Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Whither goest Texas?
Author Message
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #1
Whither goest Texas?
While there are other properties that could become attractive candidates in the event of a massive realignment of the P5, right now, a consensus seems to be that Texas and Oklahoma are the two biggest prizes that could be pried loose from their current conference.

I have seen on this forum numerous times that Texas could pick its conference if they chose to move. The $64 question to me is: do they want to move anywhere?

They would probably love the idea of being aligned academically with the B1G, and under the right circumstances the B1G would probably be willing to take them (probably along with Kansas, IMO). But would Texas fans be happy with the opponents in the B1G division they would be put in? They probably wouldn't care if they ever played a single one of them.

The PAC would take them as part of a Texhoma Four. But would having three familiar rivals be enough to offset having to travel two times zones to the west for all sports as often as this would require? They have already declined this opportunity once. Even more important, would Texas' ego allow them to be the newbies in an established conference in which somebody else will always be the alpha dog? I don't think so.

The ACC, IMO, has too many schools UT fans wouldn't want to the Horns to play. And the idea that schools like North Carolina and Duke would have more influence in the league than they would is intolerable in my view.

That leaves the SEC. The addition of Texas and OU, and only those two, is probably the best move the SEC could make. They would probably accept two little brothers if forced to do so, but I don't think it would be their first choice. That would put UT in a division with pretty much all the rivals their fans would love to play. It would be, by far, the most dominant conference.

But, competitively, there's a good chance that UT would be a middle of the pack team in that league much of the time. They would have to swallow their pride when A&M fans point out that the Horns followed them to the promised land, and not the other way around.

Texas' ideal situation is to maintain the status quo and not go anywhere. But I don't believe the status quo will be an option. If Texas declines an invitation to join OU in the SEC, I believe the SEC's Plan B would be to offer Oklahoma State. OU needs to be in the same conference with one of these two, IMO, and I don't think it matters which one.

The departure of OU and OK State leaves UT as Snow White to the Seven Dwarves. They will be top dog, but over what? Nobody they could add to replace the OK schools will make that league stronger.

So, back to the thread title. Where does Texas choose to end up?
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2018 12:24 PM by ken d.)
02-06-2018 10:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,907
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Whither goest Texas?
(02-06-2018 10:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  While there are other properties that could become attractive candidates in the event of a massive realignment of the P5, right now, a consensus seems to be that Texas and Oklahoma are the two biggest prizes that could be pried loose from their current conference.

I have seen on this forum numerous times that Texas could pick its conference if they chose to move. The $64 question to me is: do they want to move anywhere?

They would probably love the idea of being aligned academically with the B1G, and under the right circumstances the B1G would probably be willing to take them (probably along with Kansas, IMO). But would Texas fans be happy with the opponents in the B1G division they would be put in? They probably wouldn't care if they ever played a single one of them.

The PAC would take them as part of a Texhoma Four. But would having three familiar rivals be enough to offset having to travel two times zones to the west for all sports as often as this would require? They have already declined this opportunity once. Even more important, would Texas' ego allow them to be the newbies in an established conference in which somebody else will always be the alpha dog? I don't think so.

The ACC, IMO, has too many schools UT fans wouldn't want to the Horns to play. And the idea that schools like North Carolina and Duke would have more influence in the league than they would is intolerable in my view.

That leaves the SEC. The addition of Texas and OU, and only those two, is probably the best move the SEC could make. They would probably accept two little brothers if forced to do so, but I don't think it would be their first choice. That would put UT in a division with pretty much all the rivals their fans would love to play. It would be, by far, the most dominant conference.

But, competitively, there's a good chance that UT would be a middle of the pack team in that league much of the time. They would have to swallow their pride when A&M fans point out that the Horns followed them to the promised land, and not the other way around.

Texas' ideal situation is to maintain the status quo and not go anywhere. But I don't believe the status quo will be an option. If Texas declines an invitation to join OU in the SEC, I believe the SEC's Plan B would be to offer Oklahoma State. OU needs to be in the same conference with one of these two, IMO, and I don't think it matters which one.

The departure of OU and OK State leaves UT as Snow White to the Seven Dwarves. They will be top dog, but over what? Nobody they could add to replace the OK schools will make that league stronger.

So, back to the thread title. Where does Texas choose to end up?

