Barking Carnival — Blog — Texas To Pac-10 Story Revisited

When Arkansas jumped to the SEC in 1990 the final stage for the demise of the SWC was set in motion. The league had already been doomed by various factors, not the least of which was the unbridled cheating that had been rampant during the 1980’s, but the Razorbacks defection sped up the process.

Back then Texas was ready to jump to the Pac-10. Again, outside factors stopped that idea in its tracks, and the retiring Pac-10 commissioner remembers it being a matter of Texas not being able to break away on its own.

Here is the gist of what Pac-10 Commissioner Tom Hansen remembers:

It’s been a long time and memories do tricks to you but Texas was in my opinion based on communications, Texas was very interested and it thought initially might be able to come alone. Then about the time things were really getting serious it was made clear to us by Texas-Austin that it couldn’t get clear of A&M. We invited A&M but before we got a clear signal from A&M, Ann Richards who was then the governor said Baylor’s my alma mater and they’re going wherever Texas and Texas A&M go and then in a less clear message, but still pretty well defined, we were told the legislators who control the oil money that goes to the Texas universities was controlled either by alumni of or representatives of the area of Texas Tech and now there was a group of four and we were not interested in going from 10 to 14 so we said ‘thank you anyway.’ But Texas alone was very favorably inclined to consider our offer.

While Governor Ann Richards was against the move of Texas to the Pac-10, it was Lt. Governor Bob Bullock who wielded the hammer to put a stop to it.

Gov. Richards wasn’t happy about the proposed move, but it was Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock who had the political will and the political power to make life miserable for Texas (and Texas A&M) should they decide to leave the SWC. Bullock, a graduate of both Texas Tech (undergrad) and Baylor (Law School), was adamant about the state university not leaving the others in the lurch. That along with other considerations, (travel, expenses, scheduling,) made the idea of Texas moving to the West Coast dead on arrival.

It wasn’t long after that the the idea of forming some kind of alliance with the Big 8 began to take shape.

Article Tags:

Bob Bullock knew where the bodies were buried, College Athletics, College Baseball, College Basketball, College Football, Media, Pac 10, Southwest Conference, Texas Longhorns, TV, TV Ratings

94 Responses

Facebook User said:

July 14th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

Man, I would love that move.
HenryJames said:

July 14th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

And House speaker Pete Laney was a Tech guy as well. I think he may also be responsible for dedfischer getting his own blog.
TaylorTRoom said:

July 14th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

Many people think that if Gib Lewis had not been weakened by scandal that TCU might have made the cut instead of Baylor.

Does Texas have to be in the same conference as TAMU to play them every year? We managed to play OU every year for a long time without sharing a conference.
Pancho Claus said:

July 14th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

How would it make sense for us to play half our games in a time zone two hours later?
Captain Obvious said:

July 14th, 2009 at 4:46 pm

Sailor, Who wouldn’t want to make the trek to Pullman mid-week in January? Nothing like the wind howling across the frozen Palouse.

Taylor, In hindsight TCU came out of split best of the four that got left behind and one could argue better off than Baylor.
srr50 said:

July 14th, 2009 at 5:37 pm

Billy Clayton carried the water for A&M and he assured Texas that they could go to the Pac 10 as long as the two still played each other yearly. Clayton thought he had a deal to get the Aggies to the SEC.

But that quickly faded and so A&M was looking to join Texas.
Jim Harrison said:

July 14th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

I’ll take Pullman over Ames. Man up, you fucking sissy.
Captain Obvious said:

July 14th, 2009 at 5:40 pm

The only good thing about Pullman is it is near Moscow. Hell, the smart Coug grads go to the satelite campus in Vancouver.
PatronSaint said:

July 14th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

It would suck to be in a different conference than Tech and A&M.
scally said:

July 14th, 2009 at 8:09 pm

can we get a “Never Mind Bob Bullock, I’m a Sex Pistol” tag?
dedfischer said:

July 14th, 2009 at 8:19 pm

Just remember in the end, who owns you.
Uncle Bevo said:

July 15th, 2009 at 5:06 am

What’s the incentive? What do we get out of the Pac-10 we don’t have in the Big 12?

Travel expenses would double or triple. We have no natural rivals in the Pac-10. We’d have most of our games two time zones away.

If the motive is to get away from the cheating, shouldn’t we run AWAY from USC?

Doesn’t make much sense to me. Sailor, why do you like the move so much?

Hook ‘em.
HenryJames said:

July 15th, 2009 at 5:20 am

What do we get out of the Pac-10 we don’t have in the Big 12?

Trader Joe’s and In-N-Out Burger.
Ag_in_TX said:

July 15th, 2009 at 5:40 am

TTR,

Of course, Georgia Tech and Georgia play each other as their last game of the season every year, even though they ar in different conferences.

I had never heard of any A&M interest in the Pac-10. What I have heard from some BDA’s was that the SEC move was very close, but Texas had to go to the Pac-10 at the same time and Richards and Bullock fouled that up.

In hindsight, A&M should have just jumped. I’ve always thought that if A&M was in the SEC, we’d have been kicking ass and taking names for years now.
Arkansas said:

July 15th, 2009 at 5:46 am

Keep thinking that khaki boy.
Bob in Houston said:

July 15th, 2009 at 5:52 am

Florida and Florida State and Clemson and South Carolina also play n-c rivalries at the end of the year.

I think Texas could go its own way now, with the SWC no longer being so ingrained.

The way I heard the A&M deal was the SEC wanted Texas and would take A&M to get Texas. A&M on its own… not so much.

As to why A&M would be cleaning up in the SEC when it hasn’t done all that much in the last 10 years of the B12… I need to understand more.
Nordberg said:

July 15th, 2009 at 6:03 am

Perhaps their recruiting, um, “strategies” would be more in line with those of many SEC schools.
TaylorTRoom said:

July 15th, 2009 at 6:41 am

As a point of reference, by the end of ‘94, Texas’ record in its last 100 games was 54 – 45 – 1. TAMU’s record in its last 100 games was 78 – 20 – 2.
Texasholdem said:

July 15th, 2009 at 6:44 am

If you move to the Pac-10, which game do you lose, TX-OU or TX-A&M? Or do you create an incredibly tough schedule for yourself like UF, FSU and Miami do by playing each other every year?

You might have more 2, 3, and 4 loss seasons, but a 1 loss Texas team plays in the National Championship game every time.
Scipio Tex said:

July 15th, 2009 at 6:48 am

I’d welcome a Pac 10 move. Lots of TV sets. Better media access. Our streamlined sports presence makes travel costs very doable.

Our presence would upgrade their football considerably (Texas recruits) and it would be an elite basketball league.

The Pac 10 would likely split divisionally or play a Big 10 round robin uneven schedule. In either event, road trips to Pullman would be fairly infrequent.

