(07-13-2011 04:56 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 04:54 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 04:45 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 04:38 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 04:33 PM)ADAMantium Wrote:  It's time for them to flip the bird, if you catch my drift.

When the SWC folded they were part of the plan all along. Baylor and Tech were the schools that got in thanks to politics.

It is accurate on both of you guys points:
1- ATM did have hesitations about the Big8 and was pushing UT to go east at the last minute and BU & TT's allies "gave" Reed Arena to A&M to get them on board once BU & TT crashed the party.
2- UT & ATM were part of the plan for the 10 team league from the beginning before BU & TT came into the picture.

As I recall the closest A&M came to the SEC back then involved UH and A&M together.

I know as "crazy" as that may seem now there is actual journalistic evidence that those talks were taking place.

I have seen the articles but don't have the time to find them now. I remember something about A&M's AD or a BOR golfing with SEC bigwigs discussing the two of us coming to the SEC.

I remember that article or one like it saying UH (or any other non-ut SWC team) was not deemed an acceptable partner in the SEC's eyes and it did not get far. Its the reason they were lobbying UT and why there was still a debate when TT & BU crashed the party.

At the time the discussion were taking place were were a regular top 25 school in FB. Soon to hit rock bottom but at the time considered a strong FB addition.

I think the Reed Arena/Big 12 deal had more to do with the deal falling apart then UH being in the mix.

It was always as you said A&M and someone else. We were just the best of the rest at the time.

(07-13-2011 05:01 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 04:56 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 04:54 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 04:45 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 04:38 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  When the SWC folded they were part of the plan all along. Baylor and Tech were the schools that got in thanks to politics.

It is accurate on both of you guys points:
1- ATM did have hesitations about the Big8 and was pushing UT to go east at the last minute and BU & TT's allies "gave" Reed Arena to A&M to get them on board once BU & TT crashed the party.
2- UT & ATM were part of the plan for the 10 team league from the beginning before BU & TT came into the picture.

As I recall the closest A&M came to the SEC back then involved UH and A&M together.

I know as "crazy" as that may seem now there is actual journalistic evidence that those talks were taking place.

I have seen the articles but don't have the time to find them now. I remember something about A&M's AD or a BOR golfing with SEC bigwigs discussing the two of us coming to the SEC.

I remember that article or one like it saying UH (or any other non-ut SWC team) was not deemed an acceptable partner in the SEC's eyes and it did not get far. Its the reason they were lobbying UT and why there was still a debate when TT & BU crashed the party.

At the time the discussion were taking place were were a regular top 25 school in FB. Soon to hit rock bottom but at the time considered a strong FB addition.

I think the Reed Arena/Big 12 deal had more to do with the deal falling apart then UH being in the mix.

It was always as you said A&M and someone else. We were just the best of the rest at the time.

My understanding is this stuff went down in 92-94 so it would be after UH came back down.

(07-13-2011 04:55 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Not exactly for 2 big reasons:
1- Superconferences: It can rip up existing contracts with the ACC, SEC, Big East, Pac12, and Big 12 that were just done or at least have a few years on them in a more competitive bidding environment. Its a losing proposition.
2- They would be trading A&M vs UT or A&M vs OU for tier2 games like A&M vs MSU and A&M vs Vandy, CBS would get the best ones in the SEC and ESPN/ABC gets the best in the Big 12.

I think the details are way above the both of us, but I tend to think Texas independence while unlikely is not an impossibility.

I think 14 team conferences can be feasible. It is when leagues go to 16 that many of the issues you consider will come to pass.

Just for argument’s sake use the original article as a point in favor of independence.

ESPN paid a premium for a Texas home game. If Texas as Indy they would have rights to all of those games without having to pay the additional premium like they did now thanks to the Fox deal with the Big 12-2.

The money saved could offset A&M +1 under a new SEC deal.

(07-13-2011 05:08 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 04:55 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Not exactly for 2 big reasons:
1- Superconferences: It can rip up existing contracts with the ACC, SEC, Big East, Pac12, and Big 12 that were just done or at least have a few years on them in a more competitive bidding environment. Its a losing proposition.
2- They would be trading A&M vs UT or A&M vs OU for tier2 games like A&M vs MSU and A&M vs Vandy, CBS would get the best ones in the SEC and ESPN/ABC gets the best in the Big 12.

I think the details are way above the both of us, but I tend to think Texas independence while unlikely is not an impossibility.

I think 14 team conferences can be feasible. It is when leagues go to 16 that many of the issues you consider will come to pass.

Just for argument’s sake use the original article as a point in favor of independence.

ESPN paid a premium for a Texas home game. If Texas as Indy they would have rights to all of those games without having to pay the additional premium like they did now thanks to the Fox deal with the Big 12-2.

The money saved could offset A&M +1 under a new SEC deal.

I believe your math is off due to not considering:
1- It might offset the SEC payment but it would not offset the increases that realigned ACC, BE, and Pac12 leagues would demand by a long shot.
2- ESPN has the tier 3 rights. If UT goes indy they have tier 1 & 2 available to the highest bidder. So ESPN would be paying even more just to hold onto what they already have.

(07-13-2011 03:57 PM)moo Wrote:  Whatever other problems can be solved, there's still the question of Texas state politics. Twice now A&M has tried to break away from Texas, twice now they've been forced to shut up and do as they're told.

Yep. It looks bad enough in the Big 12 that I think if A&M could have left they would have by now.

If UT and A&M really are inseparable I wonder if UT's real grand scheme might be make life in the Big 12 so miserable for A&M that when/if the Pac 12 tries again that the promise of equality and financial parity in the Pac 16 might be too much to pass up.

If I'm BYU I'm on the phone with the Big East right now. The Big 12 is not going to invite them because they are on shaky legs. The Big East is their only true BCS conference option. Join us, let us load up on teams and get a monster TV deal and conference TV network and make ourselves stable.

(07-13-2011 03:52 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 03:38 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 03:25 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 03:10 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  If A&M does pull the trigger, we can finally see some major movement. I suspect Texas will then pull the trigger and go indy.

Alternatively, they could look to join the P12, presumably along with OU, OSU and TTU to provide a TX-OK cluster.

True, but you know there is NO WAY Texas will go to the PAC-12 and expect to be treated just another conference member. They would want their own special deal etc.

I believe LHN is signed for 10+ years. Texas is headed for independence and that's their best option. Rest of the B12 gonna have to look for their own life jackets elsewhere.

There are enough of schools, including most of the B12-2, willing to let UTA have their way so that independence would remain unnecessary. If TAMU left, there would be a line at the door for their conference slot. SMU or UH would sign up in a heart beat. BYU already has its own network and may be able to take advantage of the B12-2 TV structure. Depending on the outcome of the BE TV deal, there may be BE members willing to bolt. East Carolina, the school and all of its fans, might even relocate to East Texas!

(07-13-2011 03:42 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  If they all want to be Texas' bi*ches, I guess B12 will stay together.

I almost said this, but then thought it may be too harsh. +1.

No one from the Big East is going to touch the Big 12, especially with A&M looking to leave. In fact, if A&M left there are schools that would immediately call us about joining. First of all if A&M leaves ESPN is going to lower that Big 12 contract, and Texas isn't going to care because they have their network. The conference would also be ridiculously unstable, if A&M is willing to leave what makes people think that Louisville and others would want to be a part of that?

Louisville would not think about moving , if this is true!

(07-13-2011 05:41 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 03:52 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 03:38 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 03:25 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 03:10 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  If A&M does pull the trigger, we can finally see some major movement. I suspect Texas will then pull the trigger and go indy.

Alternatively, they could look to join the P12, presumably along with OU, OSU and TTU to provide a TX-OK cluster.

True, but you know there is NO WAY Texas will go to the PAC-12 and expect to be treated just another conference member. They would want their own special deal etc.

I believe LHN is signed for 10+ years. Texas is headed for independence and that's their best option. Rest of the B12 gonna have to look for their own life jackets elsewhere.

There are enough of schools, including most of the B12-2, willing to let UTA have their way so that independence would remain unnecessary. If TAMU left, there would be a line at the door for their conference slot. SMU or UH would sign up in a heart beat. BYU already has its own network and may be able to take advantage of the B12-2 TV structure. Depending on the outcome of the BE TV deal, there may be BE members willing to bolt. East Carolina, the school and all of its fans, might even relocate to East Texas!

(07-13-2011 03:42 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  If they all want to be Texas' bi*ches, I guess B12 will stay together.

I almost said this, but then thought it may be too harsh. +1.

No one from the Big East is going to touch the Big 12, especially with A&M looking to leave. In fact, if A&M left there are schools that would immediately call us about joining. First of all if A&M leaves ESPN is going to lower that Big 12 contract, and Texas isn't going to care because they have their network. The conference would also be ridiculously unstable, if A&M is willing to leave what makes people think that Louisville and others would want to be a part of that?

A Big 12 with Texas, Oklahoma, and whatever combination of teams you pick is still a better conference than the Big East for football.

(07-13-2011 03:22 PM)nuftw Wrote:  Ignoring the eminent/imminent and insure/ensure issues in the article, the author forgets a simple point: Texas politics will not allow Texas A&M to leave the conference.

Maybe, but...

In 1994 it was stopped because the sitting governor was a Baylor alum and the Lt. Gov. went to Texas Tech. (Which schools joined with UT and A&M?)

In 2011, the sitting governor is a former yell leader at A&M and the Lt. Gov. went to school out of state.

Let's see how TAMU/Clemson could play out for the Big East.

SEC (TAMU/Clemson)
ACC (Pitt, Syracuse, WVU)
Big East (Temple, UMass, ECU)
CUSA (WKU)

Any move by the SEC will have an indirect impact of watering down the Big East significantly.

If ESPN was smart they would make sure they take care of Tex. A&M & Oklahoma. If these two schools left in the near future it could be devistating for Texas & ESPN...What would Texas be without them? Not much competition anymore.

Sorry but the Aggies aren't going anywhere. The folks in College Station see UT picking up the additional revenue from the LHN and want a piece of the deal. This is another self-serving article written by a A&M mouthpiece, spun to shed the best light on A&M while UT starting counting its cash. What else are the Aggies going to do? Besides The Texas State Government won't let A&M leave Texas. The Aggies can hold their breath til they turn Kansas blue but it won't happen. Rumors like this will do nothing but drive The Big 12 to expand back to 12. Safety in numbers. BTW they also own the right to Big 14 and Big 16....just in case.
CJ

+ On the money JIM.

I have a hard time seeing how ESPN would pay any more to the SEC to ruin their long term contract with the ACC by taking Clemson. The Big12 south would probably end up in the PAC12 as a result of this and demand even more money than ESPN has already paid them. It would require CBS paying a lot more since they have first tier rights to SEC and ESPN wouldn't have incentive to initiate this. CBS doesn't air nearly as many games as ESPN though so would they want more games than they have already? I think that if A&M leaves, they would have to be paired with another Big12 school instead of an ACC school. As I understand it, the Big12 doesn't have long left on their ESPN deal.

(07-13-2011 04:25 PM)Hoquista Wrote:  I don't get Clemson as #14.

Anyway, is there logic behind one team from the East and West rather than two to the western side? For example, would it be easier to split the SEC divisions?

It allows Alabama and Auburn to stay in the same division. If 2 western teams are added, the most likely team to be added to the east is one of those 2 schools...

(07-13-2011 04:55 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 04:47 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(07-13-2011 03:27 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  All that has to happen is for ESPN to calm A&M's fears about the use of the network. If ESPN is as strongly against superconferences as has been reported, this can be easily accomplished and bankrolled if need be.

Its still a lot to think about.

True but the thing to think about is from ESPN's point of view. Where is A&M more valuable to them?

They own the rights to the SEC and in essence the rights to whatever the Big 12 will be called now....

ESPN would not be losing them. They would just be shifting from one ESPN entity to another.

Not exactly for 2 big reasons:
1- Superconferences: It can rip up existing contracts with the ACC, SEC, Big East, Pac12, and Big 12 that were just done or at least have a few years on them in a more competitive bidding environment. Its a losing proposition.
2- They would be trading A&M vs UT or A&M vs OU for tier2 games like A&M vs MSU and A&M vs Vandy, CBS would get the best ones in the SEC and ESPN/ABC gets the best in the Big 12.

I realize you're trying to back your point, but saying a&m would be trading oklahoma and texas for vandy and Miss st is a bit of a stretch. They would be trading texas and oklahoma for teams like auburn and alabama. iowa and kansas might be better to compare for a trade, to vandy and miss state

(07-13-2011 06:15 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Let's see how TAMU/Clemson could play out for the Big East.

SEC (TAMU/Clemson)
ACC (Pitt, Syracuse, WVU)
Big East (Temple, UMass, ECU)
CUSA (WKU)

Any move by the SEC will have an indirect impact of watering down the Big East significantly.

That scenario would likely end up costing the BE its BCS money which at that point takes away all desire most ECU fans would have to be in the BE.

(07-13-2011 06:15 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Let's see how TAMU/Clemson could play out for the Big East.

SEC (TAMU/Clemson)
ACC (Pitt, Syracuse, WVU)
Big East (Temple, UMass, ECU)
CUSA (WKU)

Any move by the SEC will have an indirect impact of watering down the Big East significantly.

WKU is going nowhere since they've stunk up the place since they moved to FBS

(07-13-2011 04:07 PM)BullsFanatic Wrote:  A&M to the SEC could happen in the near future, but there is no way I see the SEC picking Clemson out of the ACC as the 14th team. Florida State and Miami are more likely choices for the East division.

It could happen fast -- here's how -- the SEC and ESPN could use expansion to form an SEC Network jointly owned by the SEC and ESPN a la the B1G's and FOX's deal on the BTN. The additional weekly game created by expansion could be combined with the conference's tier 3 rights and one game per week contributed from the existing regional package or ESPNU, which would provide 3 FB games per week during FB season for a new network. This would be equivalent to the inventory of the P12 Network. Value could be 5-10 million/year per school on top of current rights. That's just what the SEC is looking for.

As far as FSU vs Clemson, not sure it actually matters. I agree FSU is a stronger choice. However, UF should deliver the state of Florida for a conference network. Clemson might add the Charlotte area of NC for the network.