That's an accurate assessment. The best answer I could give is that I like the SEC's chances, and although we might not want to take Texas Tech or Oklahoma State, should Oklahoma and Oklahoma State come the SEC I think Texas will follow, but only with Texas Tech. Why?

Because Texas will have to look like they've done a sacrificial act to save face and assuage their ego. Insisting on Tech becomes a future declaration that says, "Yes, we joined the SEC but not because we were following A&M's lead, but because the Big 12 was no longer viable and we could go anywhere, but we chose the SEC because they were the only ones who were willing to accommodate Texas Tech and we couldn't doom another state school to an uncertain future with no options."

And Ken D I must ask, does it really matter if they are middle of the PAC in the SEC if they have been middle of the PAC in a diminished Big 12 for a decade or longer?

In the end the decision will be made however because of the impact upon their fan base, and because the overall sports fit is a good one.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

This is their 9 team division. Should the SEC split into 3 divisions with permission it becomes:

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Either of those along with the overall sports fit, is far better than they can find elsewhere. They just need the excuse of saving Tech to make it happen.
02-06-2018 12:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,025
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 267
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #3
RE: Whither goest Texas?
(02-06-2018 10:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  While there are other properties that could become attractive candidates in the event of a massive realignment of the P5, right now, a consensus seems to be that Texas and Oklahoma are the two biggest prizes that could be pried loose from their current conference.

I have seen on this forum numerous times that Texas could pick its conference if they chose to move. The $64 question to me is: do they want to move anywhere?

They would probably love the idea of being aligned academically with the B1G, and under the right circumstances the B1G would probably be willing to take them (probably along with Kansas, IMO). But would Texas fans be happy with the opponents in the B1G division they would be put in? They probably wouldn't care if they ever played a single one of them.

The PAC would take them as part of a Texhoma Four. But would having three familiar rivals be enough to offset having to travel two times zones to the west for all sports as often as this would require? They have already declined this opportunity once. Even more important, would Texas' ego allow them to be the newbies in an established conference in which somebody else will always be the alpha dog? I don't think so.

The ACC, IMO, has too many schools UT fans wouldn't want to the Horns to play. And the idea that schools like North Carolina and Duke would have more influence in the league than they would is intolerable in my view.

That leaves the SEC. The addition of Texas and OU, and only those two, is probably the best move the SEC could make. They would probably accept two little brothers if forced to do so, but I don't think it would be their first choice. That would put UT in a division with pretty much all the rivals their fans would love to play. It would be, by far, the most dominant conference.

But, competitively, there's a good chance that UT would be a middle of the pack team in that league much of the time. They would have to swallow their pride when A&M fans point out that the Horns followed them to the promised land, and not the other way around.

Texas' ideal situation is to maintain the status quo and not go anywhere. But I don't believe the status quo will be an option. If Texas declines an invitation to join OU in the SEC, I believe the SEC's Plan B would be to offer Oklahoma State. OU needs to be in the same conference with one of these two, IMO, and I don't think it matters which one.

The departure of OU and OK State leaves UT as Snow White to the Seven Dwarves. They will be top dog, but over what? Nobody they could add to replace the OK schools will make that league stronger.

So, back to the thread title. Where does Texas choose to end up?

I suppose that $64k question(s) would boil down to how much influence the academic side has in the decision and who is willing to pony up the most $$.

UT's peer list contains a hefty amount of B1G schools. I'm sure they see themselves in that league as well they should. How much that matters remains to be seen.

The problem I see with the PAC is what you stated about the B1G. If TX fans won't get pumped about playing Wisconsin or Nebraska, I don't see them dancing in the streets to play Utah or Arizona.

From a pure sports perspective, it's the SEC or B1G. I don't see anyone else tickling their fancy so to speak.

It will all boil down to what OU decides to do. If OU bolts, the XII is either doomed or will morph into what you said. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is an excellent analogy BTW.

Unless OU stays and the XII tries to raid the XII, TX might find themselves in a position where they need to eat a nice helping of humble pie and become one of many instead of the one and only.
02-06-2018 02:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #4
RE: Whither goest Texas?
(02-06-2018 12:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-06-2018 10:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  While there are other properties that could become attractive candidates in the event of a massive realignment of the P5, right now, a consensus seems to be that Texas and Oklahoma are the two biggest prizes that could be pried loose from their current conference.

I have seen on this forum numerous times that Texas could pick its conference if they chose to move. The $64 question to me is: do they want to move anywhere?