What you would do frequently is have away games in LA, Seattle, the Bay Area, Phoenix, Tucson….gee, sounds horrible. That just can’t compare with Manhattan, Lubbock, and Stillwater.
Captain Obvious said:

July 15th, 2009 at 6:48 am

The only problem when people discuss a UT move to the Pac is that they only consider football. Consider the travel implications alone for every other program when the closest school to you is in Az.
Scipio Tex said:

July 15th, 2009 at 6:50 am

Captain Obvious –

Presumably you’re familiar with the WAC?
Captain Obvious said:

July 15th, 2009 at 6:56 am

Ah yes, a shit conference with no exposure that once was a good conference that split and one reason was it was too fucking big.
Scipio Tex said:

July 15th, 2009 at 6:58 am

We’re talking about logistics. Try to focus.
Captain Obvious said:

July 15th, 2009 at 7:05 am

I am, have friends in the TCU athletic department, and the travel costs were killing the old WAC.

Unfortunately, Texas is screwed by geography and getting into a league in which all of the other schools are two time zones and the closest school being 800 miles is a bad business idea.

Name one other major conference besides the WAC they you have that type of distance and time zone issues.
Captain Obvious said:

July 15th, 2009 at 7:23 am

In terms of logistics, this would have to be a two team move to the Pac. Bringing Texas along leaves the conference with an odd number and if you split the conference into regions or areas you need a second school that brings something to the table in academics and an all around sports program.
Vasherized said:

July 15th, 2009 at 7:34 am

CU should have been in the Pac 10 from the beginning.

Every road game Texas played in the Pac 10 would be a sell out.

It would be a much bigger grind on the basketball and baseball teams but we have the budget to do it and the move would get us a much better TV contract than the bullshit we have now.

I’d be all for it.
Captain Obvious said:

July 15th, 2009 at 7:55 am

CU is down in football and basketball, I don’t believe have a baseball program, and bring what else other than a 12th team to the conference.

You also have to remember volleyball, tennis, softball, women’s basketball, track, soccer, golf, and every other sport. I am not sure you would get the increase in revenue and many of those football stadiums are already sold out.
glenn said:

July 15th, 2009 at 8:34 am

this might be just the move cu needs to make.

us, too. i think, especially, after the past year, that the time is right exactly now.

bring it on.

what would we be losing by leaving the b8++++?

: )
TaylorTRoom said:

July 15th, 2009 at 8:40 am

The only problem is that Baylor, TAMU, Tech, and OU all believe they have the kind of historical rivalry that is too deeply felt to ever break. Of course, Arkansas thought the same.
Vasherized said:

July 15th, 2009 at 8:44 am

Baylor, Tech, and A&M should form their own super conference where they just play eachother four times a year.
Nordberg said:

July 15th, 2009 at 8:47 am

Losing the OU game is unthinkable, and would never happen. But the aTm game on the other hand…. fuck ‘em. I’d have no problem with never playing them again in any sport.
glenn said:

July 15th, 2009 at 8:51 am

i don’t see losing the ou game as unthinkable.

but, for that matter, we played them 1000 years running without being in the same conference.

that said, i don’t think we are anywhere near as dependent on that game in dallas as somebody else.
Captain Obvious said:

July 15th, 2009 at 9:04 am

glenn, The big question is exactly what does CU bring to the deal besides struggling football and basketball programs, lagging name recognition, a minimal increase in media exposure, more travel costs, and a reduction in revenues by adding a 12th team to split the conference revenues.

Taylor, True, but Arkansas also saw a chance at a bigger pay day and that overrode any link to tradition. Things haven’t gone great for the Hawgs since they went to the SEC, but I wonder if it really would have been better had they stayed? Would the SWC have split when it did and what might have formed in place of the Big 12?
BatesHorn said:

July 15th, 2009 at 9:05 am

Vash-Well, that would suck for A&M. I mean, they’d go 0-8 every year.

The joke was obvious, but it had to be done.
Vasherized said:

July 15th, 2009 at 9:36 am

I guess you didn’t hear Corey Nelson is bringing back the Wrecking Crew?
dedfischer said:

July 15th, 2009 at 11:25 am

I know what’s best for you and moving to the Pac 10 won’t accomplish anything except the concession Austin to the State of California and us having to come bail you out again.
Vasherized said:

July 15th, 2009 at 11:41 am

Half the state of California has already moved to Austin.
NY Horn said:

July 15th, 2009 at 12:06 pm

Do we know if UT has made any motions to investigate whether we could jump to the PAC-10 or another BCS conference in the near future?

It seems with the rapid growth of college sports that we would be remiss to not put ourselves in the most advantageous position possible. We are already losing out on a lot of money and our opportunity costs will only increase into the future.
Ricky said:

July 15th, 2009 at 12:50 pm

I think the best situation would be if teams like USC, Ohio State, Florida, us, and yes, OU were to look into creating a ’super conference’. Get down to about 24 teams in 4 divisions. You play 5 games in your division and 4 games against a set rotation from the other divisions. Then the top 2 teams from each division go into the playoffs. It would generate a lot more money, make recruiting easier, and would let the best teams duke it out in a real playoff at the end of the year.
Captain Obvious said:

July 15th, 2009 at 12:58 pm

Biggest opposition I can see for the Super Conference Idea is from the coaches. Just for example you take USC, Oregon, UT, OU, Ohio St., Penn State, FSU, Miami, UF, and Bama. Each of those programs usually run in the top 1-3 of their conference. Mix in some others and all of a sudden you get programs that used to be at the top struggling to make .500. This is what Arkansas found going to the SEC and why I think the coaches would prefer a play-off over a super conference.
jonestopten said:

July 15th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

Not just Bullock and Laney. The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee was an ex-Tech football player named Rob Junell (now a federal judge). His counterpart in Senate Finance was John Montford from Lubbock, later the Tech Chancellor.

Texas had astonishingly few legislative heavyweights in their corner. They still don’t. State government and the legislature (in particular) is the one arena in the state where Texas grads don’t tend to dominate.

Try this: Name the last Governor with a degree from UT. How about the last Lt. Governor? The last Speaker of the House?

Any takers?
maninblack said:

July 15th, 2009 at 1:40 pm

As much as I hate this crap hole conference and every other school in it I think we are stuck with it because of geography. I would love to go independent but I think that might be even more difficult.

If the Big 12 had a better tv contract and Texas was treated as it should be because we carry this piece of shit conference then I don’t think we would have this discussion too often.
Vasherized said:

July 15th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

Dolph Briscoe / Bob Shivers. Not sure about Speakers. Probably a Tech grad, they’re all over the Texas Leg.
Houstonearlers said:

July 15th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

Big 12 would be a hell of a lot better if we dropped ISU and KSU and then ditched the divisions and conf champ game. Everyone play everyone once in football and home and home in basketball. Best record is conf champ.

We lose two schools that add very little to the conference, besides the 23 tvs with rabbit ears that comprise the KSU and ISU fanbase. So our tv dollars and other shared revenues should not drop, and would be split 10 instead of 12 ways.

SOS increases as you have 9 conference games instead of 8, so you have an additional conference game instead of a non-con patsy. Should get a better tv deal with more conf games and less need to televise KSU and ISU.

Your conference is overall stronger as you drop two of the weakest programs.

I firmly believe 10-member conferences are the way to go.
Spangler said:

July 15th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

Captain O – “Name one other major conference besides the WAC they you have that type of distance and time zone issues”

Boston college seems to do fine in the ACC despite travelling 1000s of miles to play Miami, GT, UNC etc. Granted, time zone diff isn’t there but travel expenses are
Captain Obvious said:

July 15th, 2009 at 2:22 pm

Spangler,

The comparative distances aren’t even close and the two time zone difference is huge.

