(02-14-2015 09:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 08:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 02:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  This is not a trivial point. It doesn't matter as much when you are going to an away game, because you generally arrive considerably ahead of the game. It's the trip home. If you get back two hours later, especially on a weeknight, that's a big deal. And that's what would happen to UT if it joined the PAC.

Exactly right. If they go anywhere it will be to the ACC or SEC and it will not only be about travel, but also culture, football culture (a different issue), and about maintaining dominance or at least extreme competitiveness in their own region. It will take being in a very regional division to make it happen anywhere. I don't see the Big 10 taking enough Big 12 schools to make for a compelling division for Texas. The PAC might be able to do that but the travel issues will remain, especially for fans. So if the ACC opens a Western Division it might happen, or they could always join Missouri, Arkansas, L.S.U., and A&M in the SEC west and do so with Oklahoma, or possibly even Oklahoma, OSU, and another Texas school.

With the money being close to that offered by the Big 10, and with Alabama and Auburn moving to the East in the SEC then a division would be created in which Texas and Oklahoma essentially have what would be a dream conference for them if only under a Big 12 banner.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M.

Now that's a divisional schedule of 7 games that gets the alumni jazzed and provides real marquee games for the season ticket holders, and away games easily reached by a reasonable drive instead of a flight.

Now consider how it works for the Old SEC Core:

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

That does more to preserve traditional rivalries than anything with only a few exceptions with series that aren't even close.

But that said, I do believe Texas would prefer to wait to see if the Big 10 is successful in acquiring anymore eastern targets the eventuality of which might free some viable names for the Big 12. When that contingency is proven to be no longer viable then they'll move.

Nice attempt, despite how many times you try to make it. Texas isn't following the Aggies.

Probably not, I still think there is a better than average chance a new conference gets built around both the Horns and Sooners. I also still think that the final Big 10 growth will be out of the ACC and that because of it the SEC's will be as well. But if it isn't and the Big 12 does get parsed, the Horns will stay east, southeast to be precise in either the ACC or SEC. We'll see.

The ACC or SEC means the ACC. It is not a slap at the SEC. They get everything they want from the ACC much more so than they do with the SEC.

Do tell. How so?

(02-14-2015 09:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 08:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 02:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  This is not a trivial point. It doesn't matter as much when you are going to an away game, because you generally arrive considerably ahead of the game. It's the trip home. If you get back two hours later, especially on a weeknight, that's a big deal. And that's what would happen to UT if it joined the PAC.

Exactly right. If they go anywhere it will be to the ACC or SEC and it will not only be about travel, but also culture, football culture (a different issue), and about maintaining dominance or at least extreme competitiveness in their own region. It will take being in a very regional division to make it happen anywhere. I don't see the Big 10 taking enough Big 12 schools to make for a compelling division for Texas. The PAC might be able to do that but the travel issues will remain, especially for fans. So if the ACC opens a Western Division it might happen, or they could always join Missouri, Arkansas, L.S.U., and A&M in the SEC west and do so with Oklahoma, or possibly even Oklahoma, OSU, and another Texas school.

With the money being close to that offered by the Big 10, and with Alabama and Auburn moving to the East in the SEC then a division would be created in which Texas and Oklahoma essentially have what would be a dream conference for them if only under a Big 12 banner.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M.

Now that's a divisional schedule of 7 games that gets the alumni jazzed and provides real marquee games for the season ticket holders, and away games easily reached by a reasonable drive instead of a flight.

Now consider how it works for the Old SEC Core:

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

That does more to preserve traditional rivalries than anything with only a few exceptions with series that aren't even close.

But that said, I do believe Texas would prefer to wait to see if the Big 10 is successful in acquiring anymore eastern targets the eventuality of which might free some viable names for the Big 12. When that contingency is proven to be no longer viable then they'll move.

Nice attempt, despite how many times you try to make it. Texas isn't following the Aggies.

Probably not, I still think there is a better than average chance a new conference gets built around both the Horns and Sooners. I also still think that the final Big 10 growth will be out of the ACC and that because of it the SEC's will be as well. But if it isn't and the Big 12 does get parsed, the Horns will stay east, southeast to be precise in either the ACC or SEC. We'll see.

The ACC or SEC means the ACC. It is not a slap at the SEC. They get everything they want from the ACC much more so than they do with the SEC.