They would probably love the idea of being aligned academically with the B1G, and under the right circumstances the B1G would probably be willing to take them (probably along with Kansas, IMO). But would Texas fans be happy with the opponents in the B1G division they would be put in? They probably wouldn't care if they ever played a single one of them.

The PAC would take them as part of a Texhoma Four. But would having three familiar rivals be enough to offset having to travel two times zones to the west for all sports as often as this would require? They have already declined this opportunity once. Even more important, would Texas' ego allow them to be the newbies in an established conference in which somebody else will always be the alpha dog? I don't think so.

The ACC, IMO, has too many schools UT fans wouldn't want to the Horns to play. And the idea that schools like North Carolina and Duke would have more influence in the league than they would is intolerable in my view.

That leaves the SEC. The addition of Texas and OU, and only those two, is probably the best move the SEC could make. They would probably accept two little brothers if forced to do so, but I don't think it would be their first choice. That would put UT in a division with pretty much all the rivals their fans would love to play. It would be, by far, the most dominant conference.

But, competitively, there's a good chance that UT would be a middle of the pack team in that league much of the time. They would have to swallow their pride when A&M fans point out that the Horns followed them to the promised land, and not the other way around.

Texas' ideal situation is to maintain the status quo and not go anywhere. But I don't believe the status quo will be an option. If Texas declines an invitation to join OU in the SEC, I believe the SEC's Plan B would be to offer Oklahoma State. OU needs to be in the same conference with one of these two, IMO, and I don't think it matters which one.

The departure of OU and OK State leaves UT as Snow White to the Seven Dwarves. They will be top dog, but over what? Nobody they could add to replace the OK schools will make that league stronger.

So, back to the thread title. Where does Texas choose to end up?

That's an accurate assessment. The best answer I could give is that I like the SEC's chances, and although we might not want to take Texas Tech or Oklahoma State, should Oklahoma and Oklahoma State come the SEC I think Texas will follow, but only with Texas Tech. Why?

Because Texas will have to look like they've done a sacrificial act to save face and assuage their ego. Insisting on Tech becomes a future declaration that says, "Yes, we joined the SEC but not because we were following A&M's lead, but because the Big 12 was no longer viable and we could go anywhere, but we chose the SEC because they were the only ones who were willing to accommodate Texas Tech and we couldn't doom another state school to an uncertain future with no options."

And Ken D I must ask, does it really matter if they are middle of the PAC in the SEC if they have been middle of the PAC in a diminished Big 12 for a decade or longer?

In the end the decision will be made however because of the impact upon their fan base, and because the overall sports fit is a good one.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

This is their 9 team division. Should the SEC split into 3 divisions with permission it becomes:

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Either of those along with the overall sports fit, is far better than they can find elsewhere. They just need the excuse of saving Tech to make it happen.

While that may sound silly on its face to some, I don't think you can overstate the importance of face saving for UT in this. You are spot on. They need an excuse.

As for Texas being in the middle of the pack, I'm not sure it has fully registered in the minds of their fans that this is where they already are. The difference, as I see it, is that there is a chance they could fix that in the Big 12. Not so sure about the SEC. :)
02-06-2018 02:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #5
RE: Whither goest Texas?
FBS college football is not currently structured in a way that makes super-sized conferences appealing to teams like the Horns (or Sooners, for that matter). Fans of "king" programs are spoiled and want to be in a place where they have a path to 10-11 wins each year when the program isn't in a down spell. The sport is almost built for the purpose of allowing "king" programs to have fat W-L records whenever they're not having a down year.

Adding UT and OU to the SEC doesn't fit that purpose. If they have to play enough difficult conference games that even in good years they're usually 8-4, then they're facing the likelihood of almost never being playoff contenders -- even if there is eventually an 8-team playoff, it won't include 8-4 teams. And if you make it easier on them by making the conference so big that they almost never play the traditional SEC powers, then what's the point? If it's Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, and Miss State every year, that's hardly a fan-appeal upgrade from West Virginia, Kansas, K-State, and Iowa State.
02-06-2018 03:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,907
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Whither goest Texas?
(02-06-2018 03:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  FBS college football is not currently structured in a way that makes super-sized conferences appealing to teams like the Horns (or Sooners, for that matter). Fans of "king" programs are spoiled and want to be in a place where they have a path to 10-11 wins each year when the program isn't in a down spell. The sport is almost built for the purpose of allowing "king" programs to have fat W-L records whenever they're not having a down year.