First the distance and I don’t think some people realize how far the West Coast actually is from Texas.

Here are the distances according to Google Maps from the BC campus to the other schools in the ACC. I used walking which was the shortest available and while flight might be more direct I am not sure if you can fly directly between say Austin and Pullman. I am not sure if the Pullman airport is big enough for a charter to land there.

BC to Clemson 925 miles
BC to Duke 682 miles
BC to FSU 1,225 miles
BC to G Tech 1,053 miles
BC to MD 418 miles
BC to Miami 1,514 miles
BC to NC 690 miles
BC to NC State 605 miles
BC to UVA 487 miles
BC to V Tech 695 miles
BC to WF 729 miles

Total distance 9,023 miles

For the UT example I include CU since V Tech also made the move with BC.

UT to AZ 907 miles
UT to ASU 957 miles
UT to Cal 1,493 miles
UT to CU 930 miles
UT to Org 2,033 miles
UT to OSU 1,703 miles
UT to Stan 1,694 miles
UT to UCLA 1,376 miles
UT to USC 1,376 miles
UT to UW 2,168 miles
UT to WSU 1,972 miles

Total miles traveled 16,609 miles. Almost double the distance traveled.

Time zone has two effects. First the body clocks of the teams traveling. I don’t gamble much, but friends who do like the trend of betting on games with teams traveling at least two time zones due to the impact the change has on their performance. I can’t tell you how true that is, but I go to Seattle twice a year for family and there is an impact.

Additionally, if you are in one conference you have one tv package. So are night games in Austin going to start at 9:00 for the Pac tv package? Will a day game for Texas on the west coast start at 10:00 am PST to be shown at noon?
Nordberg said:

July 15th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

“Time zone has two effects. First the body clocks of the teams traveling.”

I believe this was the real reason we canceled the Hawaii game in 2000. We would have gone Austin > Hawaii > Austin > California > Austin.
dick said:

July 15th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

I like the idea of smaller super conferences comprising a smaller “super” Division 1 league. I wouldn’t mind seeing college football being setup more like Euro soccer, where you have teams that can get relegated to a lesser division. Keep the 6 BCS conferences and do away with the smaller crappy ones and move everyone else under one of the BCS conferences. Each BCS conference would have 8 teams in the Div 1 and 8-12 teams in Div 2. Teams would have the opportunity to move up or down a division depending on the prior year’s finish. You would have a playoff system for both Div 1 and Div 2. Div 1 teams can only schedule Div 2 teams if they are designated “natural” rivals.

This way you could keep geographical rivalries, give the little guys something to play for in Div 2 (both promotion to Div 1 and a Div 2 trophy), easily institute a playoff system (like they have in FBS) and probably ultimately improve the product and make more money. I think this would keep most people happy.
Captain Obvious said:

July 15th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

Agree with Houstonearler on deadweight in the conference. When the conference was formed K State was at their peak, but they have no and I mean no history prior to Snyder and I don’t foresee the glory days returning. They are average at best in basketball and when it comes to generating revenue the only two sports that matter are football and mens basketball. If you can’t get on television, go to a bowl, or advance in the basketball tournament you are sponging off the other members of the conference.

Iowa State is even worse. I think they have been to two bowl games, Chizik has set that program back, and I would be happy to see University of Iowa just annex Iowa State.

Also agree with maninblack that geography screws Texas somewhat from joining any other conference other than the SEC. PAC is too far and the Big 10 is really not a good fit due to geography. The conference needs to do something about television exposure be it a better contract (fucking joke the amount of television coverage for basketball) or their own network.
Scipio Tex said:

July 15th, 2009 at 4:13 pm

With respect to the two hour time zone difference – West to East is problematic – not East to West.

We’d be the beneficiary there. Oddsmakers penalize early kickoffs for West Coast teams. See Cal vs. Maryland in ‘08.

Our own network just can’t happen, at least right now. We’d have to find conference affiliations for baseball and basketball and I’m not sure how eager the old Big 12 would be to accomodate that once we’d taken all of their TV sets and relegated them to a Conference USA-like TV contract.
Captain Obvious said:

July 15th, 2009 at 5:32 pm

So what you are saying is that a Big 12 network with Texas wouldn’t work or your answer is based upon Texas not being part of the Big 12 in the near future?
TaylorTRoom said:

July 15th, 2009 at 6:07 pm

None of the old Big 8 schools are going anywhere. The Big 6 (and subsequently Big 8) was a successful conference for almost 80 years. Unlike the SWC, the member schools don’t hate and distrust each other.

This is not to say that OU or NU wouldn’t bail if there was a major shakeup and it was leave or die, but there will be no weak sisters from the Big 8 jettisoned from the Big 12.
Pancho Claus said:

July 15th, 2009 at 6:44 pm

Time zone – East to West is a problem for 12 o’clock games and for night games.

Anyway, what would we gain from a move to the PAC-10?

Football – the Big 12 is the #2 conference, arguably #1b, with the SEC being #1. I say 1b because no one else is even close to the SEC and Big 12.
Basketball – #1b to the ACC. No one else is close.
Baseball – #1? Hell I don’t know but the SEC is no match. Maybe the PAC-10 is #1… maybe the ACC is up there… it’s hard to say since CWS has a regional system that tends to over-represent weak conferences.

Why would we leave?
Captain Obvious said:

July 15th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

Pancho, I think the Big East might have something to say about your ranking of basketball conferences and baseball doesn’t really make money.
srr50 said:

July 15th, 2009 at 8:06 pm

Football – the Big 12 is the #2 conference, arguably #1b, with the SEC being #1. I say 1b because no one else is even close to the SEC and Big 12.

When it comes to what we are talking about, which is what really matters (TV sets and national pull) It is the SEC, then the Big 10, and after that it is not even close.

The ACC, as lousy a league in football as it is right now, still has a better TV contract than the Big 12.
CloseToJumping said:

July 15th, 2009 at 9:00 pm

Anyone looking at the Big 12 as anything as the Big Texas and the rest we call the remaining 11 is not dealing in financial reality. If we took ATM with us, wherever we go, we could do what we want in today’s environment. Being a part of the Pac 10 would be awesome. I have hoped for it most of my adult life.
milevin said:

July 16th, 2009 at 5:02 am

Thanks for the Hansen comment because I have never heard that version. The version I heard from some people in athletics offices from the Pac 10 and the old SWC (sorry for the anonymity) was Texas and Colorado departing for the Pac 10 and A&M going to the SEC with Arkansas.

Broyles, Arkansas’ AD, called his counterpart in College Station to say that Arkansas was going to announce the move. It was supposed to be a joint media conference. A&M got cold feet though. The media conference became a dog show instead of a dog and pony show. The SEC then scrambled to add South Carolina. Thus, the lag in the announcements.

Texas was the lynch pin with a deal to the Pac 10. Colorado and, later, A&M would not receive invitations without Texas. Texas’ flirtation with the Pac 10 was motivated by academics and research money. The Pac 10 schools as a whole enjoy a stronger academic reputation compared to the then Big 8 schools, boast larger enrollments, offer similar programs (law school, medical school, etc.) as Texas, and attract hefty research money.

