Texas: Conference Affiliation Poll

Most people have the Big XII as the second best football conference and the PAC somewhere in the bottom half of the big six. I don't know why Texas would go anywhere.

Tough question, and hard to say without some figures. (namely, $$$) However, ignoring the $$$ issue, if you're Texas you want one thing: national championships. Texas has been able to play in 2 championship games in the BCS era, and the Big XII has been able to play in another 5, making a total of 7. The PAC-10 has played in 2, and schools not named USC have played in 0. The Big Ten has played in 3, and schools not named Ohio State have played in 0. Texas would have to consider whether their new conference would be easier to win (most likely, unless other teams from the Big XII follow them), and whether their strength of schedule would be enough to help them stay in the top 2 when there are multiple undefeated teams. I have to think that if you have 1 school in every BCS conference that is undefeated, the two that are going to get the nod for the title game are the SEC champ and the Big XII champ, unless one of the other teams actually grew a pair and played a decent OOC schedule during the season.



In conclusion, (money aside, of course) I think Texas going alone or with Missou, Nebraska, or A&M to the Big Ten doesn't happen. Texas going along with 5 other Big XII teams to the PAC-10 could, because the PAC-10 would be stronger conference top to bottom. However, the WAC showed us in the 90's that 16 team conferences are a bit unwieldy in football. It would be extremely difficult for a PAC-10 raid on the Big XII to result in a conference with balanced divisions that still preserved the Longhorns' traditional rivalries. So I think they stay put, unless the other 5 say, "We're leaving without you if you stay."

This is my shot in the dark. Texas is trying to keep the bi12 together where it is king. nebraska and missouri are threatening to leave if they don't get more power and money. big 12 and pac10 are discussing a joint tv deal that will bring in tons of money and avoid them having to expand. nebraska and missou are the only cogs in that wheel that are stopping this with their threats of leaving. so pac10 and texas leak this bogus story to try and get leverage given that if they go through with it, nebraksa and missouri and left out in the dark and their bargaining position with the big10 becomes zero.



the more i see and here the more i think things are not going to change much.

jonnylingo wrote:
This is my shot in the dark. Texas is trying to keep the bi12 together where it is king. nebraska and missouri are threatening to leave if they don't get more power and money. big 12 and pac10 are discussing a joint tv deal that will bring in tons of money and avoid them having to expand. nebraska and missou are the only cogs in that wheel that are stopping this with their threats of leaving. so pac10 and texas leak this bogus story to try and get leverage given that if they go through with it, nebraksa and missouri and left out in the dark and their bargaining position with the big10 becomes zero.



the more i see and here the more i think things are not going to change much.

I do not think the 6 Big 12 schools are seriously considering the PAC10 offer. I do think some schools (Missou and Nebraska) are considering the Big 12 offers, and colorado might already be jumping to the PAC10. So the discussions are on keeping those 3 schools, or what to do if they leave. I do not see why Texas leaves, nor OU. No reason for them to, for any sport. They do not need the PAC 10.

The few Texas fans I have talked to this morning really could care less. Their perspective is this--it gets them TV money, and all of the rivalries they care about would stay intact, because if Texas goes, you can be sure that the others will follow. A PAC-16 with Texas is more attractive, even to OU, than a Big-XII without Texas.



There's no reason to think Texas wouldn't enjoy the same success in the new PAC, so it really just comes down the tradition, logistics and money. They think the tradition will follow Texas into the PAC, and that money will cure logistical worries.



On the other hand, all the Baylor people are freaking out.

Lawboy wrote:

This is my shot in the dark. Texas is trying to keep the bi12 together where it is king. nebraska and missouri are threatening to leave if they don't get more power and money. big 12 and pac10 are discussing a joint tv deal that will bring in tons of money and avoid them having to expand. nebraska and missou are the only cogs in that wheel that are stopping this with their threats of leaving. so pac10 and texas leak this bogus story to try and get leverage given that if they go through with it, nebraksa and missouri and left out in the dark and their bargaining position with the big10 becomes zero.



the more i see and here the more i think things are not going to change much.

I do not think the 6 Big 12 schools are seriously considering the PAC10 offer. I do think some schools (Missou and Nebraska) are considering the Big 12 offers, and colorado might already be jumping to the PAC10. So the discussions are on keeping those 3 schools, or what to do if they leave. I do not see why Texas leaves, nor OU. No reason for them to, for any sport. They do not need the PAC 10.

How about doubling their yearly income from 10 to 20 million? That is a pretty good reason. it may not be being considered seriously right now but it looks more and more like a serious option if you look at how the big12 meeting went this week. No consensus, meetings went over, canceled presser at the end. I don't think ANYTHIGN is a done deal at this point. People are still jockeying. But this is probably what the cal guy was referring to as 'revolutionizing' college football.