Adding UT and OU to the SEC doesn't fit that purpose. If they have to play enough difficult conference games that even in good years they're usually 8-4, then they're facing the likelihood of almost never being playoff contenders -- even if there is eventually an 8-team playoff, it won't include 8-4 teams. And if you make it easier on them by making the conference so big that they almost never play the traditional SEC powers, then what's the point? If it's Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, and Miss State every year, that's hardly a fan-appeal upgrade from West Virginia, Kansas, K-State, and Iowa State.

Your missing the mark here Wedge on several levels. First of all Arkansas and A&M are their traditional rivals outside of Oklahoma. What's more is that Arkansas and A&M were once their conference rivals. The issue isn't the Mississippi schools, the issue is having all three of their historic rivals where they play them while having another Texas school in the mix beside A&M.

And as far as the playoffs go, there isn't going to be an expansion to 8 teams. The presidents don't want it, the players don't really want it (especially if they are going to be draft selection darlings) the A.D.'s don't really want it either. Only fans think it is a good idea.

If the Big 12 goes away so does the beauty pageant. We'll move to a Champs only format with 4 P conferences and the winner is your entrant whether they are 14 - 0 or 9-5.
02-06-2018 03:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Wolfman Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,459
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 181
I Root For: The Cartel
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #7
RE: Whither goest Texas?
I believe Texas answered this question. When Oklahoma was talking to the P12, Texas could easily have gone along. Instead, they chose to talk to the ACC. When Oklahoma stayed in the B12, Texas stayed as well. I don't recall any serious discussions with the B1G or SEC at that time.

Texas may have a wild card when it comes to Tech. A&M left the conference without consideration for Tech, why should Texas have to consider them? I don't know if, or how long, this might work. You could see Texas and/or A&M paying Tech a stipend for a few years as compensation.
02-06-2018 03:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,907
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Whither goest Texas?
(02-06-2018 02:24 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(02-06-2018 10:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  While there are other properties that could become attractive candidates in the event of a massive realignment of the P5, right now, a consensus seems to be that Texas and Oklahoma are the two biggest prizes that could be pried loose from their current conference.

I have seen on this forum numerous times that Texas could pick its conference if they chose to move. The $64 question to me is: do they want to move anywhere?

They would probably love the idea of being aligned academically with the B1G, and under the right circumstances the B1G would probably be willing to take them (probably along with Kansas, IMO). But would Texas fans be happy with the opponents in the B1G division they would be put in? They probably wouldn't care if they ever played a single one of them.

The PAC would take them as part of a Texhoma Four. But would having three familiar rivals be enough to offset having to travel two times zones to the west for all sports as often as this would require? They have already declined this opportunity once. Even more important, would Texas' ego allow them to be the newbies in an established conference in which somebody else will always be the alpha dog? I don't think so.

The ACC, IMO, has too many schools UT fans wouldn't want to the Horns to play. And the idea that schools like North Carolina and Duke would have more influence in the league than they would is intolerable in my view.

That leaves the SEC. The addition of Texas and OU, and only those two, is probably the best move the SEC could make. They would probably accept two little brothers if forced to do so, but I don't think it would be their first choice. That would put UT in a division with pretty much all the rivals their fans would love to play. It would be, by far, the most dominant conference.

But, competitively, there's a good chance that UT would be a middle of the pack team in that league much of the time. They would have to swallow their pride when A&M fans point out that the Horns followed them to the promised land, and not the other way around.

Texas' ideal situation is to maintain the status quo and not go anywhere. But I don't believe the status quo will be an option. If Texas declines an invitation to join OU in the SEC, I believe the SEC's Plan B would be to offer Oklahoma State. OU needs to be in the same conference with one of these two, IMO, and I don't think it matters which one.

The departure of OU and OK State leaves UT as Snow White to the Seven Dwarves. They will be top dog, but over what? Nobody they could add to replace the OK schools will make that league stronger.

So, back to the thread title. Where does Texas choose to end up?

I suppose that $64k question(s) would boil down to how much influence the academic side has in the decision and who is willing to pony up the most $$.

UT's peer list contains a hefty amount of B1G schools. I'm sure they see themselves in that league as well they should. How much that matters remains to be seen.