Stanford, and to a much,much lesser extent Cal, blocked the Texas bid because they did not want a rival for academic prestige and research money.

To keep Texas happy, the Big 12 ceded on academic issues such as the admission of partial qualifiers and minimum academic standards for high school recruits.

When you are discussing conference alignment, please keep in mind that two parties control the discussion: (1) ADs, who are focused on travel, budget, and competition and (2) presidents, who are focused on academics and research. These two parties often have conflicting agendas.

For example, in the middle 1990s, the Big 11 ADs wanted to add in order of preference: (1) Syracuse, (2) Louisville, (3) Pitt, or (4) Rutgers. The presidents liked Rutgers well enough but put the kibosh on the other three on academic grounds. The presidents discussed Mizzou and Nebraska but, like Rutgers, the ADs could not reach a consensus. Thus, the Big 11 stopped expansion discussions.

Hansen’s comments, though, could refer to Texas possible admission to the Pac 10 as the SWC was dissolving. The influence of political members that he refers to seems consistent with stories I have been told about that time period. The Texas and CU to the Pac 10 talk could have occurred as Arkansas left the SWC for the SEC.
Bob in Houston said:

July 16th, 2009 at 5:14 am

First I’ve heard that A&M was going with Arkansas. Arkansas had issues with the SWC that A&M didn’t.

And, the Big Ten never loved any of those Eastern schools like they loved Notre Dame. Louisville was not (and is not) an academic fit. The others have been considered because they are potential travel partners with Penn State, with Rutgers getting some support because it is considered a potential gateway to NYC TVs… but at the end of the day, Occam’s Razor would tend to show that none of these factors has been considered good enough for the B10 to add a 12th.
dedfischer said:

July 16th, 2009 at 5:36 am

Listen, when we set this deal up, we understood that it was better off to throw your money at one centralized location and do it big versus spreading it out and having a bunch of half ass outfits. Lubbock was cursed geographically, so we set the thing up in Austin and most us retired to less populated areas. We watch over it from afar and make sure things don’t get too far out of whack, and don’t think you guys would enjoy the Pac 10 as much as you think. We’ve got you right where we want you for now.
Ricky said:

July 16th, 2009 at 5:40 am

I like the small super conference idea just because it would lead to an even higher concentration of talent and would make for a lot better games and tighter competition. While it would be a huge boon to those schools (and the reason I think coaches would go along for the ride when all their salaries go up) there would be an outcry from those to be left out that would kill the idea.

I think something closer to dick’s plan might be more feasible, though I would drop the euro soccer relegation. I like having 8, 10-team conferences with a 9-game conference season and perhaps just 2 intersectional match-ups from the other divisions. Then you can set up various playoff scenarios. You can take the 8 conference champs and have a playoff. You can take those 8 plus 4 wildcards and run an NFL-style playoff with the top 4 teams getting 1st round byes (which would put a premium on the regular season record). Or you could take the top 2 from each conference and run a 16-team playoff.

Obviously which 39 teams get dropped and how the conferences get redistributed is open for debate. This would be the cleanest set-up and therefore will never be considered by the idiots running things.
Arrowden said:

July 16th, 2009 at 5:41 am

Prior to the proposed move to the PAC 10 was the idea of ND and UT signing on with NBC as a package. Texas would have gone independent. That at the time would have been a Super conference.
Ag_in_TX said:

July 16th, 2009 at 5:56 am

The break-up of the old SWC, the economics that drove it and the economics of today that will drive the next realignment are at the center of a multipart blog posting I’ll be doing over the summer. Stay tuned.

But suffice to say – money drives everything. EVERYTHING. And football attendance and football TV appeal (those are connected) drive income side of all athletic departments.

The Big XII is a middle of the pack conference, economically. Of the Top 20 schools in average football attendance, the breakdown per conference is:

SEC – 7
Big 10 – 5
Big XII – 4
ACC – 2
Pac 10 – 1
and Notre Dame

2008 average attendance per game shows the following schools from the Big XII as being the centerpieces of some new realignment to grow out of the present arrangement:

5. Texas – 98,046
12. Oklahoma – 85,075
13. Nebraska – 85,071
14. Texas A&M – 82,193

Needless to say, the Pac 10 is the not the right direction for Texas to be looking. The superconference where money flows forth from TVs lies to the east, not the west.
Ojnab Bob said:

July 16th, 2009 at 6:39 am

I’m not naive, but I have to admit I’m a little disappointed in the “longing for the Pac-10″ theme coming out of a lot of the UT fans I respect on this site.

I understand the academic/financial points, but as TaylorTroom said, the old Big 8 got along well with each other, and I had hoped that after 14 years together a little more loyalty would exist between the old Big 8 teams and the University of Texas (particularly after Nebraska assented to the ban on partial qualifiers, which helped cut our program off at the knees).

I guess the craptastic TV deals we’ve gotten over the years haven’t helped with that either.
Minnesotahorn said:

July 16th, 2009 at 6:44 am

Ag in Tx I’m not sure if you’re understanding this but to athletic departments, conference affiliations aren’t about attendance numbers. They’re about TV sets. Pac-10 plus Texas and/or Colorado is a powerhouse in that department.
Minnesotahorn said:

July 16th, 2009 at 6:52 am

Ojnab this is a decision that shouldn’t be impacted by loyalty or animosoity or hurt feelings or puppy love crushes. It has to be about long term viability. I think I speak for most UT fans when I say that I very much like and respect UNL. That said, if there’s a better financial situation out there it’s UT’s duty to take it.
TaylorTRoom said:

July 16th, 2009 at 7:09 am

I have been a broken record on this topic, but I’ll say it again- The best conferences are those where the member institutions share common goals.

The Big 10 is a collection of 11 schools that emphasize academic stature and success in the two big sports. It’s a strong, strong conference.

The SEC is a collection of 12 schools that emphasize success in their primary sport (football for 10 schools, basketball for one, and polo for one) over all else. It’s a strong conference.

The SWC was a collection of state schools that wanted athletic and academic stature, state schools that wanted athletic success over all else, private schools that emphasized academic stature, and private schools that wanted to be big time in sports despite small time support.

Conferences, like the SWC, that are just thrown together for marketing conveniences are not built to last.
Ag_in_TX said:

July 16th, 2009 at 7:11 am

I disagree (to an extent), Minnesotahorn.

You aer correct that conferecnes care about TV desirability.

But, average attendance has a direct correlation to how many TV sets a given school will draw into a conference TV package.

The TV mega-deal given the SEC is because of the TV sets they draw in – and having 7 of the Top 20 in average attendance is proof of their popularity.

Texas going to the Pac 10 would actually result in a step DOWN in TV desirability for y’all.
Ag_in_TX said:

July 16th, 2009 at 7:24 am

TTR – and so A&M and Texas are a best fit for the Big 10? Good luck with making that happen.

All joking aside, both schools exist in a different academic sphere than the rest of the Big XII.

