in demand.)
On a pep talk note – the slogan is "What starts here, changes the world". No matter how much you may love football, it doesn’t change the world. It may change your world, but if it does, maybe you should get out more. Scientific breakthroughs, training a new generation of teachers in the latest classroom techniques and as they once said of Chancellor Harry Ransom, not being able to "tell the difference between the actual, the possible and the totally inconceivable," is what changes the world. To do that the University needs money, researchers, professors, collaboration. These are things the SEC doesn’t have, and while Dime and BOH make a good point that academic collaboration need not follow athletic collaboration, it has for decades all across the country and not a single University has been able to form a collaborative unit that doesn’t follow the athletic conference. This option simply isn’t available in the SEC.
Finances
I’m not going to bore everyone with this. At this point the argument is fairly trite. The SEC and the Big 10 both offer the largest monetary prize and it’s not close. I will take exception to something Hopkins’ said about the Longhorn sports network though.
If CBS/ESPN has the football, and someone else has the majority of the basketball games, why do we think the longhorn sports network would be viable without the two primary revenue sports? I’m genuinely curious, because in the best case this will impact revenue from the TV deal, in the worst case the games won’t be available in anything resembling a timely manner and at a reasonable cost.
As for the research argument vs. athletics argument. The Athletic department eats what it kills. In a good year, maybe 1.5 million dollars makes it back to the academic side of the university directly, another 500k-600k in interest, another 2 million in overhead (electrical/water etc.) and 15 million tuition/service fees/parking/intramural fees/UTPD etc. As far as the last part goes, think of it all the fees you paid as a student, just paid by the athletic program for the athletes. Someone would pay it either way.
Simply put, research money that can be used for graduate fellowships/professor stipends etc. can make up the relatively small impact the athletic program has on the school in a hurry. If membership in the CIC is worth a 2.5% increase in federal research money it blows away anything the athletic department could put together on its own for the academic side of the house. If it’s enough that the state raises the funding level to that of, oh, say Illinois, it has done the same thing.
Institutional Compatibility:
Good luck finding an SEC sympathizer in the decision tree. I had to go back to 1937 to find a university president with any SEC ties, Harry Yandell Benedict. He taught a year at Vanderbilt before coming to Texas. The academic profile of UT administrators tends to be fairly cookie cutter, Big 10/Pac 10/ACC/Texas (UT, A&M, SMU, Baylor) undergrad and Ivy, Big 10, UT for graduate and post graduate. These are the people making the decision and their decisions can’t help but be framed by their experiences. There’s a reason the school has a Big 10/Pac 10 flavor to many observers. People have been shaping it in that image for almost 100 years.
Demographics – I am not a demographer, but I do know enough about economics to realize that the majority of the SEC footprint is not creating jobs quickly enough to absorb more than a fraction of the Big 10 population shift. Sure, Florida and Georgia are growing. Get back to me about Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas. And seriously get back to me if the oil spill does serious, long term damage to the fishing/shrimping/tourism industries, which are multi-billion dollar sectors of the economies in the area.
Baseball – The Big 10 was good at baseball about 30 years ago. There is an appetite for it, but unlike the South there is STIFF competition by professional teams. Would an injection of Texas, A&M, and Nebraska be enough to revive it? No idea, but it’s certainly not that the region is apathetic to the sport.
Geography – At the extremes, it’s all pretty much the same when comparing Seattle, Gainesville and Minneapolis. Either you’re flying or you’re a glutton for punishment. For the teams, the Big 10 would probably have to pay a few more million in the TV deal than the SEC TV deal to come out ahead. It does.
The only geographic concern I have is whether it will hinder integration into the CIC, or a research collaborative in the Pac 10.
I’m avoiding the legislature, except to say that I suspect that its true school chooses our perceived peers in the eyes of casual observes (like state senators) through the conference football schedule. A President asking telling the leg. that we’re behind our football peers academically will be more likely to free up funding than telling them that we beat everyone else on the field and off. There is little advantage to being a big fish in a small pond in this era.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 24, 2010 9:45 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
You are my leader
"I live in the tower with Coach Brown." -Bevo
by run Bevo run on May 25, 2010 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions
. . . since I will be responding to someone with whom I agree who has (very mildly) critiqued a piece which I wrote which reached a conclusion which I actually don’t agree with but which I wrote in good faith. Or whatever.