The problem I see with the PAC is what you stated about the B1G. If TX fans won't get pumped about playing Wisconsin or Nebraska, I don't see them dancing in the streets to play Utah or Arizona.

From a pure sports perspective, it's the SEC or B1G. I don't see anyone else tickling their fancy so to speak.

It will all boil down to what OU decides to do. If OU bolts, the XII is either doomed or will morph into what you said. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is an excellent analogy BTW.

Unless OU stays and the XII tries to raid the XII, TX might find themselves in a position where they need to eat a nice helping of humble pie and become one of many instead of the one and only.

The SWC never hurt Texas's academic profile. Athletics and Academics are really two entirely different subsets if you are already an AAU school. Texas lists those B1G schools and PAC schools as peers because they are all AAU and their share research already. Texas isn't going to be excluded from those endeavors because of what conference they play football in.

Really there is only one conference that stresses the academic association over sports and that is the Big 10. The rest of these schools wouldn't be in a conference if not for athletics and most choose athletic associations closer to home because that is what their fans care about. Great schools are great schools regardless of where, or even if, they play athletics.

So the whole sports / academics argument is really very overblown.

Nebraska got into the Big 10 when everyone knew they were losing AAU status so even for the Big 10 I think the rigidity that once stood regarding the academic standing of applicants has been greatly softened. Nebraska made sense because of where they were located.

I think most of these issues will be decided by Geography, Money, and Athletic Fit more than by academics. I do think cultural fit is important, but recently has taken a backseat in realignment, and probably resulted in some odd fits.
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2018 04:05 PM by JRsec.)
02-06-2018 03:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,907
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Whither goest Texas?
(02-06-2018 03:31 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I believe Texas answered this question. When Oklahoma was talking to the P12, Texas could easily have gone along. Instead, they chose to talk to the ACC. When Oklahoma stayed in the B12, Texas stayed as well. I don't recall any serious discussions with the B1G or SEC at that time.

Texas may have a wild card when it comes to Tech. A&M left the conference without consideration for Tech, why should Texas have to consider them? I don't know if, or how long, this might work. You could see Texas and/or A&M paying Tech a stipend for a few years as compensation.

Texas was only in talks with the ACC because they were representing a slightly larger constituency which North Carolina said no to. It wasn't just the Horns. And they were in talks with the SEC and have been off and on since '87 or so. Most of that is to gauge their value and to form contingencies for a changing environment.

Deloss Dodds was the one who was in talks with the ACC. He's gone now. And the talks were likely at the behest of ESPN.

My read on UT and the ACC is that unless there are travel companions that can help in keeping more of the core of the Horns schedule local enough for easy access to their fans there won't be any interest in the ACC.
02-06-2018 03:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Whither goest Texas?
As long as LHN exists and is viable, Texas is precisely where they wish to be. It isn't only a cash flow, it is an academic tool with students doing quite a bit of work on the network. It is an incredible prestige piece having a channel devoted to your institution 24/7/365

Unless ESPN loses interest in LHN at the end of the contract and Texas doesn't see maintaining it as financially viable, the Longhorn's preference is Big XII, followed by Big XII and then Big XII.
02-06-2018 03:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,907
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Whither goest Texas?
(02-06-2018 03:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  As long as LHN exists and is viable, Texas is precisely where they wish to be. It isn't only a cash flow, it is an academic tool with students doing quite a bit of work on the network. It is an incredible prestige piece having a channel devoted to your institution 24/7/365

Unless ESPN loses interest in LHN at the end of the contract and Texas doesn't see maintaining it as financially viable, the Longhorn's preference is Big XII, followed by Big XII and then Big XII.

Stating that Texas's preference is for the Big 12 is stating the obvious and ignoring the premise of the OP. The premise was what would Texas do if OU and OSU left? It presupposes that a very diminished Big 12 would really curtail their fans' interest in a diminished slate of home games. An issue quite frequently discussed on their message boards by their fans.

I think all of us who have posted in this thread realize that Texas's true desire is to remain where they are and keep it intact. The problem is so far they haven't been able to accomplish keeping it intact and further attrition may make the situation untenable. So what then?