No they do not. Have you seen the viewership numbers of the SEC matched against the ACC? Ask yourself this, "Would ESPN pay more for games between Texas and SEC schools or ACC schools? It is not even close, and for that reason UT does not go to the ACC.

(02-14-2015 08:53 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 07:43 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 07:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  They better hope you're right Lurker, because I honestly don't see any P5 conferences actually being willing to take any of those 4 and dividing their pie smaller for them.

I believe market forces lead to the private schools being placed in their own conference with assurances, often backed with legislative mandates, that they continue to play their in-state rivals.

So in your opinion, who are the ACC adds if the private schools get placed in their own conference? What number of teams do you see the SEC and B1G settling on? What teams do you see being in the Pac?

Actually, the privates would be the remnants of the ACC. The ACC publics are the more valuable brands and most of them, maybe all 8 of them, likely will be in the SEC. I include Pitt as a private as they are quasi private under PA law and have more history with the privates.

I'll believe Texas to the PAC 12 when Miko's sources say so.

(02-14-2015 07:00 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 06:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  ISU and KSU aren't guranteed any soft landing either. They, along with BU and TCU would be sweating bullets

I do not believe any P5 school gets left behind. My prediction is ISU goes with UT, OU, and Kansas to the B1G so 3/4 of these invites would be AAU. It would also allow the B1G to put these 4 schools in the same division as Nebraska and allow Wisky, Minn, etc. to be in a division with their traditional rivals.

Thte Texoma 4( Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St) are safe. I think West Virginia ends up in the AAC or SEC. Kansas might get an invite to the Big 10.

The rest(K-state, Iowa St, TCU and Baylor) might be in trouble.

(02-14-2015 09:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 08:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Exactly right. If they go anywhere it will be to the ACC or SEC and it will not only be about travel, but also culture, football culture (a different issue), and about maintaining dominance or at least extreme competitiveness in their own region. It will take being in a very regional division to make it happen anywhere. I don't see the Big 10 taking enough Big 12 schools to make for a compelling division for Texas. The PAC might be able to do that but the travel issues will remain, especially for fans. So if the ACC opens a Western Division it might happen, or they could always join Missouri, Arkansas, L.S.U., and A&M in the SEC west and do so with Oklahoma, or possibly even Oklahoma, OSU, and another Texas school.

With the money being close to that offered by the Big 10, and with Alabama and Auburn moving to the East in the SEC then a division would be created in which Texas and Oklahoma essentially have what would be a dream conference for them if only under a Big 12 banner.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M.

Now that's a divisional schedule of 7 games that gets the alumni jazzed and provides real marquee games for the season ticket holders, and away games easily reached by a reasonable drive instead of a flight.

Now consider how it works for the Old SEC Core:

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

That does more to preserve traditional rivalries than anything with only a few exceptions with series that aren't even close.

But that said, I do believe Texas would prefer to wait to see if the Big 10 is successful in acquiring anymore eastern targets the eventuality of which might free some viable names for the Big 12. When that contingency is proven to be no longer viable then they'll move.

Nice attempt, despite how many times you try to make it. Texas isn't following the Aggies.

Probably not, I still think there is a better than average chance a new conference gets built around both the Horns and Sooners. I also still think that the final Big 10 growth will be out of the ACC and that because of it the SEC's will be as well. But if it isn't and the Big 12 does get parsed, the Horns will stay east, southeast to be precise in either the ACC or SEC. We'll see.

The ACC or SEC means the ACC. It is not a slap at the SEC. They get everything they want from the ACC much more so than they do with the SEC.

Do tell. How so?

As long as Notre Dame remains Independent, an Independent team will always have a route to the Playoff. What is necessary is the perception that they are strong enough based upon schedule and record. Texas can take advantage of that with a partial membership with the ACC. The SEC likely does not offer that. The SEC already has a chartered Network, the ACC does not. To join the SEC, The Longhorns would have to follow in the footsteps of The Aggies. If you don't think that is a big deal, then you are wrong.

They get into the conference with the most supported sports, the SEC is more like the big 12 in that regard than the ACC. They get much more control over their football scheduling. They actually protect their recruiting in Texas more so like that than they do by legitimizing a Texas centric conference with their presence. Things are not going well for Texas football in the big 12. There is nothing for them in still playing Midwest teams.

Texas is a public ivy. They will see more in common with the ACC in culture than they would with the SEC. Neither you nor Lurker should take that personally, but it is a truth.

I don't think Texas goes to SEC because of Texas AM.
I don't think Texas goes ACC because distance and no geographical rivals.
I don't think Texas goes Independent (scheduling nightmare, ect).
Texas goes to PAC if they can take some schools with them.
Texas goes to BIG if Oklahoma and Kansas are part of deal.

Whats the problem with UT,TT,OKl.OKL St being with Colorado,Utah,Arizona and Arizona St?

(02-14-2015 10:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 08:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Nice attempt, despite how many times you try to make it. Texas isn't following the Aggies.

Probably not, I still think there is a better than average chance a new conference gets built around both the Horns and Sooners. I also still think that the final Big 10 growth will be out of the ACC and that because of it the SEC's will be as well. But if it isn't and the Big 12 does get parsed, the Horns will stay east, southeast to be precise in either the ACC or SEC. We'll see.

The ACC or SEC means the ACC. It is not a slap at the SEC. They get everything they want from the ACC much more so than they do with the SEC.

Do tell. How so?

As long as Notre Dame remains Independent, an Independent team will always have a route to the Playoff. What is necessary is the perception that they are strong enough based upon schedule and record. Texas can take advantage of that with a partial membership with the ACC. The SEC likely does not offer that. The SEC already has a chartered Network, the ACC does not. To join the SEC, The Longhorns would have to follow in the footsteps of The Aggies. If you don't think that is a big deal, then you are wrong.

They get into the conference with the most supported sports, the SEC is more like the big 12 in that regard than the ACC. They get much more control over their football scheduling. They actually protect their recruiting in Texas more so like that than they do by legitimizing a Texas centric conference with their presence. Things are not going well for Texas football in the big 12. There is nothing for them in still playing Midwest teams.

Texas is a public ivy. They will see more in common with the ACC in culture than they would with the SEC. Neither you nor Lurker should take that personally, but it is a truth.

I'm not saying you do not make good points, you do, especially about Texas probably wishing it could have a Notre Dame type deal, but Texas would not get the same level of money and interest in the ACC vs the SEC or the B1G. Does UT want to follow TAMU, no, but they would proudly march into the SEC with OU, UNC and UVA and others following their lead.

(02-14-2015 10:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 08:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Nice attempt, despite how many times you try to make it. Texas isn't following the Aggies.

Probably not, I still think there is a better than average chance a new conference gets built around both the Horns and Sooners. I also still think that the final Big 10 growth will be out of the ACC and that because of it the SEC's will be as well. But if it isn't and the Big 12 does get parsed, the Horns will stay east, southeast to be precise in either the ACC or SEC. We'll see.

The ACC or SEC means the ACC. It is not a slap at the SEC. They get everything they want from the ACC much more so than they do with the SEC.

Do tell. How so?

As long as Notre Dame remains Independent, an Independent team will always have a route to the Playoff. What is necessary is the perception that they are strong enough based upon schedule and record. Texas can take advantage of that with a partial membership with the ACC. The SEC likely does not offer that. The SEC already has a chartered Network, the ACC does not. To join the SEC, The Longhorns would have to follow in the footsteps of The Aggies. If you don't think that is a big deal, then you are wrong.

They get into the conference with the most supported sports, the SEC is more like the big 12 in that regard than the ACC. They get much more control over their football scheduling. They actually protect their recruiting in Texas more so like that than they do by legitimizing a Texas centric conference with their presence. Things are not going well for Texas football in the big 12. There is nothing for them in still playing Midwest teams.

Texas is a public ivy. They will see more in common with the ACC in culture than they would with the SEC. Neither you nor Lurker should take that personally, but it is a truth.

What gets lost on folks around here is that it is the fans that have to be on board with the move of teams in college athletics. The fans in Texas want it to stay regional. That won't happen in the Big 10 as there aren't enough qualified schools in the Big 12 to make the move. That won't happen in the ACC for the same reason. That could happen in the SEC with the right divisional breakdown or in the PAC if enough schools formed an Eastern Division. But the travel to the rest of the PAC and the viewership out there will be a limiting factor.

The Horns know that if their only buddy in the Big 10 is Oklahoma that their fans will rebel.

As for the ACC what you don't get is what XLance has been laying down, namely that the core doesn't want to compete with football first schools that have the revenue from stadia that seat over 100,000 and they don't want to compete with budgets that are north of 80 million a year. As long as North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia control the ACC, and they still do, Texas will not be a member. Notre Dame for all of their prestige doesn't pose the threat to their way of life that Texas does.

Texas will be the center of its own universe as long as it can and when it can no longer occupy that position it will move to where its culture, its fans, and its bank account are the most satisfied and that is life. They don't need academics or they would have already been in the PAC. They don't need the CIC when they are endowed by Oil money in addition to a powerful state lobby. They don't need Tobacco Road either because those egos are bigger than those of Ohio State and Alabama combined.

So I simply don't believe your theory will come true.

And finally since the PAC is independently owned and undervalued because of it, and the Big 10 is majority FOX owned, and Texas is more obligated to ESPN than anyone else I think their future will line up accordingly through either joining an ESPN owned conference or being the center of a new ESPN majority owned conference. It's as simple as that.

ESPN could buy into a pac 20 after shift texas/OU over from the big 12

(02-14-2015 11:09 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 10:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Probably not, I still think there is a better than average chance a new conference gets built around both the Horns and Sooners. I also still think that the final Big 10 growth will be out of the ACC and that because of it the SEC's will be as well. But if it isn't and the Big 12 does get parsed, the Horns will stay east, southeast to be precise in either the ACC or SEC. We'll see.

The ACC or SEC means the ACC. It is not a slap at the SEC. They get everything they want from the ACC much more so than they do with the SEC.

Do tell. How so?

As long as Notre Dame remains Independent, an Independent team will always have a route to the Playoff. What is necessary is the perception that they are strong enough based upon schedule and record. Texas can take advantage of that with a partial membership with the ACC. The SEC likely does not offer that. The SEC already has a chartered Network, the ACC does not. To join the SEC, The Longhorns would have to follow in the footsteps of The Aggies. If you don't think that is a big deal, then you are wrong.

They get into the conference with the most supported sports, the SEC is more like the big 12 in that regard than the ACC. They get much more control over their football scheduling. They actually protect their recruiting in Texas more so like that than they do by legitimizing a Texas centric conference with their presence. Things are not going well for Texas football in the big 12. There is nothing for them in still playing Midwest teams.

Texas is a public ivy. They will see more in common with the ACC in culture than they would with the SEC. Neither you nor Lurker should take that personally, but it is a truth.

I'm not saying you do not make good points, you do, especially about Texas probably wishing it could have a Notre Dame type deal, but Texas would not get the same level of money and interest in the ACC vs the SEC or the B1G. Does UT want to follow TAMU, no, but they would proudly march into the SEC with OU, UNC and UVA and others following their lead.

Especially if they were the center of their own very Southwestern regional division.

(02-14-2015 11:57 AM)Shox Wrote:  So for you Texans, how far west do you have to go in that state before people consider themselves culturally "western." I assume Tech would fully embrace being in the Pac with the Arizona schools especially if New Mexico could ever get the ship righted and go Pac in 25 years. Is Austin midwest? Houston more "southern"? I really don't know and would be curious to get your take on it.

Texas is not culturally on the left coast. California is not western-its left coast.

(02-14-2015 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 02:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 02:09 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 11:33 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Texas has already made it clear that they aren't going out West. Saying otherwise is just saying otherwise. The facts point in a different direction.

Yes. If they are going to join a conference where most away games are plane rides, they are not going to join one where the majority of schools are in the Pacific time zone, two hours later than the Central, so many games end a couple of hours later and athletes get back to Texas two hours later.

The Eastern time zone is easier travel, since its an hour ahead, which is three hours ahead of a Pacific time zone game ending at the same local time.

This is not a trivial point. It doesn't matter as much when you are going to an away game, because you generally arrive considerably ahead of the game. It's the trip home. If you get back two hours later, especially on a weeknight, that's a big deal. And that's what would happen to UT if it joined the PAC.

Exactly right. If they go anywhere it will be to the ACC or SEC and it will not only be about travel, but also culture, football culture (a different issue), and about maintaining dominance or at least extreme competitiveness in their own region. It will take being in a very regional division to make it happen anywhere. I don't see the Big 10 taking enough Big 12 schools to make for a compelling division for Texas. The PAC might be able to do that but the travel issues will remain, especially for fans. So if the ACC opens a Western Division it might happen, or they could always join Missouri, Arkansas, L.S.U., and A&M in the SEC west and do so with Oklahoma, or possibly even Oklahoma, OSU, and another Texas school.

With the money being close to that offered by the Big 10, and with Alabama and Auburn moving to the East in the SEC then a division would be created in which Texas and Oklahoma essentially have what would be a dream conference for them if only under a Big 12 banner.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M.

Now that's a divisional schedule of 7 games that gets the alumni jazzed and provides real marquee games for the season ticket holders, and away games easily reached by a reasonable drive instead of a flight.

Now consider how it works for the Old SEC Core:

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

That does more to preserve traditional rivalries than anything with only a few exceptions with series that aren't even close.

But that said, I do believe Texas would prefer to wait to see if the Big 10 is successful in acquiring anymore eastern targets the eventuality of which might free some viable names for the Big 12. When that contingency is proven to be no longer viable then they'll move.

That SEC East would be bad for everyone. There is such a thing as having a group that is too strong.

The obvious answer to the OP's original question is:

Hell freezes over!

(02-14-2015 11:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 02:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 02:09 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 11:33 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Texas has already made it clear that they aren't going out West. Saying otherwise is just saying otherwise. The facts point in a different direction.

Yes. If they are going to join a conference where most away games are plane rides, they are not going to join one where the majority of schools are in the Pacific time zone, two hours later than the Central, so many games end a couple of hours later and athletes get back to Texas two hours later.

The Eastern time zone is easier travel, since its an hour ahead, which is three hours ahead of a Pacific time zone game ending at the same local time.

This is not a trivial point. It doesn't matter as much when you are going to an away game, because you generally arrive considerably ahead of the game. It's the trip home. If you get back two hours later, especially on a weeknight, that's a big deal. And that's what would happen to UT if it joined the PAC.

Exactly right. If they go anywhere it will be to the ACC or SEC and it will not only be about travel, but also culture, football culture (a different issue), and about maintaining dominance or at least extreme competitiveness in their own region. It will take being in a very regional division to make it happen anywhere. I don't see the Big 10 taking enough Big 12 schools to make for a compelling division for Texas. The PAC might be able to do that but the travel issues will remain, especially for fans. So if the ACC opens a Western Division it might happen, or they could always join Missouri, Arkansas, L.S.U., and A&M in the SEC west and do so with Oklahoma, or possibly even Oklahoma, OSU, and another Texas school.

With the money being close to that offered by the Big 10, and with Alabama and Auburn moving to the East in the SEC then a division would be created in which Texas and Oklahoma essentially have what would be a dream conference for them if only under a Big 12 banner.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M.

Now that's a divisional schedule of 7 games that gets the alumni jazzed and provides real marquee games for the season ticket holders, and away games easily reached by a reasonable drive instead of a flight.

Now consider how it works for the Old SEC Core:

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

That does more to preserve traditional rivalries than anything with only a few exceptions with series that aren't even close.

But that said, I do believe Texas would prefer to wait to see if the Big 10 is successful in acquiring anymore eastern targets the eventuality of which might free some viable names for the Big 12. When that contingency is proven to be no longer viable then they'll move.

That SEC East would be bad for everyone. There is such a thing as having a group that is too strong.

Not if you think about it. You would have 4 regular contenders, two annually weaker teams, and two that occasionally rise to the challenge. In the West you would have 3 annual contenders and 4 schools that could rise up from time to time and one perennial also ran.

(02-14-2015 10:53 PM)Hoosier Hysteria 1 Wrote:  I don't think Texas goes to SEC because of Texas AM.
I don't think Texas goes ACC because distance and no geographical rivals.
I don't think Texas goes Independent (scheduling nightmare, ect).
Texas goes to PAC if they can take some schools with them.
Texas goes to BIG if Oklahoma and Kansas are part of deal.

Texas goes to the ACC as a partial member, similar to Notre Dame. They likely take Baylor with them due to Baylor's overall Athletic Department. Texas isn't exactly winning the battle against it's "rivals" locally. I don't see how it is truly in their best interest to maintain the status quo. They ARE Texas, they don't need the others as much as the others need them.

I don't think you understand the distances involved with Texas and the PAC for you to say distance would be a problem with the ACC but not the PAC. If they join the PAC they don't just play those that go with them from the big 12, they play everyone in the PAC. That is distance AND time zone issues, major issues.

(02-14-2015 11:09 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 10:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Probably not, I still think there is a better than average chance a new conference gets built around both the Horns and Sooners. I also still think that the final Big 10 growth will be out of the ACC and that because of it the SEC's will be as well. But if it isn't and the Big 12 does get parsed, the Horns will stay east, southeast to be precise in either the ACC or SEC. We'll see.

The ACC or SEC means the ACC. It is not a slap at the SEC. They get everything they want from the ACC much more so than they do with the SEC.

Do tell. How so?

As long as Notre Dame remains Independent, an Independent team will always have a route to the Playoff. What is necessary is the perception that they are strong enough based upon schedule and record. Texas can take advantage of that with a partial membership with the ACC. The SEC likely does not offer that. The SEC already has a chartered Network, the ACC does not. To join the SEC, The Longhorns would have to follow in the footsteps of The Aggies. If you don't think that is a big deal, then you are wrong.

They get into the conference with the most supported sports, the SEC is more like the big 12 in that regard than the ACC. They get much more control over their football scheduling. They actually protect their recruiting in Texas more so like that than they do by legitimizing a Texas centric conference with their presence. Things are not going well for Texas football in the big 12. There is nothing for them in still playing Midwest teams.

Texas is a public ivy. They will see more in common with the ACC in culture than they would with the SEC. Neither you nor Lurker should take that personally, but it is a truth.

I'm not saying you do not make good points, you do, especially about Texas probably wishing it could have a Notre Dame type deal, but Texas would not get the same level of money and interest in the ACC vs the SEC or the B1G. Does UT want to follow TAMU, no, but they would proudly march into the SEC with OU, UNC and UVA and others following their lead.

Why wouldn't they make similar money with the ACC as they would with the SEC? They are Texas, they make more money than any other University Athletic Department in the country. While that argument of yours matters in regards to Texas, it doesn't matter as much as it does for most other Athletic Departments.

They are making as much with the LHN as anyone will make with the SECN. The ACC payout is equivalent to what the SEC is getting in terms of Network deals. With the addition of Texas and Baylor, the stock of match ups in the ACC goes up. I already see ACC basketball as the premier basketball conference in the country. ESPN see's it the same way. Add in Texas, Baylor and UConn basketball to the mix and it really cannot be debated. ACC basketball would make for a nice pay day for everyone involved.

I think your final sentence about Texas going to the SEC if all those other schools were involved has some merit but I don't think UNC and UVA are interested, sorry.

(02-14-2015 11:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 11:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 02:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 02:09 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Yes. If they are going to join a conference where most away games are plane rides, they are not going to join one where the majority of schools are in the Pacific time zone, two hours later than the Central, so many games end a couple of hours later and athletes get back to Texas two hours later.

The Eastern time zone is easier travel, since its an hour ahead, which is three hours ahead of a Pacific time zone game ending at the same local time.

This is not a trivial point. It doesn't matter as much when you are going to an away game, because you generally arrive considerably ahead of the game. It's the trip home. If you get back two hours later, especially on a weeknight, that's a big deal. And that's what would happen to UT if it joined the PAC.

Exactly right. If they go anywhere it will be to the ACC or SEC and it will not only be about travel, but also culture, football culture (a different issue), and about maintaining dominance or at least extreme competitiveness in their own region. It will take being in a very regional division to make it happen anywhere. I don't see the Big 10 taking enough Big 12 schools to make for a compelling division for Texas. The PAC might be able to do that but the travel issues will remain, especially for fans. So if the ACC opens a Western Division it might happen, or they could always join Missouri, Arkansas, L.S.U., and A&M in the SEC west and do so with Oklahoma, or possibly even Oklahoma, OSU, and another Texas school.

With the money being close to that offered by the Big 10, and with Alabama and Auburn moving to the East in the SEC then a division would be created in which Texas and Oklahoma essentially have what would be a dream conference for them if only under a Big 12 banner.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M.

Now that's a divisional schedule of 7 games that gets the alumni jazzed and provides real marquee games for the season ticket holders, and away games easily reached by a reasonable drive instead of a flight.

Now consider how it works for the Old SEC Core:

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

That does more to preserve traditional rivalries than anything with only a few exceptions with series that aren't even close.

But that said, I do believe Texas would prefer to wait to see if the Big 10 is successful in acquiring anymore eastern targets the eventuality of which might free some viable names for the Big 12. When that contingency is proven to be no longer viable then they'll move.

That SEC East would be bad for everyone. There is such a thing as having a group that is too strong.

Not if you think about it. You would have 4 regular contenders, two annually weaker teams, and two that occasionally rise to the challenge. In the West you would have 3 annual contenders and 4 schools that could rise up from time to time and one perennial also ran.

16 teams = 4 divisions of 4.

(02-14-2015 11:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 10:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Probably not, I still think there is a better than average chance a new conference gets built around both the Horns and Sooners. I also still think that the final Big 10 growth will be out of the ACC and that because of it the SEC's will be as well. But if it isn't and the Big 12 does get parsed, the Horns will stay east, southeast to be precise in either the ACC or SEC. We'll see.

The ACC or SEC means the ACC. It is not a slap at the SEC. They get everything they want from the ACC much more so than they do with the SEC.

Do tell. How so?

As long as Notre Dame remains Independent, an Independent team will always have a route to the Playoff. What is necessary is the perception that they are strong enough based upon schedule and record. Texas can take advantage of that with a partial membership with the ACC. The SEC likely does not offer that. The SEC already has a chartered Network, the ACC does not. To join the SEC, The Longhorns would have to follow in the footsteps of The Aggies. If you don't think that is a big deal, then you are wrong.

They get into the conference with the most supported sports, the SEC is more like the big 12 in that regard than the ACC. They get much more control over their football scheduling. They actually protect their recruiting in Texas more so like that than they do by legitimizing a Texas centric conference with their presence. Things are not going well for Texas football in the big 12. There is nothing for them in still playing Midwest teams.

Texas is a public ivy. They will see more in common with the ACC in culture than they would with the SEC. Neither you nor Lurker should take that personally, but it is a truth.

What gets lost on folks around here is that it is the fans that have to be on board with the move of teams in college athletics. The fans in Texas want it to stay regional. That won't happen in the Big 10 as there aren't enough qualified schools in the Big 12 to make the move. That won't happen in the ACC for the same reason. That could happen in the SEC with the right divisional breakdown or in the PAC if enough schools formed an Eastern Division. But the travel to the rest of the PAC and the viewership out there will be a limiting factor.

The Horns know that if their only buddy in the Big 10 is Oklahoma that their fans will rebel.

As for the ACC what you don't get is what XLance has been laying down, namely that the core doesn't want to compete with football first schools that have the revenue from stadia that seat over 100,000 and they don't want to compete with budgets that are north of 80 million a year. As long as North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia control the ACC, and they still do, Texas will not be a member. Notre Dame for all of their prestige doesn't pose the threat to their way of life that Texas does.

Texas will be the center of its own universe as long as it can and when it can no longer occupy that position it will move to where its culture, its fans, and its bank account are the most satisfied and that is life. They don't need academics or they would have already been in the PAC. They don't need the CIC when they are endowed by Oil money in addition to a powerful state lobby. They don't need Tobacco Road either because those egos are bigger than those of Ohio State and Alabama combined.

So I simply don't believe your theory will come true.

And finally since the PAC is independently owned and undervalued because of it, and the Big 10 is majority FOX owned, and Texas is more obligated to ESPN than anyone else I think their future will line up accordingly through either joining an ESPN owned conference or being the center of a new ESPN majority owned conference. It's as simple as that.

To your first point, I have never said that Texas will end up in The Big Ten. I get what you are saying but what I have been saying does not contradict that point so when XLance brings it up, it really doesn't mean anything to me. The fact that the ACC went with that deal with Notre Dame shows they are more willing to compromise. All this chest thumping about how the ACC "wont do it" doesn't mean much to me either. Yes, yes they will.

To your next point, I do not say that Texas will be a full football member of The ACC. That means they give the ACC the upside of those match ups with Texas but Texas wont be part of the ACC Tournament in football.

I don't get what you are trying to accomplish with the grandstanding about Texas. They don't really control the big 12 to the degree that people claim. They couldn't put together the votes for the conference network. It is a logical fallacy to say Texas still controls the big 12 like it used to. The other schools have grown voices of their own and their own agenda's.

So I simply don't believe your theory will come true.

As far as your last paragraph, why are you even typing that to me? The Big Ten? The PAC? Yes, they will go to a fully ESPN controlled conference but not simply because ESPN runs the show there. The move to the ACC fits for more reasons than just that.