If CBS/ESPN has the football, and someone else has the majority of the basketball games, why do we think the longhorn sports network would be viable without the two primary revenue sports?
We don’t know if it will be. I have expressed my skepticism as to the viability of the proposed LSN for the very reasons you site: just what in the world would it broadcast if virtually all football games and most basketball games would be network broadcasts elsewhere.
That being said, the EDSBS parody which dimecoverage referred to in this thread hits closer to reality than outsiders might suspect. Would I set my DVR to record a show called “Bevo On The Town”? Hell yes!
The ultimate point about the LSN and how it relates to a possible move to the SEC is this: despite our shared skepticism as to the LSN’s viability, if the bean-counters in Belmont decide that it would be a highly profitable move, then the athletic-centric arguments for moving to the SEC, a conference in which we could have our cake and eat it too, are made that much stronger.
At the extremes, it’s all pretty much the same when comparing Seattle, Gainesville and Minneapolis.
Yeah, but these are the extremes. (And good job picking two major airline hubs to compare to a small southern city!) Given the much greater likelihood of our being joined by the likes of Tech and OU to the SEC, and given the existence of a couple of schools in contiguous states in the SEC already, the mean would be much better in the SEC than to the other two conferences.
the slogan is “What starts here, changes the world”. No matter how much you may love football, it doesn’t change the world.
OK, I’ll now take off my SEC cap and put my much-more-comfortable Big 10 cap on.
What became clear to me as I prepared this week’s Chronicles is that, if athletics were the only concern on the table, the SEC would be the best option for Texas to pursue. And it wouldn’t be close.
If only I could close the academic gap between the SEC and the Big 10 or Pac 10 enough. But I didn’t, and I know that. I did the best I could with the material I had to work with.
And again, as you note, this isn’t a slam on the SEC, as one who slams the SEC on its academics would also have to slam the present-day configuration of the Big XII for its academics as well. But the fact of the matter is that Texas has been given a unique opportunity to upgrade its academic affiliation at the same time it’s seeking a compatible home for its athletic programs.
This is the magic bullet, as far as I am concerned. Seems like pretty clear evidence that the school would be leaving something the range of $150M to $200M on the table annually by spurning the Big 10. Whatever the LSN plus the SEC’s network contracts could generate for the school is a drop in the bucket in comparison.
This is another great statement:
A President asking telling the leg. that we’re behind our football peers academically will be more likely to free up funding than telling them that we beat everyone else on the field and off.
I want Texas to be the best public university in the country just as much as I want Texas to field the best football team in the country. And with the resources we have (more than twice the size of endowment than that of the next public institution), there’s no excuse for us not to be. But we’re not. We’re close. But like you, I think being the biggest fish in a smaller academic pond has lessened the urgency to improve. I think that urgency would increase in a move north (as it would in a move west as well).
by Hopkins Horn on May 25, 2010 9:32 AM CDT up reply actions
Left off the header "An odd response to follow"
Otherwise the ellipse at the start makes no sense.
by Hopkins Horn on May 25, 2010 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions
I see the CIC as the primary reason to bolt for the Big 10, athletics be damned. Its just too much money in a time where resources are scarce to ignore that opportunity.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 25, 2010 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, but it also would unite three of the five winningest football programs in college history.
Which would be cool.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 25, 2010 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I would love to have Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State on our schedule every year. And I’m not sure if it was you that said it, but I enjoy watching Big 10 basketball. Not only that, but they’re competitive in volleyball, track, and other non-money sports that’s gotta be appealing for Texas Athletics.
Do you think there’s any serious chance that if were to join the Big 10 we could still be an independent in baseball?
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 25, 2010 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions
I raised that possibility...
…last week. I think probably not, but it seems, at least on paper, more feasible than football-only independence or total independence.
by Hopkins Horn on May 25, 2010 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Michigan in maybe five years. Rodriguez isn’t doing that program any favors right now. August apparently is when the ruling comes down about the practices?
Michigan alumni must be sick at this point. A storied, clean program and now this.
Tate Forcier was impressive the few times I caught some of their games.
by dimecoverage on May 25, 2010 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions
While Michigan's last two seasons have put Rodriguez on the hot seat...
Most of the Michigan fanbase regards the practice violations primarily as a load of crap (and so, apparently, does Ohio State). Furthermore, the university released its self-imposed sanctions, which amount to a handful of punitive measures (65 fewer practice hours a season for the next two years, two QC people cut, a couple years probation, etc….). Also, in the report, the University takes some shots at the Detroit Free Press for writing the incredibly sensationalized story that led to the investigation in the first place.
Perhaps the entire top 5...
…if ND and NU also joined in a multi-team expansion.
by Hopkins Horn on May 25, 2010 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions
Agreed if the money keeps flowing in.
It is the off-season. We need a diversion.
by dimecoverage on May 24, 2010 10:25 PM CDT up reply actions
Hey, some like recruiting
Some like pontificating game theory. BON takes all kinds.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 25, 2010 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions
The Big 10 is a boring-ass conference
that plays boring-ass football, and I for one want nothing to do with it. It seems ludicrous to me to consider anything other than the SEC, particularly with out penchant for believing we are the bee’s knees when it comes to – well, everything. The SEC, as we’ve all heard for years, is the best conference, top-to-bottom, in the nation. If we are going to call ourselves the best, then we need to play among the best.
I can’t even begin to describe the overwhelming feeling of “meh, who cares” that comes over me when I see a hypothetical Texas-in-the-Big-10 schedule. Illinois? Minnesota? Purdue? Michigan State? Indiana? Northwestern? Who gives a rat’s ass about playing any of these teams on a regular basis? Sure, tOSU, PSU, and (maybe) Michigan would be fun every now and then, but I’m pretty sure our offense would devolve to the level of the competition (see UT vs. tOSU in the Fiesta Bowl).
I would much, much rather see us play the SEC teams, which have a lot more interesting competition at the top – Florida, Alabama, LSU – and the middle – South Carolina, Ole Miss, Miss. St, Tennessee, Arkansas, Auburn – than the Big 10. Geographically it makes more sense; I’ve road-tripped to Auburn before, so any of the schools inside of that range are fair game – and I really think only South Carolina is probably out of the realm of possibility road-trip-wise.
My choices, in order, are SEC, Pac-10, re-tooled Big XII, Big 10. Maybe being independent deserves some thought, too.
If the world was a school, we'd be homecoming king...
My apologies
I forgot to use the extent to which conferences feature boring-ass football as a factor to consider when evaluating our options. Won’t make that oversight again.
by Hopkins Horn on May 25, 2010 8:31 AM CDT up reply actions
I have the BTN and watched some Big Ten football as long as I could. It was definitely better than watching ACC football on FoxSports.
by dimecoverage on May 25, 2010 8:59 AM CDT up reply actions
In case you hadn't noticed...
…BON is a sports blog. Meaning, folks around here, for the most part, care about sports. It’s an easy step from there to the following premise: Folks around here, for the most part, care about football. It’s awesome when our basketball team does good, and it’s awesome when our baseball team does good, and it’s supercalifragi-awesome when we achieve the triumvirate of football/basketball/baseball awesomeness all in the same year.
All of this other errata is mere fluff. Politics, TV networks, academic alliances – hogwash. We are the premier university in one of the largest, most populous states in the union. We have a massive fan base and an equally massive endowment. We are not going to succeed or fail based on which conference we’re a member of (see the arguments above about the current state of Big XII academics), just like we’re not failing now because of our membership in the Big XII.
I have paid more for season football tickets in my lifetime than I paid for tuition during my years in Austin; and that gap is only going to get wider, as my children are now at the ages where they are interested (at least, they’re interested in halftime, and hot dogs) and I’ve got more seats to buy. So, yes – my main concern is that we not get a bunch more schedules like, say, this year’s schedule, when Wyoming, Iowa State, Baylor, and Florida Atlantic come calling. (Oklahoma State would be in that group of “this is a waste of perfectly good money” opponents if not for the scares they’ve given us in recent years. It remains to be seen how they compete now that most of their studs have moved on.)