As to the LHN it has been a cash cow for Texas and a cash drain for ESPN. If that studio was converted into use as a Spanish language production studio for any ESPN product I'm sure Texas students would still get to intern.
02-06-2018 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #12
RE: Whither goest Texas?
(02-06-2018 03:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-06-2018 03:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  FBS college football is not currently structured in a way that makes super-sized conferences appealing to teams like the Horns (or Sooners, for that matter). Fans of "king" programs are spoiled and want to be in a place where they have a path to 10-11 wins each year when the program isn't in a down spell. The sport is almost built for the purpose of allowing "king" programs to have fat W-L records whenever they're not having a down year.

Adding UT and OU to the SEC doesn't fit that purpose. If they have to play enough difficult conference games that even in good years they're usually 8-4, then they're facing the likelihood of almost never being playoff contenders -- even if there is eventually an 8-team playoff, it won't include 8-4 teams. And if you make it easier on them by making the conference so big that they almost never play the traditional SEC powers, then what's the point? If it's Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, and Miss State every year, that's hardly a fan-appeal upgrade from West Virginia, Kansas, K-State, and Iowa State.

Your missing the mark here Wedge on several levels. First of all Arkansas and A&M are their traditional rivals outside of Oklahoma. What's more is that Arkansas and A&M were once their conference rivals. The issue isn't the Mississippi schools, the issue is having all three of their historic rivals where they play them while having another Texas school in the mix beside A&M.

And as far as the playoffs go, there isn't going to be an expansion to 8 teams. The presidents don't want it, the players don't really want it (especially if they are going to be draft selection darlings) the A.D.'s don't really want it either. Only fans think it is a good idea.

If the Big 12 goes away so does the beauty pageant. We'll move to a Champs only format with 4 P conferences and the winner is your entrant whether they are 14 - 0 or 9-5.

Do Longhorn fans under the age of 50 care about being in the same league as Arkansas? I doubt it. The Hogs have been gone for almost 30 years.

Also, super-sized conferences would only increase the push for a larger playoff. If there's an 18 or 20 team SEC that includes 2 or more "king" programs in addition to what they already have, they might have 5 teams in the top 10 and wouldn't stand for being limited to only one place in a CFB playoff.
02-06-2018 04:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,907
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Whither goest Texas?
(02-06-2018 04:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-06-2018 03:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-06-2018 03:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  FBS college football is not currently structured in a way that makes super-sized conferences appealing to teams like the Horns (or Sooners, for that matter). Fans of "king" programs are spoiled and want to be in a place where they have a path to 10-11 wins each year when the program isn't in a down spell. The sport is almost built for the purpose of allowing "king" programs to have fat W-L records whenever they're not having a down year.

Adding UT and OU to the SEC doesn't fit that purpose. If they have to play enough difficult conference games that even in good years they're usually 8-4, then they're facing the likelihood of almost never being playoff contenders -- even if there is eventually an 8-team playoff, it won't include 8-4 teams. And if you make it easier on them by making the conference so big that they almost never play the traditional SEC powers, then what's the point? If it's Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, and Miss State every year, that's hardly a fan-appeal upgrade from West Virginia, Kansas, K-State, and Iowa State.

Your missing the mark here Wedge on several levels. First of all Arkansas and A&M are their traditional rivals outside of Oklahoma. What's more is that Arkansas and A&M were once their conference rivals. The issue isn't the Mississippi schools, the issue is having all three of their historic rivals where they play them while having another Texas school in the mix beside A&M.

And as far as the playoffs go, there isn't going to be an expansion to 8 teams. The presidents don't want it, the players don't really want it (especially if they are going to be draft selection darlings) the A.D.'s don't really want it either. Only fans think it is a good idea.

If the Big 12 goes away so does the beauty pageant. We'll move to a Champs only format with 4 P conferences and the winner is your entrant whether they are 14 - 0 or 9-5.

Do Longhorn fans under the age of 50 care about being in the same league as Arkansas? I doubt it. The Hogs have been gone for almost 30 years.

Also, super-sized conferences would only increase the push for a larger playoff. If there's an 18 or 20 team SEC that includes 2 or more "king" programs in addition to what they already have, they might have 5 teams in the top 10 and wouldn't stand for being limited to only one place in a CFB playoff.

How many folks under 50 are large donors? The ones with the money care.

At 16 or even 18 I think a champs only works. If we get to conferences of 20 or more then we are going to have fewer power conferences than 4. At that point a champs only format may not quite do it. But that could easily be fixed with a bye for the #1 & #2 seed and initial play by seeds 4 through 6 where each of say a P3 place their top two in it.
02-06-2018 04:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #14
RE: Whither goest Texas?
(02-06-2018 04:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-06-2018 04:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-06-2018 03:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-06-2018 03:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  FBS college football is not currently structured in a way that makes super-sized conferences appealing to teams like the Horns (or Sooners, for that matter). Fans of "king" programs are spoiled and want to be in a place where they have a path to 10-11 wins each year when the program isn't in a down spell. The sport is almost built for the purpose of allowing "king" programs to have fat W-L records whenever they're not having a down year.

Adding UT and OU to the SEC doesn't fit that purpose. If they have to play enough difficult conference games that even in good years they're usually 8-4, then they're facing the likelihood of almost never being playoff contenders -- even if there is eventually an 8-team playoff, it won't include 8-4 teams. And if you make it easier on them by making the conference so big that they almost never play the traditional SEC powers, then what's the point? If it's Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, and Miss State every year, that's hardly a fan-appeal upgrade from West Virginia, Kansas, K-State, and Iowa State.

Your missing the mark here Wedge on several levels. First of all Arkansas and A&M are their traditional rivals outside of Oklahoma. What's more is that Arkansas and A&M were once their conference rivals. The issue isn't the Mississippi schools, the issue is having all three of their historic rivals where they play them while having another Texas school in the mix beside A&M.

And as far as the playoffs go, there isn't going to be an expansion to 8 teams. The presidents don't want it, the players don't really want it (especially if they are going to be draft selection darlings) the A.D.'s don't really want it either. Only fans think it is a good idea.

If the Big 12 goes away so does the beauty pageant. We'll move to a Champs only format with 4 P conferences and the winner is your entrant whether they are 14 - 0 or 9-5.

Do Longhorn fans under the age of 50 care about being in the same league as Arkansas? I doubt it. The Hogs have been gone for almost 30 years.

Also, super-sized conferences would only increase the push for a larger playoff. If there's an 18 or 20 team SEC that includes 2 or more "king" programs in addition to what they already have, they might have 5 teams in the top 10 and wouldn't stand for being limited to only one place in a CFB playoff.

How many folks under 50 are large donors? The ones with the money care.

At 16 or even 18 I think a champs only works. If we get to conferences of 20 or more then we are going to have fewer power conferences than 4. At that point a champs only format may not quite do it. But that could easily be fixed with a bye for the #1 & #2 seed and initial play by seeds 4 through 6 where each of say a P3 place their top two in it.

What the "whale" donors want is a different dynamic. If that's the deciding factor we would need to know more about specific Texas guys like McCombs and what they want. Whether those guys want the SEC, or whether they want no part of it because they like 10-win seasons too much, would presumably matter a lot to UT's president and AD.
02-06-2018 04:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #15
RE: Whither goest Texas?
At the end of the day, the one who is paying the bills gets the biggest say. What does ESPN want?
02-06-2018 04:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #16
RE: Whither goest Texas?
(02-06-2018 04:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  At the end of the day, the one who is paying the bills gets the biggest say. What does ESPN want?

That's part of it but not the whole picture for a program like UT where the donors give such enormous sums of money. Their athletic department gets about $40 million/year in donations and the university general fund gets a lot more than that.

Notre Dame could have made a lot more in TV money by joining the Big Ten. Everyone knew that. They didn't join the Big Ten because their major supporters strongly opposed it.
02-06-2018 05:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,907
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Whither goest Texas?
(02-06-2018 04:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  At the end of the day, the one who is paying the bills gets the biggest say. What does ESPN want?

Priority #1 for ESPN would be to have arguably the top economic impact school not yet lassoed clearly in one of their holding pens.

Once they are assured that they have the Texas product then their ancillary concerns might be addressed.

Where does Texas do the most good? ACC

Where does Texas make the most money for them? SEC

Would the SEC be well satisfied with Oklahoma? Yes

Would Oklahoma in the SEC destabilize the ACC by increasing the revenue gap? Yes

Would Texas in the ACC offset and compliment Oklahoma's addition to the SEC? Yes

How do we get them there? You are going to have to allow Texas essentially to anchor a new division of the ACC.

Is that doable? Yes. Baylor, Houston/Rice, T.C.U. and one other in a 20 team ACC gives Texas their own division with at least 3 other Texas schools.

Will that fly with the ACC? It has been rumored not to have flown with North Carolina in 2010-1 when Deloss was looking because UNC apparently didn't want to lose voting control over "their" conference.

