(12-13-2018 03:43 PM)Win5002 Wrote: (12-12-2018 10:47 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: (12-08-2018 09:44 AM)GE and MTS Wrote: If the Big Ten wants Texas, I think the conference will have to go to 18. Oklahoma would have to be one of the schools, leaving two vacancies for Texas to choose tagalongs. Who do you think would be acceptable partners?
In no particular order:
- Texas Tech
- TCU
- Baylor
- Houston
- Rice
UT likes playing games in the state of Texas. Assuming 9 conference games, they would have 5 annual conference games (4 home, 1 in Dallas against OU) in the state plus at least 2 non-conference for 7 total. Could the Big Ten swallow some pride and accept some small fish in order to land the biggest of them all?
I don't know if the Big Ten would be flexible enough to give in to such a demand but if they did at least they're going to give UT some parameters on what the two tagalongs would be:
1) It would have to be a P5 school
2) Preferably AAU but at worst Carnegie Classification R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest research activity
3) Preferably a state flagship school
Given those parameters I would think the two tagalongs would be: Texas Tech and Kansas
UT and KU are both academically-minded and both have a history in the Big XII.
Texas Tech due to state politics.
Also, UT might benefit by having less Texas programs in the power group, as well as OU and TT.
Speaking of Carnegie Classification, they're going to update their lists later this month. Should Texas Tech keep their place in the highest research activity category then maybe they have some staying power and should be more closely watched, regardless of Lubbock.
Kansas does nothing to bring UT to the B1G. How does KU fill UT's stadium when they come to town? Or help Texas recruit against A&M as an SEC conference member? here is a clue it doesn't.
The Big 10 faces the same issue the SEC does with this. Texas and Oklahoma are the safest and most profitable additions period. Both are national brands so the disappearing cable subscription fee pay model won't have to be considered since both of these are national brands with large followings. Oklahoma is more than covered by UT's academics, and the issue for the Big 10 is maximizing content value and profit. Taking two tag-a-longs bleeds that profit down to a minimum amount.
Yes the SEC could offer Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and make a profit. Yes we could offer Texas and Tech and make a profit. We could offer all 4 and make a profit. But, does a small increase in profit form an acceptable risk on two lesser schools? What happens if OU and UT decide to bolt the SEC or Big 10 at the end of their first contracted period? The answer is then the SEC or Big 10 would be stuck with the little brothers but without the profitable schools. Is it worth that risk? Probably not. At least not for all 4. I agree that Texas Tech is the lesser risk between TTU and OSU.
I don't think Texas will ever be a member of the Big 10. Their whole business model, the best in the NCAA by far, is predicated upon playing as many home and away games within the state of Texas as is possible and practical. They have a built in devotion of 28 million people who either watch to cheer them on, or watch hoping for their demise. No other school in the nation has that kind of in state draw. Their fans who love beating other in state schools travel in throngs to away games and donate heavily to get away tickets.
There is no way in hell Texas moves to the Big 10, unless the Alston case totally rearranges and alters how the upper tier of college football operates. Then they could go anywhere. Until something like that happens Texas will never join another conference that alters their current business model.
Oklahoma is a much more viable candidate for the SEC and Big 10. Speculation about OU is warranted. The 6 million dollar question is are they, or are they not, politically bound to OSU. There are bold arguments by those arguing either side of this query. We probably won't know for sure until they actually move.
But oddly Kansas has little real value to the Big 10. They don't add to your football content value, in fact in a very Rutgers like way they actually will detract from it. Unlike Rutgers they don't offer much of a new market, especially considering the Big 10 has broad carriage in the major cities in Kansas already. And worse for Kansas, they actually multiply the content value of a solid basketball conference, but then that only increases the Big 10's hoops value incrementally for a sport that only accounts for 20% of sports revenue. So in other words adding Kansas basketball doesn't pay for their 50.1 million dollar share plus what ever the raises between now and when they join would represent.
It's more likely, but still questionable, as to whether they would add enough in value to enhance SEC payouts. But they at least would add markets to the SEC and enhance the quality of basketball and its content value for the conference more demonstrably than it would the Big 10. But it might still not be enough for inclusion, but might be good enough to be a #2 with a Texas or Oklahoma.
IMO, the optimum play for the Big 10 would be Texas and Colorado for markets and academics. But OU earns you more for their football content value.
We'll see what happens but I'm doubting more and more these days a to whether either conference really wants to risk taking little brothers with OU and UT. Really only the PAC might be able to justify it.