Basically, I’m paying $400 per seat for two potentially interesting games: UCLA and aggy. While it’s probably not a popular thing to come out and admit, I for one have problem admitting that what I care most about in all this conference realignment talk is how it affects the sports programs – and, in particular, the football program.
If the world was a school, we'd be homecoming king...
If this is what you believe:
Politics, TV networks, academic alliances – hogwash.
it’s pointless having this discussion with you because you don’t get it in the least.
by Hopkins Horn on May 25, 2010 9:14 AM CDT up reply actions
It's not that I don't get it.
It’s that I don’t care. There’s a difference.
I know that, in the end, politics, TV networks, and academics will play significant parts in whether and where we move. My point was that I don’t care about any of that stuff – and, whether they’ll admit it or not, my guess is that most folks around here don’t care all that much about it, either.
Allow me to rephrase my two previous posts in a more succinct manner: If I were given a vote, my vote would go to joining the SEC, because I believe that will produce the most compelling athletic matchups. Said matchups are what I care most about, and I do not believe that joining the SEC will adversely impact the rest of the university’s operations.
If the world was a school, we'd be homecoming king...
Thanks . . .
. . . for proving me correct.
by Hopkins Horn on May 25, 2010 9:37 AM CDT up reply actions
Well, now I know the reason the second largest, most populous state in the union lags far behind so many states academically.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 25, 2010 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions
I do too
but I’m guessing we have different conclusions.
by GwinnettGamecock on May 26, 2010 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
No problem.
I don’t mind agreeing with your post in the other forum (which I hadn’t seen). And I think you are exactly right – those of us who care particularly strongly about football are more likely to favor joining the SEC, for the reasons I mention above.
But I don’t want you to leave with the impression that I don’t care about anything else related to the University; rather, I believe that the other things being bandied about regarding politics, academic alliances, etc. should be secondary concerns, as I don’t believe they will be as negatively influenced by us joining the SEC as the football program would be by us joining the Big 10.
If the world was a school, we'd be homecoming king...
Agree to disagree
This what makes realignment fascinating: everyone has their own different ways to balance the athletic, academic, financial, geographic and political consdierations in making a decision.
Given that, I would like to ask you to reconcile this:
academic alliances, etc. should be secondary concerns, as I don’t believe they will be as negatively influenced by us joining the SEC
in light of this. Seems like pretty good evidence of the hundreds of millions of dollars the university would be leaving on the table by not joining the Big 10 and the CIC.
by Hopkins Horn on May 25, 2010 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions
boring ass football
you mean like Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas St., Baylor, Missouri, Louisiana Lafayette, North Texas, UTEP, Arkansas St., Central Florida….
Yeah, I’d hate to play Penn St., Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, (and possibly) Notre Dame on a regular basis. Because it sucks to play teams with 100,000 seat stadiums with rabid fan bases who actually give a rat’s ass about the game. Lets just keep playing Rice instead.
by BrooklynHorn on May 25, 2010 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions
That's exactly what I mean.
Why trade boring-ass Iowa State et. al for boring-ass Minnesota et al? And I conceded that PSU, tOSU, and possibly Michigan would be fun (not going with you on Wisconsin). Notre Dame would be fun, but I don’t really think that would happen on a regular basis (aside – my dad and I went to South Bend last time Texas played there – awesome trip. Then had a ball in Austin the following year when they came. Unfortunately both were losses, but still fun games to go to).
I would rather play Florida, Alabama, LSU than PSU, tOSU, and Michigan. Rather play Tennessee than Wisconsin. Plus, I could actually make it to some of those games – not so if we’re playing in yankee land.
If the world was a school, we'd be homecoming king...
"Down in front!"
Big stadiums and rabid fan bases do not always go hand in hand.
Live in big ten country. The only rabid fan base in that group is Ohio State. I know Penn State “fans” who couldn’t even tell you their conference affiliation, let alone the starting o-line.
by GwinnettGamecock on May 26, 2010 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions
Crazy like a FOX...