I strongly suggest that the biggest thing that has stood in the way of the ACCN having been reality two years ago and the ACC having closed the revenue gap was North Carolina's inability to grow the conference dynamically out of fear of losing control.

There are two ways to get Texas to consider the ACC. One was the oft rumored swap of Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC in 2010-1 to make room for Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Notre Dame way back then. That one is probably dead and buried.

But if ESPN truly wanted to nail down the product of the Big 12 prior to the end of the GOR when other interested parties could bid up the buying price they could simply expand the ACC and SEC to 20 schools each absorb the Big 12 between the two of them and pay them both amounts that secured the product against Big 10 revenue growth and then the Mouse would own 8 of the top 10 revenue producers and 15 of the top 25 between the two conferences. And with that boost in revenue some of the ACC and SEC schools would be filling some of those 10 spots in the top 25 that they currently don't occupy.

What I don't see happening is Texas taking an independent deal because it hurts their minor sports with insane travel expenses. Create a division for them and it becomes doable.

Otherwise the cheapest and most efficient play for ESPN is to take Texa-homa to the SEC. The minor sports play near home, play old rivals and current ones too, and the investment in securing that property is much less.

However if it is content they want, why not take all 10 and arrange them in a reasonable fashion between the two conferences.

In another thread I suggested: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Texas Tech, Iowa State and West Virginia to the SEC. If we get paid to take them nobody would gripe much, especially since 5 of them would be in their own division.

I suggested that the ACC take Texas, Baylor, Houston, and T.C.U. along with Kansas State and N.D. all in (which for 50 million in TV revenue seems reasonable). That puts the ACCN in all of the top cities in Texas picks up the Kansas market and gives Texas their home division to play.

Nothing solves the voting issue in the ACC however. U.N.C. can count on the three other Carolina schools, Virginia and probably Virginia Tech. They once counted on Clemson but the Tigers might vote with the football first schools if Texas and Notre Dame were all in. N.D. would have some support from the Old Big East schools. Texas could count on the 4 buddies they would bring. Then in a 20 school conference 6 votes doesn't block something U.N.C. disagrees with and 6 votes doesn't pass what they want. So there would be 4 factions:

Notre Dame: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College

Texas: Baylor, T.C.U., Houston/Rice, and another, perhaps Kansas State

Core: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest, Virginia, Va Tech

Football First: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Floater: Louisville

So the very parts of the assembled Frankenstein have to work in concert if they are going to grow and thrive. But between U.N.C., Texas, Notre Dame and the growing swagger of the Clemson/F.S.U. faction there is way too much ego to control long enough to grow what is needed.

This ultimately will be ESPN's mess to handle. It is why I suggested paying the ACC slightly above their product value if they grew to 20. 50 million per school would probably be enough to pacify all parties and have a truce of greed long enough to pull it off.

Otherwise Occam's Razor says Texa-homa gives ESPN 80% of the total value of the Big 12 with a lot less headache and that the SEC would be the best possible place to capitalize off of that investment and the most likely ESPN held property strong enough to endure it.
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2018 05:43 PM by JRsec.)
02-06-2018 05:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #18
RE: Whither goest Texas?
ESPN doesn't need to think like that at all, unless a serious second bidder emerges for the most expensive college sports properties. There is little or no possibility that Fox will be that serious bidder as long as the Murdochs both control Fox and own the largest stake in Disney.
02-06-2018 05:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,271
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 108
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #19
RE: Whither goest Texas?
Independence in football, all other sports in the Big West for a small travel subsidy. Whatcha say, Wedge? 03-lmfao
Those Long Beach and Fullerton vs Texas baseball series will be epic.
02-06-2018 06:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,907
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Whither goest Texas?
(02-06-2018 05:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  ESPN doesn't need to think like that at all, unless a serious second bidder emerges for the most expensive college sports properties. There is little or no possibility that Fox will be that serious bidder as long as the Murdochs both control Fox and own the largest stake in Disney.

That's true, as long as there is no second formidable bidder. But there is a rumor that Amazon might be interested in acquiring FOX Sports, FS1, and FS2. I'd call that a game changer. Especially since ESPN's buyout walked the line with the government on how much of FOX they could buy and still gain government approval for the deal to go through. They really couldn't make an offer for those 3. And Amazon is sufficiently capitalized to pose a serious threat should they decide to go for that market.
02-06-2018 06:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.