Yeah, but Texas was also looking at its own network, which would increase their revenue even more than that, and would then be an issue for talks with the PAC10 and SEC. Texas does not need to move to get more money. And add to it that Texas is already the #1 revenue earner in college athletics while in the Big 12 with a horrible TV deal, again, do not see why they would have to move. The Big 12 could work a better TV presence and improve things fast. But I suspect Texas will get its own network first.

The money is with the Big 10. I think that would be their best bet to actually improve on their status. They could make more money in a conference they could continue to dominate-even moreso than they have in the Big-12, plus they open pretty big recruiting markets like Ohio, Penn, Michigan, and a decent state in Illinois. It doesn't get them into the two "big" states of Cal or Fla or into Ga or LA but they still have a much greater chance of making it to the NC winning the B-10 than they would winning the P-0. As for USC-stick a fork in 'em they're done! As for joining the SEC, winning the SEC title game would be more difficult than winning the NC title game. Figuring that you play in the SEC title game 10 times and the NC ten times, which would seem more difficult to win or in other words which would you come out of having a better winning percentage? My guess would be the NC game, (place blue goggles on face), especially since teams from the MWC have virtually no chance of making the NC game so they would have to settle for a team from a weaker conference like the P-0 or Big oh n ten. I don't think the BigLeast or the ACusedtobe even smell a title game since they have no fans left and they lose every year to FCS teams. So my conclusion is that if they jump, it should be where the money is and the NC title game is almost assured.

Email accounts have come out about chats between Gordon Gee, who is LDS, and the Pres of tOSU and the Pres at Texas. Sounds as if the sticking point to Texas joining the Big 12 is TTech. They will probably not be able to jump without them, and the Big 12 does not want them.



The more I read, the more I believe Texas stays, the Big 12 has 2-3 changes, and it stays in existence. I suspect Missouri might be it, and go toe the Big 12. Latest talk is that Nebraska will not be offered. So perhaps Colorado goes to the PAC. That leaves 2 holes to fill, and will reports being that the Texas schools have no desire to add another Texas school to the conference, I suspect BYU will be high on that list, along with another MWC team.

Lawboy wrote:
I suspect BYU will be high on that list, along with another MWC team.

That's all fine and good, but would BYU and New Mexico want to leave the MWC? ;)

I would. Utah would be gone to the PAc10, and I;d rather be affiliated with a BCS conference than the MWC's remaining teams. Why stay with SDSU, Wyoming, CSU when you can join with Texas, OU, Nebraska or co??



I would rather go with CSU than UNM, though.

I don't think people who use money as an argument for jumping ship are doing anything more than talking out of their butt.



First and foremost, the Big XII TV deal, which is presently not that bad, is up for bid this year as I recall. You better believe they'll be getting a big pay day. No other conference, save the SEC is as crazy about their football as the Big XII, which is why they have been in the championship game so many times in the BCS era. Football is like a religion in the heartland and in the south. Regardless of how "big" the markets are, the percentage of people watching college football in those markets is much greater in the Big XII and SEC. New York might be a desirable market but what percentage of that market actually cares about college football? For starters, half the population is already female and I seriously doubt that many female New Yorkers are spending much time watching football. And probably half of the New York male population is homosexual anyway so they aren't watching that much football either. People try to simplify this to number of TV sets but its eyes on TV sets and specifically college football programming that should be the mark here. Finally, Texas and A&M are two of the largest universities in the country and have been for a long time. As such they have some of the biggest alumni bases their are. And their alumni are crazy about their school spirit and sports, like no other.



But beyond that, why force yourself into a horrible travel situation for not just football but your non-revenue sports as well when virtually their whole conference is right in their back yard and within a few hours drive?



And Texas doesn't need any other recruiting markets besides Texas. They get the pick of the litter every year. And that litter just happens to be the best litter in the country every year. On the occasion that they have wanted to go outside of the borders to get a player, more often than not they get him too.



No, Texas isn't going anywhere. This is all just a bunch of smoke to try and keep the Big XII together. It benefits Texas the most to just keep things the same. If they have to cave a little bit on the revenue sharing in order to do so, I think it's in their best interest to do so. And they may not even have to cave that much to keep Nebraska and Missouri happy.



People assume that anyone invited to the Big Ten would get the same $22 million a year that the conference is getting right now. But their TV deals are relatively new and won't be renegotiated anytime soon. So, adding one, two or five more teams to the table just dilutes the pie that much more for everyone, same as adding BSU to the MWC would until a new TV deal is negotiated.

Apparently this is up to Nebraska and Mizzou. They've been issued a deadline according to the Austin American Statesman. The next two weeks ought to be interesting.



http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/bohls/entries/2010/06/05/nebraska_missou.html?cxntfid=blogs_bohl_games