I know from an academic standpoint, we both hold our noses at the thought of the SEC. But from a money standpoint, is there another choice?
Matthew Ladner said:

July 16th, 2009 at 7:39 am

A few years ago, when OU fans felt like they had been screwed by the refs against Tech, I happened upon a message board full of Okies plotting their way out of the Big 12.

They were going to the SEC, they were going to kick the Texas teams out and go back to the Big 8, etc. etc. etc. etc.

All of it was completely and utterly nuts. I posted a note to say, in effect, calm down Sooners. I still remember the Gary Gibbs and John Blake era. You’ve never had it so good.

Well guys, let me tell you, Texas has never had it so good either.

Yes, the Big 12 TV contract stinks due to the depopulated plains states to the north. Granted.

Further, UT should have some contingency plans should either CU or Mizzou bolt and take the only decent northern tv markets with them.

Overall, however, the status quo is working quite well for UT. We are in the national title hunt every year in football every year, we have damn good coaches in all the major sports, and our facilities are top notch. DKR looks like a professional stadium, etc.

How soon we forget the craptacular McWilliams and Mackovic eras.

A major change initiated by someone else would of course obligate us to reevaluate. But for now, things are going pretty well.

As an ex-pat Texan, btw, I live in PAC-10 country, and all people do out here is complain about how they get ignored, and spin delusions of grandeur about a football conference which, when you really look at it, amounts to USC and the 9 dwarves.
Captain Obvious said:

July 16th, 2009 at 7:43 am

The old Big 8 did not get along, but what they did do is rarely rat each other out to the media. The smaller schools knew they lived off of OU and NU going to bowls on an annual basis, but I really don’t think they liked what was going on much like the case in the SEC today.

The SWC not only had cheaters like Sherril, Meyer, Collins, Dry, and Yoeman, but also a back-stabbing-lying-negatively recruiting SOB like St. Grant at Baylor. Teaff was as destructive as anyone to the conference. Mix in some institutional arrogance and the Dallas Morning News and you get a conference ready to implode in the 80’s.

In regards to television market share I don’t know how to determine that one a state wide basis, but just looking at general state populations which I would think has to have some correlation and the Big 12 is the smallest of the major conferences. I realize that just because you have a state in a school doesn’t mean you get the state’s entire viewing audience (ie. DePaul in Illinois and Cincinnati in Ohio), but it is pretty staggering the difference.

Big East 105.5 M (NY, NJ, Penn, Mass, Ohio, Conn., Ind., Fla., Ill., and Wis).

Big 10 66.9 M (Ill., Penn., Ohio, Mich.,Ind.,Wis.,Min., and Iowa)

ACC 61.4 M (Fla., NC, Mass., Ga., Md.,SC, Va.)

SEC 57.5 M (Fla.,Ga.,Tenn.,Ala.,SC, La.,Kty.,Mss.,Ark.)

PAC 10 53.5 M (Cal.,Az.,Wash.,Org.)

Big 12 46.1 M (Tex.,Mizz.,Co.,Ok.,Iowa,Ks., Neb.)

If anyone can give me a way to approximate the media market numbers let me know. The state of Texas is greater than half of the Big 12’s total number and what I found interesting is that the smallest area of population (which I would presume again correlates to media market) is Neb. who seemed to lock horns with Texas on several issues in the creation of the conference.
Stuck in MN said:

July 16th, 2009 at 7:52 am

“Stanford, and to a much,much lesser extent Cal, blocked the Texas bid because they did not want a rival for academic prestige and research money.”

I just know Stanford lays awake at night worrying about us surpassing them in academic prestige.

And ojnab bob hates Texas- he refused to take a picture with is in front of the NU scoreboard after the 2002 game. He is just a bitter, bitter man.
Houstonearlers said:

July 16th, 2009 at 7:54 am

Yes there is another choice besides the SEC — which is the dirtiest conference around.

Make our conference stronger by dropping the weak sisters.

A conference of

Texas
OU
Nebraska
A&M
Texas Tech
Missouri
Colorado
Okie State
Kansas
Baylor

Texas, OU, and A&M, considering the longterm built in advantages such as location, money, and fanbase — should all be top-10 to 15 type programs. A&M just has to get their crap together.

Then you have Nebraska — who has tradition, fanbase, and money – and while NU is not set up as well as the top 3, it has enough to be an occasional elite team and consistent top-20 type team. (The days of relying on functionally retarded PQs with talent who were shunned by the PAC 10 schools — and such PQs curiously managing to graduate from NU at an 80+% rate — are over).

Mizzou is like A&M lite. They should do much better than they have done historically. They have a decent recruiting base and a decent tv market. They are a good school to have in the conference considering their potential — especially since they are in the bottom half.

Then you have CU. They can be an occasional top-25 team and should be a bowl team almost every year.

Okie Lite has plenty of T Boone’s jack. They will be solid so long as they continue to recruit Texas hard. They are a very good basketball program too.

Tech – a better version of Okie Lite in football.

KU. Probably destined to be a poor football program — but I like their long-term potential better than the wasteland in Manhattan. True basketball royalty.

Baylor – no reason they can’t be decent given their prime location. Much better potential than KSU or ISU.

Top to bottom you have a salty conference. Everyone playing everyone once a year in football makes our tv deal much more attractive (you restore a former great rivalry in OU-NU to an annual affair, you get Texas, OU, Aggy, and Tech versus NU, CU, and Mizzou every year — each of those games should be interesting). Then the tv pie and other shared revenues are split 10 ways instead of 12.

Seriously, the best fix here is the easiest. Send ISU and KSU packing at the earliest opportunity.
Stuck in MN said:

July 16th, 2009 at 8:11 am

I’d get rid of KSU and Baylor for 2 reasons, both of which might be considered selfish and inapplicable to the fanbase at large- 1) my wife went to ISU so the biannual thrashings of them bring me much joy along with the ability to talk smack in my house for once, and 2) Ames is only 3 hours away from me so I would lose the only game that is actually easy to attend.
Sasha_is_a_Longhorn_Dog said:

July 16th, 2009 at 8:38 am

“Texas had astonishingly few legislative heavyweights in their corner. They still don’t. State government and the legislature (in particular) is the one arena in the state where Texas grads don’t tend to dominate.”

Not to change the subject, but as an entering law student, this is interesting to me. I know that law grads tend to practice in the general area where their law schools are located. So, could this be a case of Texas law grads (and maybe not just law, but Texas grads in general) having more opportunity to go elsewhere while Tech law grads are more constrained to staying in Texas. I fully respect the Tech law school and have heard many good things about it, but Texas is a top 20 law program, which equals greater opportunities.

OK. Continue on with the conference discussion. I’d add to it, but I’m not well informed.
Captain Obvious said:

July 16th, 2009 at 9:03 am

Sasha, Ask yourself these questions. Which non-coach has part of the football complex named after him? How did he amass such wealth? Why go into politics when you can make this much jack?
HenryJames said:

July 16th, 2009 at 9:40 am

Yeah, the legislators make around $7,200 a year not including per diem during session.
Bob in Houston said:

July 16th, 2009 at 9:48 am

Matthew is correct… the Pac-10 schools are unanimous that their TV deal stinks.
Ricky said:

July 16th, 2009 at 10:33 am

What is the mechanism for a conference to drop a team? I can’t think of it happening in the past, it is usually only good teams leaving a weak conference for a stronger one.