Clearly, if the SEC is an option AND we have to leave, then it makes sense geographically & some financially to consider them over the Pac-10 or Big 10. However, I just think the greater chance of missing out on BCS bowls has to impact Texas a little by being part of the SEC.
Also, since FOX just got shut out of the BCS bowl system for the next decade, I am surprised that they haven’t entered talks to pick up one or two teams to showcase on a seasonal basis a la NBC & Notre Dame. If the Big 12 implodes, Texas could go Independent and maybe tie in with FOX? I still can’t shake how the #1 program in athletics and financial strength can’t hold a conference together or build one for that matter. The SEC, Big 10, and Pac-10 don’t deserve a prize like us….
"I've never gone into a game trying to win the Heisman Trophy; I go into a game trying to win." - Colt McCoy
The SEC, Big 10, and Pac-10 don’t deserve a prize like us
This is ludicrous.
by Hopkins Horn on May 25, 2010 8:29 AM CDT up reply actions
"TEXAS + SEC = FOOTBALL POWER 4EVER"
This is ludicrous,the conference doesn’t make the team.The players and coach make the team.
We are a football power 4 ever as it is…..
Dude...
If his point was that the statement “TEXAS + SEC = FOOTBALL POWER 4EVER” was ludicrous, then he missed the fact that I was saying that such a statement shouldn’t be taken seriously either.
And if his point was that “we are a football power 4 ever as it is,” then someone has an extraordinarily short memory and doesn’t remember the Mackovic Era. Or the McWilliams Era. Or the second half of the Akres Era.
by Hopkins Horn on May 25, 2010 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions
OK , i see what you are saying as long as it was not saying that conference will determine if we will be good or not .I mean it does have everything to do with where you will be going, respect of your opponents etc but it will not take the SEC to make us.
I remember those era’s very good we stunk,but that’s my point players and coaches make the team .
All good points
TV revenue is key, although in the SEC adding Texas/OU/A&M makes games more interesting. It just isnt the same as playing OK State, Kansas or Texas Tech sorry.
The other thing is AAU BS… the SEC schools Academics arent as bad as people say and BIg 12 arent as good as people say either. Try getting into Auburn Veterinary and I went to a Sun Belt school and make six figures too. Get over yourseleves as far as academics go, in the real world it’s degree plus personality, good looks, politics and performance.
I doubt the SEC wants us, Arkansas and LSU would suffer for it as would Mississippi and State. I frankly think Texas and OU would still dominate in a new conference.
My concern would be further opening Texas to SEC raiding and losing more recruits if UT joined the SEC. Texas kids dont want to play up north by in large.
Finally, and I will shut up, the Big 10 Network shows games that gamblers and alums watch and thats about it. Indiana/Northwestern or Arkansas/Texas? Please…
The first is on at 11 am, latter is on ABC at night folks…
This speaks for itself . . .
. . . and all I have to point out is that Texas played Arkansas three times in the 2000s, and none of the three meetings were prime-time network broadcasts.
by Hopkins Horn on May 25, 2010 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions
The only thing I would add
Is in the 2000s, they were non-conference meetings. However in a new SEC that would be a conference tilt in the West, possibly unbeatens, definately rivals and the passion of that interstate tilt would return. Talk about rowdy, only the old folks would remember those days.
Because the pigs have let their program go in decline. Not that I find this sad in any way.
That is a HUGE drawback to the SEC. Arkansas. I’ve been to games in pigland and it isn’t pleasant. Pennies rained down for most of the first half. They threw empty bottles of liquor at our players.
Those people are crass.
by dimecoverage on May 25, 2010 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions
That is why we need Home and Away
I just want Home and Away with OU, LSU, Arkansas, A&M, MIssissippi and Miss St
Recently you have to admit its been weak schedules and blah games that make you dont want be in the heat. Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa St, Baylor ehhhhh We have been buying our season tickets for about 2-3 games a year, and I’m tired of it. This year is no different. SEC schools at least get their $ worth of games. Big 12 is 2nd class and UT is King but still the games are 2nd class unless its OU or the Aggies ever get their act together again.
I would still prefer PAC 10
We are not a Southern State for the most part. Outside of the woods of East Texas, we are a western state with a little Midwest in the panhandle.
From a football standpoint only
it would be pretty amazing. I see FOUR potentially intense rivalries due to geography and/or history: A&M, OU, LSU, and Arkansas. I see Alabama becoming another rivalry given the very recent history. I’ve suggested this before, but playing LSU at Reliant Stadium every year would be at the same level as OU @ Dallas.
SEC sucks at basketball though. It would be Calipari and Barnes fighting for recruits and then dueling it in the SEC championship game. Big XII hoops is at an elite level, just behind the Big East.
by goingforthecorner on May 25, 2010 5:28 PM CDT reply actions
Would someone please break it down simply for me.
I know Texas & ND are the crown jewels of conference realignment. And I get why a&m is discussed w/ every UT scenario. However, why is it that TTech isn’t also considered to be attached to UT’s hip? Aren’t all 3 “state-schools”? What are the basic differences between TTech & aggie that keep TTech in a lower realignment class as a&m?
Tech is not the same level as A&M academically. A&M is an AAU member school, which is an elite club. It means lots of research cash coming to the A&M. While we are talking about “athletic conferences” really they are also “academic conferences” as well. Remember that a University is not there to have a minor league sports team but there for education.
Why is Tech not joined at UT’s hip? Well, they might be. In fact, I think that the all 3 are tied in a big block. But they are not tied in any LEGAL sense, but rather through the political mine field that might be at the State Capital.
What UT hopes, is that they can get untied, and be the master of their own destiny, but getting tied to A&M is ok, and workable for UT. Tech…really limits UT though as what conference can take 3 teams…and one of those 3 are academically lacking? (Only the SEC).
UT fans and even fans of the Big-10, or the Pac-10 don’t want to consider Tech and the 3 Texas schools as a block, because its not fun to talk about, cause it kills the expansion talks…right there for those 2 conferences.
Thanks. All that makes sense.
I guess a lot of that was common perception that I was seeing anyway, however, I didn’t know about the AAU thing. Just thought there was something more concrete that I wasn’t seeing. Definitely, the long-time kinship with a&m is obvious – I’d be seriously disappointed if they didn’t stay in the same conference as UT.
if you look at the endowments for the three schools
and then look at the research dollars for the three schools, then look at the athletic histories of the three schools, you’ll see why A&M and texas are considered a pair and Tech is the odd man out.
Add in the fact that A&M and texas have an economic connection through the PUF, which texas does not, and you’ve answered your own question.
We'd never get to a NC game in the SEC
Competition is too fierce in the SEC – and UT would get beat up throughout each year and never make it to the show. Basketball would not be ideal, but SEC hoops don’t “suck” as was mentioned earlier… remember, they did have a few teams finish in the top 25 this year – though admittedly they have a ways to go to be up with us. No, staying in the Big 12 or moving to the Big 10 are our two best options. (Plus, we’re not in “the southeast” but that’s a different discussion).
As a side-note Hopkins, do you not edit your pieces before you hit ‘enter’? You had more typos than in my 9-year-old’s first typed homework assignment. Just a head’s up.
Just at first glance:
You had more typos than in my 9-year-old’s first typed homework assignment.
This is logically incorrect — he didn’t have more typos, his write-up did.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 25, 2010 7:27 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
I laughed out loud at your witty humor & self-control.
Then I laughed harder when the “grammar policeman’s” grammar was graded an “F”.
Also
“heads up” not “head’s up”
You either don’t know the idiom or don’t know the proper use of the possessive. Possibly both.
There should be a space between “don’t” and “suck.” This is a typo.
One typically does not make parentheticals into their own sentences set off with a period outside the parentheses (as in, “(Plus, we’re not in ‘the southeast’ but that’s a different discussion).”).
If you are going to randomly bring up typos and grammar, make sure your writing is error-free.
Tit4tat, an obvious SEC troll and a typo troll in one convenient package.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on May 26, 2010 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions
If you are going to randomly bring up typos and grammar, make sure your writing is error-free.
Honestly, I don’t care if your writing is error-free. Just don’t bring up typos and grammar unless they obscure the meaning of the text. It’s rude and distracting in a forum like this.
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on May 26, 2010 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Oh I totally agree
but it’s always amusing when someone calling out typos and grammar has a post full of errors. I never bring up typos/grammar unless it’s in response to a post like tit4tat’s.
I find this whole "oh, the SEC is sooooo tough, you'll never make it the championship game" excuse baffling
people said the same crap about A&M and texas going into the Big 12, that we ’couldn’t compete with the football programs of the Big 8’; three years later, three straight trips to the Big 12 Championship Game between the two schools, and two conference titles later, people were singing a different tune.
If A&M or texas go to the SEC in the next two years, one or the other will be winning their division and playing for the conference championship by their second year in the conference, at the latest. People forget that when you move to play tougher competition, you step up your game and adjust. We did that when the Big 12 was formed, and I don’t see how that would change if both schools moved to the SEC.
"UT would get beat up"?!
& all those other SEC guys don’t already? It’d be a level playing field for everyone, for sure. There’s been plenty of SEC champs making it to “the show” in recent years and Texas would be annual favorites too. After the last 10 year’s worth of annual bloodbath & for-all-the-marbles games vs. the sooners, I think Texas would handle the SEC boys just fine. USC thought that UT couldn’t handle the big-time either.
Great job.
Been out of the loop for a little while, and haven’t had a chance to go through all the comments, but this series is fun stuff Hopkins. Thanks for the diversions and thought-provocation.
by Infield Elephant on May 26, 2010 10:45 AM CDT reply actions
I still see that youre taking digs out Alabama's NC in the very beginning. Classy
by CrimsonTide229 on May 26, 2010 10:52 PM CDT reply actions
If pointing out the elephant in the room equals making a dig, then I stand guilty as charged
by Hopkins Horn on May 27, 2010 12:13 AM CDT up reply actions
Well...
You are reading articles on a site that only deals with Texas sports.
No one is disputing the win. We have no idea what would have happened if McCoy had not been injured. We like to dream, but there is no way to ever know.
Congratulations to Alabama for winning the championship. Saban is a great coach and Bama was a tough competitor.
Feeling better now?
by dimecoverage on May 27, 2010 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions
Fantastic article
Seriously this is truly the best realignment discussion i’ve seen virtually anywhere, as convincing, well researched, and well reasoned as anything i’ve seen written on the topic, to the extent that i had to create an account just to be a part of discussing it (i’m not a longhorn fan…). I had seen the UT Austin-to-the-SEC argument made elsewhere and was fairly unconvinced, but you’ve made a fantastic case for it. I find myself unable to disavow any of your major points and find it most likely that the powers that be will likewise be forced to gravitate in that direction. Well done, sir!
by SanFranciscoStateGaters on May 30, 2010 12:37 AM CDT reply actions
One other thing...
While it’s fun to debate and discuss all this, the reality is that the top decision makers and money men at UT would never even think of moving to the SEC. I’ve personally heard from two former UTIMCO heads what they think of the SEC, and the conference is an absolute non-starter for them and their peers.
And I say this as an SEC grad that hates UT, by the way.
You are correct about this
I’m among those who knows it makes sense on a number of levels and f***ng hate the idea of it. I have nothing against the SEC so long as they’re… well… THEY. Not us.
You ain't hurt...
I agree with you as well
Keep in mind, if I hadn’t made it clear, that I was trying to demonstrate what the best looking argument for “Texas to the SEC” would look like, even if I don’t agree with the argument myself and even if I tend to agree with your assessment that it will be a non-starter for many in positions of influence throughout the UT community.
What was surprising to me, as I wrote the piece, was how much stronger the SEC case was than I had originally imagined if focusing on athletics only. If athletics were the only factor, and Texas had to move to another conference, the SEC is pretty close to being a clear slam dunk ahead of the Big 10 and the Pac 10.
Unfortunately for SEC backers, I think there are cultural and, more importantly, academic factors (hey, I did the best I could with the fact pattern I had!) which will keep this discussion from ever getting on the table, except if UT misplays its hand and finds itself backed into a corner in which its only option besides the SEC were a “rebuilt” Big XII, rebuilt with the likes of Houston and SMU and Colorado State.
by Hopkins Horn on May 31, 2010 9:15 AM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