I like the idea of getting the Big 12 down to 10. (What would it be called, “The Big 10 that is really 10 and not 11″?)
Captain Obvious said:

July 16th, 2009 at 10:43 am

I think you send each of the schools you want to stay a folded up note with the message “check yes or no if you don’t like iowa state anymore”.
Ag_in_TX said:

July 16th, 2009 at 10:49 am

I think the next shakeup is going to be the Big One.

There are 6 BCS conferences + ND yielding a total of 66 teams. I hope the next realignment takes us to four 12 team conferences. I see the Big East and the ACC merging, kicking out their weak sisters, and the Big XII being broken apart, with only Texas, Texas A&M, OU and Nebraska surviving.
BatesHorn said:

July 16th, 2009 at 11:23 am

Well the other problem is that most Texas Grads don’t want to live in the rural areas of the states that end up dominating the legislature. Austin’s never had any pull in the legislature and the guys that represent the city have been around for ages.

When I worked legislature for a session in 1997, we never even bothered with the Austin reps. It was always some Senator from downtown Houston or Abilene that swung a big stick. And most of those guys didn’t go to UT.
Ricky said:

July 16th, 2009 at 12:13 pm

Tech, Missouri, Colorado and even Kansas and KState would be yearly bowl participants in the Big East without any changes in their current profiles. The Big East already merged with the ACC and the weak sisters were left behind. (How would the current 12-team ACC expand to 12 teams, anyway?) Its the current Big East teams that don’t make the cut. Most of the Big 12 survives any major realignment that isn’t based on shrinking what is currently the FBS.
Captain Obvious said:

July 16th, 2009 at 5:41 pm

Wait, you are saying no one from inside Houston or West Texas goes to UT?
BatesHorn said:

July 17th, 2009 at 8:18 am

No, I’m saying the guys that were BMOC in the legislature the session I worked didn’t give a shit about UT’s priorities (and I don’t think they went to UT either) and the Austin reps were worthless.
Ricky said:

July 17th, 2009 at 11:02 am

Arkansas leaving the conference really was the nail in the conference though I think the conference was trending down by the mid 80s. The last decade of the SWC was pretty bad. The conference champ went 1-9 in their bowl games! A&M finished the season ranked in 9 of the 10 years. Arkie finished ranked in 3 of their last 5 years in the conference. We finished ranked only 3 times. Houston and Tech made 2 appearances and Baylor one. The SWC barely averaged 2 ranked teams while the P10, B10, SEC, and B8 all averaged over 3.

The SWC completely lost the realignment wars. Arkansas leaving also saw the conference lose its national credibility. While the Big East and ACC went from football doormats to players the SWC went from player in the late 80s to doormat just after we got sh*tkicked by Miami at the end of the 1990 season. The last two years of the conference don’t look too horrible, but A&M was the only ranked team from 91-93 and was beaten in every one of their trips to Cotton Bowl in those years.
Will said:

July 18th, 2009 at 5:10 am

Going to the Pac-10 isn’t feasible. Ever. Until they invent a super train or some other mode of transportation that has you to your destination almost immediately and where you suffer no real effects of time zone difference.

Also, the Pac-10, while having better academics and better secondary sports, is pretty much as bad or worse than the Big 12 in football. We bitch about ISU, KSU, Baylor, etc., but the Pac-10 has Stanford, UCLA (might get turned around), Washington, Washington St., and Arizona.

It’s USC and a bunch of weak sisters. We’d dominate, but it’d be the exact same situation as we currently find ourselves in. Playing one big game a year in conference (switch OU for USC) and then maybe having one or two more potentially interesting ones each year (switch Tech and Okie Lite for Oregon/Oregon St./Arizona St).

And like was mentioned above, you can’t really get away from the cheating. OU cheats like mad, but it seems now like USC does as well. I’d also be inclined to think that us moving to that conference would encourage more teams there to cheat. Can you imagine how scared it would make programs like USC if they had Texas dipping into California talent on a regular basis?

I think the only real way to go is Independent. We are the top grossing athletic program in the country, right? We put butts in the seats and we always get fantastic TV ratings. Finding ourselves a TV deal and going solo might be a great move.

Keep OU, TAMU, Tech, and a few others on the schedule each year. Rotate traditional teams like Baylor, Rice, TCU, etc. into the schedule every other year or so. Then fill the rest of the schedule up with legitimate, big time games. While it would suck traveling to the West Coast for a ton of games each year if we were in the Pac-10, it wouldn’t suck to go out there for a game or so each year against a USC or some such. We could also mix in Big 10/11 and SEC squads.

That way we’re nation-wide. Folks on the West Coast get to see us. Folks on the East Coast get to see us. Folks in the Upper Midwest get to see us. We’re playing games in each of the BCS conferences and we’re extending our recruiting influence in each and every game.

I also think this might revolutionize the college game. Notre Shame is Independent and gets tons of air-time but they suck and half their schedule is filled up with service academies. If we were playing legitimate games almost every week against big-time programs all across the country, the media would be all over us. All this whining and crying about poor scheduling would be over and done with. Our schedule would be nasty, but it’d be fun, interesting, and rake in the money for us. And I think it would force other schools to follow suit.

Probably a pipe dream, but man it gets old watching us play scrubs in this shit conference week in and week out.
Bob in Houston said:

July 18th, 2009 at 8:24 am

Going independent destroys basketball and baseball.

And the football schedule would end up looking a lot like ND’s for two reasons; 1) You’re not going to convince high-ranking BCS teams to play you later in the season, and 2) Mack Brown still must approve.
Will said:

July 19th, 2009 at 4:09 am

How does it destroy those sports? I’m not being sarcastic there, I’m honestly asking. Isn’t Notre Dame’s bball team fairly good most years? I really don’t keep up with baseball.

As far as convincing teams to schedule, I don’t think it’d be all that tough. Teams know they need to put marquee games on the docket (see the article here about LSU looking for games in Texas). If Texas is actively looking for big-name teams to play them and everyone is ducking us, then we raise a stink. You get Mack on the TV telling the nation how USC or LSU or Florida refuses to schedule us and I think it’d light a fire under some programs.

Also, just keep the gist of the schedule the same. Slot in a few big name teams early in the season and then leave traditional matchups for later in the year. We’d HAVE to play OU, Tech, and Agric. Absolutely no way out of those three games. So you throw in a mid-level team and just get one decent team scheduled near the end of the year and you’ve got the tail end of October and November all mapped out.

Just for example, here’s a hypothetical schedule:

Rice
TCU
Arkansas (assuming they stop ducking us)
Colorado (some revolving old Big 12 team here)
Oregon St. (some mid-level Pac-10/Big 10 foe)
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St. (or another revolving Big 12 foe)
Tech
Ole Miss
Wake Forest (some Big East/ACC/etc. foe here)
Wyoming (or some other throw away cupcake game)
Agric

I suck at this, but the point should be clear anyway. You can put one or two heavy hitters on the schedule each year. You have three for sure games with OU, Tech, and Agric. Then you mix in 2-4 mid-level opponents spread out between the BCS conferences plus the Mountain West. After that, fill up the rest of the schedule with gimmies.

Schedule is chock full of great games. You get to extend your influence all over the country. The games are broadcast nation wide in prime time almost every week. Nobody gives you shit about not having a strong SOS.

As far as Mack not approving the games, I have no idea. I thought it was Deloss that wore the pants in our program. If Mack is too dense to see that scheduling tougher foes is crucial to long-term positive perception of this program and success, I don’t know what to tell you.

If shitty ass Notre Shame can make an Independent schedule work, I have to think we could find a way to do it, too.
Blueshorn said:

July 19th, 2009 at 8:24 am

“If Mack is too dense to see that scheduling tougher foes is crucial to long-term positive perception of this program and success, I don’t know what to tell you.”

Mack wants to keep his string of consecutive 10-win seasons intact. That’s his perception of success.
Bob in Houston said:

July 19th, 2009 at 8:51 am

Will, you think that if Texas is on the phone, people will just swoon and move games around? It’s not that Texas has room for any of those teams, but that the other teams will make room for Texas on the dates they want, especially as you go later in the season.

Example: Texas swapped Tech for UCF on this year’s schedule because ESPN asked and because they wanted to avoid the schedule of last season, with the string of four difficult games.

Teams are *not* going to be looking to play Texas in October or November as a n-c game.

Additionally, while B12 teams in Texas and Oklahoma *may* be interested, the rest of them are unlikely.

As to basketball and baseball, when Texas drops the B12, Texas loses 16 basketball games plus a tournament, and 27 baseball games plus a tournament.

ND is hooked up with the Big East for those sports, but part of that is the prayer that someday, somehow, the Irish would join for football, too. Additionally, the Irish have drawing power on the East Coast.

Texas doesn’t have a close alternative with which to affiliate for those sports. They’re leaving the B12, the SEC doesn’t need them, and the Big Ten is too far away (and also doesn’t need them). I suppose CUSA would take them, but you can’t compare the competitiveness of the Big East to CUSA.

Even if football were to carry the day and a national contract were to be found, interest in Texas football would fade quickly outside the contiguous states. Texas football didn’t keep the Southwest Conference from folding. If Texas won 10 games every year, the contract might hold up, but 6-6 or worse, and they’d be done.
CapTain Obvious said:

July 19th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

One other point Will. Hypothetically Texas leaves the Big 12 to go independent. Which bowl game do they have access? The only reason why ND has access to the BCS bowls is that it is negotiated into the agreement. Why would the BCS redo the agreement just for Texas? Because Texas is Texas? Big freaking deal. The BCS is not about teams it is about conferences and getting the exposure, money, and power among a select few. Texas going independent in my mind actually is working against that.

Texas had benefited tremendously from the Big 12 in basketball and it would hurt the program to be alone. As pointed out above, ND is an independent in football only and they can only survive due to the television contract with NBC. If that were to go you would see them either becoming the 12 team in the Big 10 or move into the Big East.
Bastard Rapechild of El Roberson said:

July 27th, 2009 at 10:47 am

Man are Texas fans confused. Do you have any idea how much you own this conference? You are the sole focus of the conference, the original 8 have done everything possible and then some to fit your every need.If you think your getting that same centric treatment in the Pac 10 I invite you to go find out. You wont like what happens.
Barking Carnival — Blog — The Unraveling of the Big 12 said:

December 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm

[...] But if you think NBC or Fox wouldn’t be interested in signing a mega TV deal for The BigPac 16 that would drag millions of ABC/CBS/ESPN eyeballs West, srr50 would like to have a chat with you in [...]

38

Pac 10 Getting Serious About Expansion
By srr50 on February 9th, 2010
63

Big 10 Getting Serious About Expansion
By srr50 on February 12th, 2010
153

Being Bill Powers
By horninexile on February 15th, 2010
9

The Fight For Houston Astros TV Rights: Why It Matters To Texas
By srr50 on February 26th, 2010
46

ESPN, SEC to reach into Big 12 Territory…
By srr50 on July 22nd, 2009

Hot Forum Topics

Perrish Cox banned from pro day
Last Post By: The General
Inside: Pokelahoma Forum
The Ides of March
Last Post By: bateshorn
Inside: Barking Carnival Forum
Bergeron Ran an 11.1 Yesterday
Last Post By: dedfischer
Inside: Barking Carnival Forum
Good News - Tech will still suck next year as Pat Knight is coming back!
Last Post By: Sailor Ripley
Inside: Spence Park Soapbox Forum
Miami Giving Duke some problems
Last Post By: Trips Right
Inside: March To March Forum
Video of Mike Leach Sodomizing Craig James
Last Post By: Ag_in_TX
Inside: Barking Carnival Forum
Rumor on Cory Joseph
Last Post By: skymonkeyhorn
Inside: Barking Carnival Forum
K State 61 - Oklahoma State 31
Last Post By: admin
Inside: Pokelahoma Forum
First Boner, then Corey Haim.....
Last Post By: magnusbleuveigner
Inside: Culture Pop Forum
Ducks vs. Iceland
Last Post By: ursa major
Inside: Barking Carnival Forum

Activity

RSS Feed

Nate Heupel commented on the blog post Things To Do While Not Watching OU in the NCAA Tourney 8 minutes ago

Six, magnus. This is now the SIXTH week of my infant-induced involuntary abstinence program. I’ve found that large doses of Woodford Reserve (not cut with water) take the edge off.

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
HenryJames commented on the blog post Texas finishes sweep of Iowa 9 minutes ago

That would certainly explain his often hasty exits.
HenryJames commented on the blog post Texas finishes sweep of Iowa 9 minutes ago

That would certainly explain his often hasty exits.

jones,

I think Workman speaks Spanish.
Scipio Tex commented on the blog post Texas finishes sweep of Iowa 13 minutes ago

I just like the mental image of Trips trying to put 3 quarters, a dime and four pennies in a stripper’s thong.
Scipio Tex commented on the blog post Beat the Barkers NCAA Tourney Bracket 19 minutes ago

No one rocks a mockneck quite like Joe Lunardi.
Art Vandelay commented on the blog post Beat the Barkers NCAA Tourney Bracket 19 minutes ago

Texas basketball has never been in better shape.

By that I mean there are 7 teams from the state of Texas in the tournament field.
P.Drez commented on the blog post Can Anyone Stop This Guy? 19 minutes ago

He and Drogba yes.

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post The high cost of razors 42 minutes ago

Does Mel Stottlemeyer habla espanol?

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
Ag_in_TX commented on the blog post Beat the Barkers NCAA Tourney Bracket 1 hour, 1 minute ago

I have A&M making it to the Final Four.

I’ve been sporting wood for two weeks straight now.
Nate Heupel wrote a new blog post: Things To Do While Not Watching OU in the NCAA Tourney 1 hour, 13 minutes ago

1) Fill out a bracket whilst weeping softly and saying “Damn you for leaving us, Sampson” to no one in particular
2) Recover a small bit of joy at pegging UT for a first round exit after you realize that this is a realistic possibility
3) Rewatch the Sun Bowl
4) Post overlong diatribes needling Huckleberry to come

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
Trips Right commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The Wild West Regional 1 hour, 25 minutes ago

Triston, exactly.

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post Beat the Barkers NCAA Tourney Bracket 1 hour, 26 minutes ago

Great video. Did Beilein have a similar look when Evan Turner pulled his heart our of his chest this weekend?

I’d really like a Tote Bag too. Maybe we’ll have a telethon / pledge drive.
Kevin Berger commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The Wild West Regional 1 hour, 47 minutes ago

I thought I hedged appropriately with the Onuaku stuff. If he’s healthy Cuse rolls. If not, they’re two and done.

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
Vasherized commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The Wild West Regional 1 hour, 51 minutes ago

I am buying NCAA tourney credit default swaps insuring I cash out Mark Burry style HUGE when Butler knocks off UTEP in the first round.

This looks like a fucking NIT bracket compared to KU’s region.

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
jc25 commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The Wild West Regional 1 hour, 52 minutes ago

I find it hard to pick against a Cuse team just because it lost its final two games to (1) a pumped up Louisville team on Senior Day in the last game at Freedom Hall and (2) a solid Georgetown squad that made it to the Big East Final and had also lost its prior

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
Blake Stansbery commented on the blog post Three Strikes: John Pelphrey 2 hours, 3 minutes ago

I agree with your first two points 100%. We have to land Ratliffe, and fortunately there seems to be some good news on that front. I read that he canceled his remaining official visits after coming to Arkansas and then going through Alabama on his way back to Florida. The Hogs have the biggest need

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
Patrick Bateman commented on the blog post NFL Draft: A Mockery 2 hours, 8 minutes ago

Here’s a concern for Kindle other than the pubs. I still think he compares well to Anthony Spencer of Dallas….

Texas OLB/DE Sergio Kindle registered an unimpressive 10-yard split at the Combine at 1.65 seconds.
Some scouts reportedly had Kindle at 1.70 seconds. Kindle’s forty time (in the 4.65-4.71 range) was impressive, but he doesn’t have
Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post Bracket Analysis: The Wild West Regional 2 hours, 9 minutes ago

OK, Berger. Taking UTEP a long way. If you set my brackets ablaze, I will hunt you down and force you to arm wrestle a Juarezian Mexican midget wrestler.

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
HenryJames commented on the blog post Texas finishes sweep of Iowa 2 hours, 11 minutes ago

Good find. That’s where I got it.

So that makes their ERA 1.77.
bonecrusher commented on the blog post Texas finishes sweep of Iowa 2 hours, 18 minutes ago

Are you sure about the 1.89 ERA? If you got this number from TexasSports.com STATS page, they haven’t updated for Sunday’s shutout yet. The STATS web intern is probably on spring break.
Sancho commented on the blog post C-USA TOURNEY PREDICTIONS 2 hours, 19 minutes ago

Article coming soon…believe me, I have a couple opinions
BrickHorn commented on the blog post Texas finishes sweep of Iowa 2 hours, 27 minutes ago

HenryJames goes 3-for-4 on game coverage. Not a bad outing for a blogger, really.
Chase Sessoms wrote a new blog post: Three Strikes: John Pelphrey 2 hours, 31 minutes ago

The Hog’s late season collapse has left a bad taste in a lot of fan’s mouths. Tune into any local sports talk program and you’ll hear people clamoring for John Pelphrey’s head on a platter, but is that premature?

I for one think it is premature. No one in Arkansas is used to being this mediocre

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
Vasherized commented on the blog post Texas finishes sweep of Iowa 2 hours, 45 minutes ago

Pitching and defense

You lied to us about this team.
Vasherized commented on the blog post Texas finishes sweep of Iowa 2 hours, 45 minutes ago

Pitching and defense

You lied to us about this team.
Kevin Berger wrote a new blog post: Bracket Analysis: The Wild West Regional 2 hours, 45 minutes ago

Go west young man. There’s gold in them there hills, which probably sits well with the 12th seeded UTEP Miners.

There’s little resistance in this bracket relative to the other regions and that should sit well with the Syracuse Orangemen. At least it should if the Orange are healthy.

If not, meaning Arinze Onuaku the aircraft

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
Vasherized wrote a new blog post: Beat the Barkers NCAA Tourney Bracket 2 hours, 47 minutes ago

The winner gets a weekend with sizzlechest, all medical bills paid, in secluded Nova Scotia where screams go unanswered for miles. Runner-up gets the free BC tote bag that has yet to be claimed from last year’s tourney. Third place gets to learn what it’s like to wake up as HenryJames every day.

Click here
BatesHorn commented on the blog post The high cost of razors 2 hours, 52 minutes ago

Doug Jones had a changeup, and two more change ups off his change up, and he managed to get by fine. ish.

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
texasengr commented on the blog post A Wake Before The Funeral 2 hours, 52 minutes ago

I have to agree with 3_from_the_corner.

I’ve absolutely hated the way we’ve looked against zone defenses. We don’t have anyone that can just kill it from the outside (Hamilton maybe, but he’s on the bench more often than not). Kentucky’s offensive efficiency is about on par with ours, so it could turn into a defensive struggle.
BatesHorn commented on the blog post The high cost of razors 2 hours, 53 minutes ago

Nobody likes Posada. His mid game arguments with Jose Contreras were legendary and entertaining to watch. Stottlemeyer used to have to go out to the mound just to get them to on the same page.

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });

Baseball Articles

Texas To Pac-10 Story Revisited

Article Tags:

More from this Barker

Share This

94 Responses

Facebook User said:

HenryJames said:

TaylorTRoom said:

Pancho Claus said:

Captain Obvious said:

srr50 said:

Jim Harrison said:

Captain Obvious said:

PatronSaint said:

scally said:

dedfischer said:

Uncle Bevo said:

HenryJames said:

Ag_in_TX said:

Arkansas said:

Bob in Houston said:

Nordberg said:

TaylorTRoom said:

Texasholdem said:

Scipio Tex said:

Captain Obvious said:

Scipio Tex said:

Captain Obvious said:

Scipio Tex said:

Captain Obvious said:

Captain Obvious said:

Vasherized said:

Captain Obvious said:

glenn said:

TaylorTRoom said:

Vasherized said:

Nordberg said:

glenn said:

Captain Obvious said:

BatesHorn said:

Vasherized said:

dedfischer said:

Vasherized said:

NY Horn said:

Ricky said:

Captain Obvious said:

jonestopten said:

maninblack said:

Vasherized said:

Houstonearlers said:

Spangler said:

Captain Obvious said:

Nordberg said:

dick said:

Captain Obvious said:

Scipio Tex said:

Captain Obvious said:

TaylorTRoom said:

Pancho Claus said:

Captain Obvious said:

srr50 said:

CloseToJumping said:

milevin said:

Bob in Houston said:

dedfischer said:

Ricky said:

Arrowden said:

Ag_in_TX said:

Ojnab Bob said:

Minnesotahorn said:

Minnesotahorn said:

TaylorTRoom said:

Ag_in_TX said:

Ag_in_TX said:

Matthew Ladner said:

Captain Obvious said:

Stuck in MN said:

Houstonearlers said:

Stuck in MN said: