Big 10 vs. Pac-10: Which is better for Texas?

Connect with your Facebook Account

As I’m sure you’ve heard by now, the Big 10 is seriously looking at expanding to 12 teams by the 2011 football season. While Notre Dame stands to reason as the Big Ten’s dream girl, Missouri is not far behind as an option. And not only does a move to the Big Ten make sense from Missouri’s perspective, it’s also clear from the Missouri chancellor’s statement that Mizzou would likely bolt if invited.

So let’s entertain a hypothetical situation. It’s June 2010 and the landscape is clear: The Big Ten is adding a team from the Big 12 (conference names to be figured out later). The surprise, though, is that Texas is invited to be that team and if they decline, then Missouri will be offered the spot. The Big 12 is doomed moving forward, but backroom dealings have revealed that the Pac-10 will take the Longhorns if they don’t go to the Big Ten. Suddenly we’ve got a choice which we’ve discussed before: Big Ten or Pac-10? Why? Assume for argument’s sake that we know that Colorado will come with us to the Pac-10 if we go.

Article Tags:

Big 10, Big 12, Conference Realignment, Pac 10, Texas Longhorns

254 Responses

HenryJames said:

December 16th, 2009 at 7:33 am

I would guess the Big 10 because of their tv contract and time zone, but I do wonder what the demographic projections of that area look like long term. Worst case scenario it would be a temporary stop for us.
mockingbird said:

December 16th, 2009 at 7:36 am

How do rivalry games continue if Texas bolts? Playing a full PAC-10 schedule, plus OU and A&M, would be killer.

Since I live in Chicago and have BIG 10 season tickets, for selfish reasons I want the BIG 10 — but geographically that is an unbelievable stretch for the athletic department. People need to keep in mind that not only do they need to transport the athletes, but all the equipment, too. Every road game would have only a hanful of Texas fans. Even against Northwestern or a Stanford there would be a road atmosphere.

Having gone full circle on this issue I’d rather UT go independent. There really aren’t any good choices. The BIG 12 was a bad idea in the first place. In the age of modern media, it only exagerates the flaws.
srr50 said:

December 16th, 2009 at 7:38 am

This is the destruction of the SWC part deaux.

I personally think Rutgers or Pitt will get the invite — and then the Pac 10 is the most viable option. As in the past all of these moves will be predicated on TV sets. The Big 10 is making this move because they see the SEC positioning itself with its ABC/ESPN multi-billion dollar contracts, and they don’t want to fall to far behind.

If I’m UT I have to try and get true analysis on the possibility of Comcast really trying to compete with ESPN now that they have purchased NBC Universal. Is it a priority when they take over? Or just a pipe dream?

If it is reality, then content will be at a premium, and an enlarged Pac-10 becomes very attractive. Maybe they could combine with the ACC to offer Saturday doubleheaders (East Coast-West Coast) and it would also be a viable option with basketball.

Obviously a move to the Big 10 would be more economic for all sports, but this is about football (and to a lesser extent basketball.) Therefore the Pac 10 is probably the best near option.
mockingbird said:

December 16th, 2009 at 7:44 am

Srr50

As someone pointed out to me last night, and as indicated by the BIG 10 commish, they are looking for “college” markets and “college” values. Any of the east coast NY market teams you mention would be in direct competition with the Yankees YES network or any variety of pro-sport team. Hell, even Pitt plays in Heinz and doesn’t have their own stadium, which is a bit of a litmus test. New England and the east coast in general are locked in to pro teams.

I think the BIG 10 wants a school that brings a slice of a college market television sets and neither Rutgers or Pitt qualifies.

If Texas joins the BIG 10 they can use the ACC as a model.
Levander Williams said:

December 16th, 2009 at 7:46 am

In theory – PAC-10.

Why? I think UT matches at least as well with the PAC-10 schools from an academic credibility standpoint, as well as from a “University Mission Statement” perspective. From an athletic standpoint, the PAC-10 is a somewhat better fit from a women’s sports perspective (probably a wash on men’s sports), and offers more attractive media penetration.

In reality – neither, because of Texas politics and the jealousies of other in-state schools that will encircle our neck like Taylor’s albatross.

Does anyone really think that the Texas Legislature will allow UT to make a run to the west (or to the Midwest, for that matter) without provisions made for A&M, Tech and the others?
uthookem said:

December 16th, 2009 at 7:53 am

Who wants to play at Northwestern in November? No thanks.

I say either go PAC-10 or go independent.
What if said:

December 16th, 2009 at 7:55 am

If Texas did decide to go to the Big 10 or Crap, I mean Pac 10, I could see OU telling UT we do not want to play you anymore. Could The UT/OU game be used as a threat, not to leave the Big 12? Does it really matter.. If Missouri goes to the Big 10(They will still suck in Football) how about the Big 12 goes and gets the Hillbillies from from Arkansas. It is no secret, the shine of the SEC has worn out on the piggies.
TOR said:

December 16th, 2009 at 7:57 am

LW is absolutely right- there’s no way we escape the boat anchors of a&m, ttech, and baylor. Ideally a&m goes to the SEC, ttech can go eff itself, and who cares what baylor does they shouldn’t be in D1 anyway.

I loathe the big 10, but it’s more practical than the Pac 10, if this is going to happen anyway.
jimmyjazz said:

December 16th, 2009 at 8:04 am

Academic reputation is a non-issue. If it were, we wouldn’t have joined the Big 12. Any talk of academics in the context of athletic conference affiliation is nothing but lip service.

Regardless, both conferences are littered with schools that are Texas’ academic equal (or even superior).

I’ve never understood the Big 10′s alleged interest in Missouri (and I have a degree from Missouri). They already have an Indiana, do they need another one? Delivering half the St. Louis market doesn’t seem to justify the utter mediocrity of Mizzou sports.

Whether Texas goes independent or joins either of the 2 conferences under discussion, travel distance will not be much different. We’re not going to fashion an indie schedule out of former SWC and Big 12 teams. We will be flying. Lots. Get used to it. Frankly, it’s the other schools that will have to reconcile a periodic trip to Austin, and that’s not such a bad thing.

I say Big 10, because I love Big 10 football and basketball more than I do the Pac 10′s versions. And we would dominate those slow-assed teams as a result.
Boddicker Is Clutch said:

December 16th, 2009 at 8:12 am

Theres no way we leave a Texas-centric setup. OU in Dallas, TTech, Baylor, Aggie.

Hell, we do our best to schedule additional in state games each year with UNT, Rice, UTEP, etc…

The football powers that be would never want to give up Part of the reason we make so much money is due to our dominance of the second most populous state in this man’s union. And part of why we are so good, is we have a recruiting video live and on Texan’s TVs most Saturdays of the football playing year.

We are 13-0 this year, and played TEN games in the state of Texas, which also happens to be our highest targeted area for recruiting, and the most fertile ground for it as well. These things are not coincidence, and theres no way in hell we give that up to play in the frigid north.
TXinDC said:

December 16th, 2009 at 8:16 am

We had six out of 12 regular season games in Austin; and 10 out of 14 games in the entire season played in-state.
We lose a number of those in-state games if we head to another conference, especially making trips to Washington, Oregon, and California, or Ohio, Michigan, or Pennsylvania.
But as an independent, mixing and matching our games, it’d be pretty easy to stick close to that same amount of in-state games, or at least only give up travel games to border states like Arkansas and Oklahoma.

I’d go independent, if we were forced to. Otherwise, I think the Big 12 continues to serve our purposes, FSN-contracts and coaches sewing circles be damned.
TXinDC said:

December 16th, 2009 at 8:17 am

Damn, beaten by minutes by Boddicker.
Bob in Houston said:

December 16th, 2009 at 8:22 am

Does anyone really think that the Texas Legislature will allow UT to make a run to the west (or to the Midwest, for that matter) without provisions made for A&M, Tech and the others?

I do.

It’s been 15 years. The SWC is not coming back. Legislative appropriations, IIRC, have gone down, on a percentage basis. The Lege can’t really afford to starve UT. There will be noise, but it won’t be insurmountable. Besides, Texas was in favor of the B12, shotgun marriage though it was.
Bob in Houston said:

December 16th, 2009 at 8:23 am

Independence only (possibly) works for football and severely damages every other sport.
dedfischer said:

December 16th, 2009 at 8:33 am

I would laugh my ass off if Texas decided to join the Big 10 or Pac 10. The first thing OU, A&M, Tech and OSU do is lower admittance standards to SEC levels while Texas increasing to Pac 10 and Big 10. The possibility of Texas getting their ass routinely kicked by more talented OU and A&M teams in the non-conference on a routine basis trumps the attractiveness of a potential Big 10 title. You have way too much pride in your program for that to happen.
BatesHorn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 8:36 am

I don’t see a long term future in any regard involving the mid west. A declining industrial region? No thank you.

I hate the flying times, but to me the PAC 10 makes more sense as the country continues to move to a model of economic prosperity on the coasts, with declining economies in the middle of the country.

Dealing with A&M will be the big issue. Tech can be dismissed, and Baylor is irrelevent. If we could ditch TCU, we can ditch Baylor. On it’s face, having OU and A&M join the SEC seems to make sense, but I don’t think anybody believe that A&M would fair well in the SEC. It would just give LSU even more entre into East Texas and further destroy the Aggies economic brand. Which gives rise to prospect of A&M, OU, Texas, and Colorado heading west.
BatesHorn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 8:37 am

“further destroy the Aggies SPORTS brand”

sorry.
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 8:39 am

Like I’ve always maintained, please go, no one cares, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. It’s inevitable that UT’s arrogance will eventually drag it down. Everything is cyclical, sure UT is going to the National championship in football this year, the baseball team went last year, and the basketball team has a good chance this year, but it won’t always be like that.

Eventually things happen and UT will go through a downturn(look at OU this year), do you really think the UT fanbase is going to travel to Corvallis for a 7-5 team? How many UT fans will fill up DKR to watch a 8-4 UT team face Washington or Purdue? Do you really think the average UT fan, the guy digging ditches in Laredo who bought his burnt orange t-shirt at Wal-Mart and loves to watch “his team” play an in-state rival every year is going to take time away from digging ditches to watch a 6-6 UT team play a 4-8 Minnesota team on the Big-10 network at 10:00a.m on a Saturday morning? When the football team eventually struggles, the athletic department will be putting less revenue in the coffers from ticket sales, but their expenses will jump dramatically shipping a football team to Washington every other year.

So, please go ahead allow your arrogance to let you think you’re too good for the Big 12, you idiots will soon find out there is a reason that the conferences are broken down regionally, not even UT is immune to downturns in the athletic program.

Ya’ll really need to think about the largest portion of your fanbase in Mexico, how are they going to get the Big-10 network? Will there be a problem arise with the USC Mexican t-shirt fanbase? Will this move single handedly divide the Mexican population of this country? How will this affect the economies production? Will this lead to a surplus of burnt orange t-shirts, causing world cotton demand to decline, forcing the government to increase US farm subsidies, thus thrusting billions of Chinese farmers into further poverty and hunger and their wives and daughters into prostitution? Just think about what you’re doing here UT fan.
Huckleberry said:

December 16th, 2009 at 8:42 am

ded -

If Texas and Missouri left, the Big 12 is dead. After things shake out, Tech is looking at the Mountain West, so I don’t think you’d be laughing that much.
Triston27 said:

December 16th, 2009 at 8:43 am

If you went independent, what makes you think OU, or other top tier schools would schedule you? Why would they want to risk a loss and kill their MNC chances? Take a look at ND’s schedule. Sure, you might play some names, but you’re not playing good teams. Especially since you have to schedule even further in advance.

Also, who’s going to give you a TV contract? You’re not going to get the great deal Notre Dame got with NBC.
Huckleberry said:

December 16th, 2009 at 8:49 am

Tim,

Did you catch the part where this entire hypothetical exercise is based on the obvious fact that Missouri wants to leave the Big 12?
holdem said:

December 16th, 2009 at 8:50 am

At some point, schools will have to consider a dual conference set up, where football, mens basketball, and may women’s basketball are in one conference and everything else get some kind of reformulated SWC to save money. In every other sport other than football & basketball, a conference of Texas, A&M, TCU, Baylor, Tech, Rice, UTEP, UNT, Texas St., and couple more directional schools would be failry comptetitive.
dedfischer said:

December 16th, 2009 at 8:57 am

Huckleberry, Tech would be fucked not doubt, but we’re addressing the impact this would have on the Texas program. One thing Texas should learn from the Big 12 is that it’s much better to have control over the regional powers in your area than not. You think it’s a coincidence Nebraska and Colorado suck now? OU and A&M in the SEC could field more talented teams than Texas over time. It took about 5 years for NU and CU to start sliding once the playing field was leveled, so I’m guessing that’s about how long it would take the Aggies and Sooners to get stocked again with the odds stacked in their favor. This is a problem USC wouldn’t be facing on the recruiting trail. You remember Longhorn football in the 80s? Neither does anyone else. You’re better off staying where you’re at just to police OU and A&M.
dedfischer said:

December 16th, 2009 at 8:59 am

And, we would probably become TCU.
HenryJames said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:01 am

Do you really think the average UT fan, the guy digging ditches in Laredo who bought his burnt orange t-shirt at Wal-Mart

Your most famous ‘fan.’

Just sayin’.
Levander Williams said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:03 am

Tim,

Being a contrarian doesn’t equate to being insightful. Sometimes, it just means that you’re a dumbass.

Just ask Kirk Bohls.
jdlooneyii said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:03 am

Geography isn’t everything in a deal like this, but here are the airport-to-airport great circle distances from Austin to the respective universities in the Big 10 and Pac 10. Sorry no table format.

Big 10: Illinois: 748, Indiana: 765, Iowa: 748, Michigan: 985, Michigan St.: 982, Minnesota: 907, Northwestern: 845, Ohio St.: 932, Penn St.: 1156, Purdue: 807, Wisconsin: 873. Mean = 886.18. StDev = 124.62

Pac 10: Arizona: 691, Arizona St.: 756, Cal: 1298, Oregon: 1470, Oregon St. (Portland): 1488, Stanford (San Jose): 1280, UCLA (LAX): 1076, USC (LAX): 1076, Washington: 1537, Washington St.: 1342. Mean = 1201.4. StDev = 296.75

Also weighing in favor of the Big 10 is the one-hour time difference for most schools as opposed to the two-hour time difference for most of the Pac 10. Weighing against the Big 10 is the not insignificant chance of weather-related travel disruption.
BatesHorn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:05 am

I don’t buy that A&M would do well in the SEC. The program’s decline began with the resurgance of LSU and OU concommitently, and putting them in a conference where Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee get to come to town every couple-three years would only exacerbate that problem, as Arkansas found out.

On the other hand, I do think such an arrangement would hurt Texas but giving those programs more access to Texas recruiting, so I guess you’ve illuminated one of the problems of looking towards the PAC 10.
bigdukesix said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:06 am

I’d be happy for Texas to leave this conference, but isn’t the most likely scenario if Missouri leaves that the Big 12 just picks up another team?
Huckleberry said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:06 am

So our Pac-10 division would be us, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, USC, and UCLA.

I would think the Big 10 division would be us, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois and Northwestern. Damn, the Big 10 East would have Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Penn State. That’s just as slanted as the Big 12 North/South overall, IMO.
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:14 am

Yes Henry, because “Gap kid” obviously got his Red Raider t-shirt at Wal-Mart…………oh wait.

Gap>>>Wal-Mart
Levander Williams said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:14 am

“I don’t buy that A&M would do well in the SEC. The program’s decline began with the resurgance of LSU and OU concommitently, and putting them in a conference where Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee get to come to town every couple-three years would only exacerbate that problem, as Arkansas found out.”

I strongly agree. Linking A&M to the SEC pits them against even more SEC teams that want to recruit in East Texas/Houston/Beaumont, where they have already lost ground.

Plus – and I’m at least half-serious here – how viable will A&M be without a direct competitive dynamic with UT? Would their identity survive?
spider said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:15 am

I’ll say it again:

If Texas leaves the Big XII, it should be to go independent.
Einstein said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:18 am

while Texas increasing to Pac 10 and Big 10 [admission standards].,

uh…what? I hate to break it to you but Stanford and Northwestern are in the minority – (see, e.g., Vanderbilt). There’s a lot more Oregon State/Washington State/Michigan State/Ohio State style laxity, where functional illiteracy is not, and never has been, any bar to admission of any kind. Unlike the Big 12 of course, with Rhodes scholars such as Dez Bryant and the various Norman-area “anger management disorder” patients on the sidelines north of the Red River.
mockingbird said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:19 am

Academics are a bigger issue than some think, if you consider that Michigan and Northwestern would need to vote an affirmative for any team joining the conference.
NU specificaly cares much less about TV revenue and a lot more about research & academic reputation. Something that almost all but 2-3 schools in the BIG 12 lacks.
dedfischer said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:19 am

Bates, Arkansas lost their roots of playing a bunch of games in Texas every year and now every kid in this state has forgotten who they are. They’re stuck trying to dominate a small geographical recruiting base with easy access to other programs like OU/Tenn/OSU. A&M was paying players and OU was in the Big 8 with no admittance standards. That’s how they got better than Texas in the 80s. It’s happened before and it could happen again, if Texas were to lose its recruiting stranglehold on the state. Eventually, guys who can get into the Pac 10 don’t want to go to Texas anyway. I think Texas is gambling with the pipeline of the elite in-state talent with a move like this. It might work out because it’s not the 80s and stuff, but do you really want to chance it?
HenryJames said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:21 am

Tim,

How much money does your school get when one of your fans buys a Gap shirt?
texfan76 said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:22 am

How’s this for a hypothetical:

Missouri leaves and joins the Big 10. The Big 12 drops Baylor and adds TCU and Utah. The north division would be Nebraska, Kansas, K-State, Iowa State, Colorado, Utah. The south would be Texas, Oklahoma, TCU, Tech, OSU, and A&M.

Just a thought.
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:24 am

Henry, thus my point about not wanting to alienate your fanbase by playing Minnesota on the Big 10 Network at 10:00a.m.
TOR said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:26 am

What happens if/when tech loses their accreditation, do they automatically get kicked out of the Big 12? It would seem to me that if mizzou wants to bolt that bad and tech is a jr. college, the answer to realignment would be to make the B12 better, not necessarily bolt.
eskimohorn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:36 am

Texas, OU, Colorado, Okie State, A&M & Tech to the Mountain West. Keep TCU, BYU, Utah, Air Force, San Diego St & UNLV.

Mountain West North Conference
BYU
Utah
Air Force
Colorado
Tech
TCU

Mountain West South Conference
Texas
San Diego St
A&M
OU
Okie State
UNLV

We drop small markets Nebraska, Iowa, Waco, Kansas

We pick up Southern California, Vegas, DFW, Salt Lake City
HenryJames said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:37 am

What’s the difference between playing Minnesota at 11am on ESPN and playing Kansas at 11am on FSN? I mean from our majority illegal immigrant fanbase’s perspective?
dedfischer said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:40 am

We’ll probably get Arkansas back.
Live Bait said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:42 am

This argument is always a bit strange. Neither viable conference is a great fit geographically and I’m a big believer in the notion that geography is important in college football. Geography lowers costs, increases gate, generates rivalry interests/storylines for TV and increases coverage and interest over regions that extend beyond the location of the school.

Either way, Texas stands to lose certain components to its current success. There is a risk that the only regional games we might play in a season would be against the likes of ULM, UTEP, Rice, etc. Obviously that change would impact recruiting, TV ratings, news coverage outside of Austin, etc.

Yes, Texas is a national brand in college football, but there’s still a pretty strong regional bias to that brand. Does the loss of strong regional identity risk erosion merchandising revenue in current markets (San Antonio, DFW, Houston) without replacement of revenue from markets where we’d be increasing our exposure (LA, SF -or- Chicago, OH, PA)?

It’s all fun and games to say that A&M is a millstone around your program until all of a sudden nobody in the graduating class at Galena Park knows who the hell you are
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:46 am

You really believe the average UT fan is going to get excited and turn on the TV at 11:00a.m. to play Minnesota? Some of UT’s highest rated games have been against Texas Tech, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma yet you’re willing to argue that a 11:00a.m. slot against some team from Wisconsin is going to draw the same ratings?
Just Saying said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:46 am

The next round of conference musical chairs does not bode well for UT especially if we have to be the invitee. It would much better if other teams wanted to join us than the other way around.

It behooves UT to take the initiative. Reach out with a plan for a super-conference with a West Coast division made up of the current PAC10 and a Mid-Continent division made up of Texas and 9 others from the Big 12. The Conference Championship game would alternate between Dallas and LA.

The West Coast division champ always goes to the Rose Bowl. The Mid-Continent champ goes to an upgraded-to-BCS Cotton Bowl at Jerry World. The Conference champ goes to the Fiesta Bowl.

NU and MU would go to hell for all I care.
uthookem said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:48 am

Missouri leaves and joins the Big 10. The Big 12 drops Baylor and adds TCU and Utah. The north division would be Nebraska, Kansas, K-State, Iowa State, Colorado, Utah. The south would be Texas, Oklahoma, TCU, Tech, OSU, and A&M.

That would be worth it based on the increase in Mormon jokes alone.
TOR said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:48 am

Minnesota is full of iceback lutefisk eating scandis and Kansas is full of farmers.
jimmyjazz said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:57 am

mockingbird, academics only matter if a conference wants to MAKE them matter, and in that case, we’re a good fit for either conference in question. I am of the opinion that it’s all posturing, and I’d be fine with Texas joining the SEC, but as far as the Big 10 and Pac 10 are concerned, we’re either a good fit because we have strong academics or we’re a good fit because academics isn’t even an issue. Same goes for Notre Dame.

The two biggest differentiators will be geography and TV sets. Texas would deliver far more of the latter to the Big 10 than Mizzou would, but if they care about proximity, there you go.

The current Big XII is about 4th on the list for me when I think of desirable conference affiliations. Remove Mizzou and it probably drops to 6th. This conference sucks.
mockingbird said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:58 am

Tim

Since I live in BIG 10 country I can tell you that even non-Wiscy and non-Texas fans would tune-in to watch a Badger v. Longhorn game. I think you have a very superficial view of the BIG 10. They bring a lot of tvs in some major markets.

Lots of people would tune-in for a Wiscy vs. Texas or Minny vs. Texas. Just ask ESPN, who has been pushing like mad to make these matchups happen. Any attrition from blue collar schmoes in Texas would be made up 2 fold by blue collar schmoes in Chicago and Detroit.
Magnificent Bastard said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:01 am

Only two more days until the bowl games start. Hang in there guys.
veronicacorningstone said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:10 am

“Minnesota is full of iceback lutefisk eating scandis and Kansas is full of farmers.”

Watch your tone, or I’ll douse you in aquavit and set you ablaze.

Good god lutefisk is terrible.

Tim, who throws tortillas?
HenryJames said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:10 am

Tim,

Apples and oranges. Don’t compare Tech, A&M and OU to Minnesota. Compare them to Michigan, Ohio St and Penn St.
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:11 am

You really think “Wiscy” or “Minny” can bring in enough non-alumni t-shirt viewers to replace all those in South Texas/Mexico who would tune out? I’ve never been to “Wiscy” or “Minny” but I can’t imagine they would pull in the same amount of viewers as a Texas vs. Texas Tech or A&M and I think the TV ratings prove that.
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:16 am

Henry, I think the UT vs. Penn St., UT vs. Michigan, UT vs. OSU matchups would bring in a large “national audience”, I think you would still lose some regional viewership, but would the TV contracts be worth the extra expense of traveling all the way to the Northeast every other week?
jimmyjazz said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:17 am

When Texas plays Tech, it’s Texas that brings the viewers. Don’t kid yourself otherwise. If Texas play “Wiscy”, the ratings would be higher.
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:22 am

Remember we’re just talking about football here, football is a revenue generator. When you start sending the womens basketball teams, the track teams, the cross country teams, the baseball teams, the softball teams to the Northeast several times a year, that’s when it starts hurting an athletic budget.

Isn’t the UT academic world already moaning about how much Mack Brown is making due to UT’s fiscal problems? How loud would they get if the athletic department ran a deficit?
magnusbleuveigner said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:23 am

I can’t see us doing anything here. I don’t think the positives outweigh the negatives, although it would be cool to play some of the tradtional national powers more frequently. It’s too bad that teams like Tech, Ok St. and Agro can’t field consistently strong teams.

We would have tap danced through the Big 10 this year, but might have got picked off in the Pac 10.
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:25 am

“When Texas plays Tech, it’s Texas that brings the viewers. Don’t kid yourself otherwise. If Texas play “Wiscy”, the ratings would be higher.”

So, you’re going to argue that an 08′ UT vs. “Wiscy” game would be a top 3 rated college football game of the year? I honestly believe even you’re smarter than that.
Toadvine said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:25 am

To hell with it. I propose a “3rd Coast Conference” with Slim Thug as commissioner:
(1) Florida; (2) Bama; (3) LSU; (4) Texas; (5) Florida State; (6) UGA; (7) aggie; (8) Auburn? fill-in the remaining 4 blanks with whoever we want from the Big 12 South, MWC, etc. It would be the best conference ever.
scagnetti said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:29 am

Detroit is dying…

i concur with others on the board rallying for a NEW Big 12, or NEW SWC…

Add TCU and Arky/Utah/BYU/Colorado St./Tulsa take yer pick.
Jettison MU and/or CU.

It is imperative we LURE others in WITH us, not JOIN others abroad. we must remain in a Texas-centric league to retain our recruiting strength in the region.

We die if we go Big 11/Pac 10/Indy, IMO…
OldTimeHorn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:31 am

Super Conference.

An invite-in or pay-in conference of, say, 20 teams split East/West, heavyweights only. Replace the least-competitive 4 or 6 squads each year.

Leaves room for 3 out-of-conference games with regular teams. Solves the BCS/playoff dilemma. Big moneymaker as each weekend would feature games like Alabama/Florida, Texas/USC, Ohio State/Cincinnati.
Magnificent Bastard said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:33 am

I propose that both Texas and A&M go independent and we just beat the snot out of the Aggies for 12 or 13 consecutive weeks each fall.
texastough said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:36 am

My vote is for the Big 12 “haves” to use some grey matter to figure out how to capture an audience competitive with SEC, Bigten11, and Pac10. I.e.., get rid of the Iowa St.’s, KS St.’s, Baylors, (whoever isn’t pulling their weight, I don’t really know). But that may be a revival of the SWC, and that wasn’t working for a reason. Has enough changed since then to try again? I.e. TX population has grown significantly while rust belt has declined? Football matters more to Texas than any other state, and I just hate the idea of not having a conference built around Texas with UT as the centerpiece.

As a side note, UT has the highest athletic revenues of any program in the nation, so in my view its a risk to chase the greener grass. How much of our revenue is due to beating up on the Big12 have-nots, even if the conference TV contract is worse than other conferences? Point being, the Big 12 is hurting a lot of the other Big 12 schools but may be helping us.
HenryJames said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:39 am

Tim,

If both teams are undefeated in the eighth week of the season, then yes. And if history is any guide, the chances of a Big 10 team being undefeated are greater than the chances of Texas Tech being undefeated at that point.
srr50 said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:43 am

As a side note, UT has the highest athletic revenues of any program in the nation, so in my view its a risk to chase the greener grass.

This isn’t UT chasing greener pastures, this is UT trying to be proactive as the pasture it is presently in is about to turn brown.

One other note about the Big 10 — it would be a detriment to our baseball program to be a part of that league.
Bob in Houston said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:46 am

srr, baseball is the biggest problem I foresee as well with the B10.
TaylorTRoom said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:49 am

I am really enjoying Tim’s posts. I mean, in the same way I enjoy Farrelly Brothers movies.
cmdr said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:52 am

The casual racism in Tim’s posts is astounding.

As if having an Hispanic fan base is a bad thing.

It sounds like he spends too much time over at TexAgs.com
Huckleberry said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:53 am

The Pac-10 would be a detriment to our baseball team’s win/loss record. And the NCAA selection committee routinely screws the West Coast teams. A lot better than being in the Big Ten for the program, though, absolutely.

Tim -

Do you think it would be wiser for Texas and the rest of Tech’s competitors to assume that a random Texas Tech football team in the future will be closer to 2008 Texas Tech quality or standard Texas Tech quality (which is at about the same level as standard Wisconsin quality except maybe a bit worse)?
Einstein said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:55 am

When you start sending the womens basketball teams, the track teams, the cross country teams, the baseball teams, the softball teams to the Northeast several times a year, that’s when it starts hurting an athletic budget.

Tim, I’m aware that the standard education at Texas Tech approximates that of a very good community college (which of course, renders you a modicum of social standing in your one-man race against Mexicans as we have seen) – but surely at some point, you learned that the Upper Midwest is neigher geographically, nor culturally, the “Northeast” did you?
Toadvine said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:59 am

I think Tim is arguing that Texas Tech is the Budwesier of Big 12 teams.
NateHeupel said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:00 am

I’ll play your game.

Pac-10 in a heartbeat. It gives UT new recruiting ground and new exposure to a fanbase and population more demographically aligned with the Austin natives.

For those screaming the cries of “independent”, you are not Notre Dame. Hell, Notre Dame really isn’t Notre Dame anymore. The Big 12 needs Texas football, but you can go fuck yourselves on every other sport. Basketball? They’ve got Kansas. Baseball? Non-revenue sport. Basically, UT would be burning down the rest of the athletic department at the altar of football. People frequently forget that the sparring micks have the Big East as their non-football conference bitches. Which conference would do that for Texas? None of the major conferences would accept UT without football, and none of the minor conferences would want to concede their men’s bball tourney bid to UT on a regular basis.
derryl said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:03 am

Our mission is to put teams in position to compete for a national championship every year. Any rational thinking at all will lead you to realize we draw our strength from dominating recruiting in our region which is a top 3 region of all of sports (along with CA and FL). There is no mystery behind the rise in USC and Florida and their coaching staffs understanding this and dominating the recruiting of these hotbeds.

We are already negotiating from a postion of strength and should set up a conference within the Big 12 framework but include teams which benefit in the long run and not just the cyclical turn of some programs. Is TCU a great pickup if their current coaching staff leaves for greener pastures? I know they are in a large market but we already own the DFW market and they can’t fill a stadium with an undefeated team. IMHO they are just another Baylor in a big market in which they do not own.

When Mack leaves will we have the national presence to carry our recruiting to the next level by going to IL, WI and OH??? I don’t think it’s worth the risk. If it was worth it Mack would already be doing it.

Just a couple of years ago it was the Big 12 that was thought of as the strongest conference. If we want to schedule tougher teams then schedule the national big boys in non-conference and keep control of our destiny. We haven’t won this conference enough to think we get a pass…….
Super said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:03 am

This is all rather silly. Why do conferences have to be so goddamn big? We all know CCgs are bullshit. With tighter conferences of 9-10 teams, you could dump the dead weight and the CCG. Revenue from CCGs can be more than made up for with better TV deals we could get without the sandbags of KSU, Baylor, ISU, etc. As someone smart noted a month or so ago, the problem with our TV deal is the abundance of dogs on the conference’s schedule each week that the 2nd and 3rd-tier networks won’t pay squat to pick up. Eliminate these and we also eliminate a good chunk of the OOC softies as well which also subtract from our current value proposition. We drop KSU, Baylor and ISU and add Arky, or even TCU and we’re a better value overall, with rivalries intact and UT still in the driver’s seat. The dumpees can remain for other sports, just not football.

Forming super-conferences or joining up with far-flung others makes zero sense for the fans and the University. Tens of thousands can afford travel to Collie Station, Lubbock, Stillwater and even Lincoln. Far fewer would be able to follow the team to LA, Oregon, Ohio or Minny. Lubbock sucks, yes, but at least it’s only an 6-hour drive. Columbus sucks more and Bloomington and East Lansing suck too, but the winters are worse and you’re talking a commitment of an extra day plus another grand for airfare and hotel etc. That’s tantamount to shitting on your fans in my book.
Flip Washington said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:04 am

As (presumably) the only Colorado fan here, I’m excited by the prospect of joining our Big XII overlords in a move to the PAC 10 and I thank you, Huckleberry, for inviting us. Away games in places like Tuscon, Tempe, The City of Angels, etc.? That’s more titties and sunshine than you can shake a stick at. Count me in. When can we make this happen?
magnusbleuveigner said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:09 am

“One other note about the Big 10 — it would be a detriment to our baseball program to be a part of that league.”

Yeah, but think what it would do for our hockey team!
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:14 am

“Do you think it would be wiser for Texas and the rest of Tech’s competitors to assume that a random Texas Tech football team in the future will be closer to 2008 Texas Tech quality or standard Texas Tech quality (which is at about the same level as standard Wisconsin quality except maybe a bit worse)?”

I don’t know you tell me. Leach is about to sign his best recruiting class since he has been at Texas Tech. Tech finished top 3 in the Big 12 again in 09′ just like in 08′, despite having 14 different starters missing at least 1 game, and starting 3 different QB’s. I also think Texas Tech has a very good shot at finishing top 3 in the Big 12 in 2010. Like it or not Texas Tech is right there in the top 4 Big 12 all-time wins, and is competitive every year. The “standard Texas Tech team” is a top 4 program in the Big 12. The Nation would rather watch Mike Leach and Texas Tech play on a Saturday than Wisconsin.
Toadvine said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:18 am

I’d rather watch paint dry than watch Wisconsin play.
Huckleberry said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:20 am

Like it or not Texas Tech is right there in the top 4 Big 12 all-time wins, and is competitive every year. The “standard Texas Tech team” is a top 4 program in the Big 12.

So a #20-25 type team. Just like Wisconsin.
BatesHorn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:26 am

A couple of others have addressed this here, but creating a north/south Pac 12 split creates the same problematic match up issues that the Big 12 has:

NORTH
Oregon
Oregon St.
Washington
Washington St.
Stanford
Cal

SOUTH
USC
UCLA
Arizona
Arizona St.
Texas
Colorado

While the south is weighted with teams that will tend toward excellence more often than the north and create the same problems of an non competitive division split.
srr50 said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:28 am

The Nation would rather watch Mike Leach and Texas Tech play on a Saturday than Wisconsin.

No they would not, not when Tech playing somebody aside from Texas or OU.
Minnesotahorn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:31 am

“So a #20-25 type team. Just like Wisconsin.”

Right except that people beyond San Angelo and Abilene give a shit.
HenryJames said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:32 am

While the south is weighted with teams that will tend toward excellence more often than the north and create the same problems of an non competitive division split.

But our majority illegal immigrant fanbase would go for it, and they’re the ones we need to worry about.
Huckleberry said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:35 am

Goodness, look at that conference BatesHorn laid out and think of it in baseball terms (obviously Colorado doesn’t have a team).

What a ridiculously strong baseball conference that would be.
HenryJames said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:36 am

And illegal immigrants do like baseball. Along with knife fights and white girls.
pleaseplaykindle said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:37 am

Dear Tim,

Sometimes being wrong is enough. You don’t have to be a dick about it.

Love,
We
magnusbleuveigner said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:37 am

And ostrich cowboy boots with matching belt.
houstonearler said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:39 am

Wisconsin won the Big 10 3 times in the 90s and 11 times overall. They have won two BCS bowl games.

Tech has zero outright major conference champions. Tech has never appeared in a BCS bowl game.

Wisconsin is a solid team who occasionally serves as a spoiler, occassionally wins its conference, and occassionally wins a BCS bowl game.

Tech is a spoiler who never wins shit.
BatesHorn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:44 am

Well, and Whisky is a Public Ivy, 5 star party school, and located in what is generally considered one of the cooler and more desireable communities in the nation, with a die hard fanbase and alumni sprinkled throughout the upper strata of society.

Sounds familiar…..
NY Horn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:46 am

What happened to Tim? I know he’s always been a douche but his posts have seriously deteriorated lately. I mean an outright racist rant like that? Are you for real?
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:50 am

When was the last time Wisconsin had a primetime ABC slot that had top 5 ratings? Like I said the nation would rather watch Texas Tech than Wisconsin.
TOR said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:51 am

“What happened to Tim?”

He’s staring into the Abyss, and doesn’t like what is staring back.

Wisconsin or ttech? Yeeeesh. Is suicide an option?
NY Horn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:52 am

Also, to weigh in on this issue. What do you guys think the effect will be on the Big 12 if Mizzou does split? Is this something that’s going to lead to big shit going down in the next 10 years?

I think I would also prefer the Big 10. Having Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Texas in the same conference would be THE SHIT.
BatesHorn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:54 am

When was the last time Tech went to a BCS bowl game?
Trips Right said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:56 am

And it’s HenryJames by 20 lengths.
magnusbleuveigner said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:56 am

What was racist about Tim’s rant? He used the word “Mexican” which sounds slanderous, but only because it’s usually preceded by “fucking.”

NY Horn, there are a lot of illegals that are fans of Los Cuernos, just like I’m sure you have thousands of Puerto Riquenos that are fans of the Jankees. LA Horn is surrounded by illegals that love the Doyers. It’s not racist to state that, it’s factual.
nobody said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:56 am

Money, academics, and athletic competitiveness are all very important considerations in deciding which conference Texas should join. In fact, I think we would all agree that they’re the most important considerations.

However, on this blog and the Texas message boards, the argument over which conference Texas should join always appears to overlook culture. It shouldn’t.

Don’t forget that most of the donors — and almost all of the major donors — to Texas sports are multi-generation Texans who have more in common with their social and income peers in the South than in the Midwest or on West Coast.

I think that’s changing; but, for now and for a while yet, the dominant culture of the Texas’s elite will be Southern.

I’m not trying to start an argument about whether Texas is part of the South — I happen to think that parts of Texas are Southern and other parts aren’t, but that’s not important.

Instead, I’m trying to remind readers of this blog who’ve forgotten — and to inform those who never knew — that the people who run things at Texas were raised to distrust the states in the PAC-10 and Big-10. More more importantly, they still do.

Put differently, to many people who sit on the lower deck of the alumni side between the 20′s — and for a lot of people in the suites, on the sidelines, and in Belmont — Texas has far more in common with SEC schools than with the PAC-10 or Big-10.

That perspective strongly influenced the hiring of Mack Brown and Rick Barnes. It will strongly influence which conference we join, too.
HenryJames said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:56 am

When was the last time Tech had a primetime ABC slot against someone other than Texas or OU that had top 5 ratings?
magnusbleuveigner said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:58 am

“When was the last time Wisconsin had a primetime ABC slot that had top 5 ratings? Like I said the nation would rather watch Texas Tech than Wisconsin.”

IdiotTim, who’d you play? Was this the Baylor game? Was it your Aggie game, no that wasn’t televised. Who was it? Say it…..say it….
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm

The 08′ Texas Tech vs. Oklahoma State game was a Top 10 rating, I don’t know about top 5. Texas Tech had 3 top 10 rated games that year, and you have dumbasses arguing that people across the country would rather watch Wisconsin play than Texas Tech play.

Some of you are smarter than this and are arguing simply because to bash on anything “tim” says is the popular thing to do. The rest of you are just complete idiots.
Tex said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

Why must it be either PAC-10 or Big-10? What are the chances we form a new conference with Texas teams, a few MWC powerhouses and sprinkle in an Arizona school? (I realize this deviates from the posted hypothetical) Clearly, this would be much more difficult as many changes would have to be made at many schools but it’s myopic to assume that super-conferences are the only option for Texas.
dedfischer said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

Tim pwns BC.
NY Horn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:06 pm

Haha, I agree, in the abstract, the assertion that we have a large amount of Hispanic fans is obviously not a racist statement.

It’s the context, what he implied in his post that gave it that character. Why bring Mexicans into this at all? Does he really think that’s relevant to the topic at hand? I don’t know, it is Tim…
GunBarrelAg said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:07 pm

Those that think A&M would flounder in the SEC have perhaps not thought it through completely. A&M is a program with lots of resources that just happens to reside right in the middle of one of the most fertile recruiting areas of the country. For the entire history of the program our best recruiting pitch has been “Come play for us! Sure Texas has everything we do and more, but hey…we’ve got quirky traditions!” Now imagine A&M as the sole SEC team located squarely in the middle of the Texas recruiting territory and being able to sell its conference affiliation to recruits. That might be enough to bump perennial top 20 recruiting classes up to top 10 classes. Perennial top 10 classes plus competent coaching puts a team in the hunt for championships.
Huckleberry said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:08 pm

Oklahoma State @ Texas Tech wasn’t even national, it was split-national.

Only one Texas Tech game in 2008 made the overall Top 20 ratings for the week. The game against Texas.
magnusbleuveigner said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:08 pm

Dedfischer is probably right. “Tim” is Sailor Ripley.
HenryJames said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:09 pm

Tim,

I’m going to keep arguing that the arena sold out because of Springsteen, and you can keep arguing that it was because of the opening act.
dedfischer said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:09 pm

Texas should go independent. That is possibly and yet still maintain regional dominance. Cherry pick the games you want to play. Only problem is that you might have trouble finding opponents. I think Tech, A&M and OSU would dodge Texas if provided the opportunity, although they probably need the money too bad.
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:09 pm

Why do you goddamn liberals have to be so sensitive about everything?
Vasherized said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:10 pm

That’s why you make it the BigPac 16. It splits the weighting of conference powers, contenders, and pretenders more evenly. Not much dead weight in either.

You don’t have to split the divisions so geographically either. You drop Washington State from the Pac 10 and Baylor, Tech, Iowa State, and K. State from the Big 12. Or swap out Tech with Mizzou.

NORTH
Oregon St.
Washington
Cal
Colorado
Arizona St
USC
Texas A&M
Mizzou

SOUTH
Oregon
Oklahoma State
UCLA
Texas
Nebraska
Stanford
OU
Kansas

There are a lot of different combos but I would be all for something like this.
magnusbleuveigner said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

GunBarrel, so the reason you guys are down is because you’re NOT in the SEC? Right….
Jamal Charles said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

“Unlike the Big 12 of course, with Rhodes scholars such as Dez Bryant and the various Norman-area “anger management disorder” patients on the sidelines north of the Red River.”

dont hate dawg!
NY Horn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

The Ags have a hard on for the SEC because they believe it will mean a return to a “full” commitment to success in football, as in Jackie Sherill type bullshits, as is the standard in the SEC.
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:16 pm

“I’m going to keep arguing that the arena sold out because of Springsteen, and you can keep arguing that it was because of the opening act.”

So, in 08′ UT is the #1-#2 team in the Nation and played Texas Tech at #7 which brought in top 5 ratings for the year. Then in 09′ UT is still #1-#2 team in the Nation, but Texas Tech is unranked and the TV ratings don’t come any where close and you’re going to argue that people are only watching because of UT(springsteen)???
HenryJames said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

See Huckleberry’s post above, Southside Johnny.
BatesHorn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:23 pm

Vash-

I’d love to see Mack Brown’s Frequent Flyer account after a couple of seasons of that.
Vasherized said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:24 pm

So, in 08′ UT is the #1-#2 team in the Nation and played Texas Tech at #7 which brought in top 5 ratings for the year. Then in 09′ UT is still #1-#2 team in the Nation, but Texas Tech is unranked and the TV ratings don’t come any where close and you’re going to argue that people are only watching because of UT(springsteen)???

It’s because Tech was unranked not because it was Tech we were playing you dolt.

Words simply don’t exist in the English language to adequately capture the consistency of your stupidity. It’s more like a notion than a specific word so I’m going with a chinese symbol.

Bates,

It’s not much different for some teams in the Big East. Miami and BC are in the same conference. Once you have to get on a plane, a few hour travel difference isn’t a big deal imo.
Scott said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

“The Nation would rather watch Mike Leach and Texas Tech play on a Saturday than Wisconsin.”

The nation would rather watch neither play unless they are playing Texas or Ohio State or through some anomaly are undefeated and playing a ranked team in November.
Ag_in_TX said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

I don’t know why you guys always point to Swine’s jump to the SEC as a lesson for A&M. Swine jumped and lost their access to Texas talent – thus precipitating thier downward descent.

A&M would still be in Texas. And A&M would have the advantage of being the ONLY SEC school in the most fertile football talent state in the nation. It would give A&M a unique recruiting advantage – “kid, do you want to play in Texas AND play in the best football conference in the nation?” Duh.

And those who suggest A&M would lower their admission standards haven’t been paying attention to what A&M has done to themselves academically in the last 15-20 years. A&M ain’t your father’s A&M anymore. They’ve damned ruined the place with all the egg heads who don’t wanna do nuthin’ but study and shit…
dick said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:29 pm

“None of the major conferences would accept UT without football.”

incorrect, they took Notre Dame in only those sports, they would take us. This is assuming that conferences are going through a shakeup anyways.

“So, in 08′ UT is the #1-#2 team in the Nation and played Texas Tech at #7 which brought in top 5 ratings for the year. Then in 09′ UT is still #1-#2 team in the Nation, but Texas Tech is unranked and the TV ratings don’t come any where close and you’re going to argue that people are only watching because of UT(springsteen)???”

When UT is playing a good team, UT fans watch. When UT is not playing a good team, not even UT fans are that interested. It was a boring as hell game in 09.
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:30 pm

Vaserized, you’re proving my point and you don’t even realize it. What changed from 08′ to 09′? Springsteen didn’t change, he stayed the same, what changed was the “opening act”. The “opening act” affected the amount of viewers more than seeing Springsteen alone did.

Henry is trying to argue that everyone comes to see Springsteen not the “opening act”, the fact that the viewership is completely different based on the “opening act”, proves his point wrong.
HenryJames said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

Good talk, Russ.
Riano said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

Top Rated 10 NCAA Football National Telecasts 2008
Rank Date Time Matchup HH Rating Viewers P2+
1 12/06 4:00 PM – CBS SEC CHAMPIONSHIP : ALABAMA vs. FLORIDA 9.3 15,061,000
2 11/01 8:00 PM – ABC TEXAS vs. TEXAS TECH 7.5 12,204,000
3 09/13 8:00 PM – ABC OHIO STATE vs. USC 6.9 11,800,000
4 11/22 8:00 PM – ABC TEXAS TECH vs. OKLAHOMA 6.6 10,742,000
5 10/25 8:00 PM – ABC PENN STATE vs. OHIO STATE 6.4 10,367,000
6 11/29 8:00 PM – ABC OKLAHOMA vs. OKLAHOMA STATE 5.7 9,525,000
7 12/06 8:00 PM – ABC BIG 12 CHAMPIONSHIP : MISSOURI vs. OKLAHOMA 5.5 8,762,000
8 11/08 8:00 PM – ABC OK ST vs. TX TECH; CA vs. USC 5.3 8,483,000
9 10/11 12:00 PM- ABC TEXAS vs. OKLAHOMA 5.2 7,726,000
10 11/08 3:30 PM – CBS ALABAMA vs. LSU 5.1 8,137,000
©2008 The Nielsen Company

39-33 almost doubled 45-35.
Vasherized said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

I’m not sure there is any rationality left to convey in this thread that you haven’t already missed. Sometimes an analogy is better left untouched.

Springsteen blew you off the stage then did a powerslide crotch-first into your face as you were kneeling to take a picture of The Man.
GunBarrelAg said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:34 pm

magnusbleuveigner, I’m not saying that exactly. Our problems this past decade have been mostly self-inflicted. But even if we were playing up to our potential our ceiling under the current paradigm is probably no better than being a regular occupant of the bottom half of the top 25. Any Ags that think we “just need to find the right coach” and we’ll topple Texas or OU for a top spot in the pecking order are deluding themselves. Something major has to change.
If you look back at when the major Florida programs were all in seperate conferences, they could all beat each other up in rivalry games and it wouldn’t affect any of their chances at going on to win their respective conferences and play in high profile bowls. But the Big 12 South is very much a zero sum game. It is a bottle neck that has to go through Texas and OU. A&M, OU and Texas being in different conferences might alleviate that bottleneck. Of course, we’d obviously also need to shake our recent trend of bad coaching and underachieving.
Vasherized said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Some New Year’s Eve shows you don’t want to miss:

U2 is opening for Snow Patrol.

Madonna is opening for Lady Gaga.

HenryJames is opening up for Tim.
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:36 pm

“I’m not sure there is any rationality left to convey in this thread that you haven’t already missed. Sometimes an analogy is better left untouched.

Springsteen blew you off the stage then did a powerslide crotch-first into your face as you were kneeling to take a picture of The Man.”

39-33! What a dumbass.
jimmyjazz said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

Is Tim Derka Derka?

Look, this is very simple. A top 5 matchup is going to draw national interest, particularly when one of those teams is a perennial powerhouse like Texas. When both teams are of that caliber, you get Texas-tOSU. Tech will never draw like the latter, and once in my lifetime have they drawn like the former.

At least Texas-Wisconsin has regional interest in two populous areas of the country. Should both teams be top 5, well, then it might be a ratings blockbuster.
dick said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:44 pm

Tim might not understand that when we are talking Wisconsin, we aren’t talking about Sheboygan. We’re talking Twin Cities and Chicago.
HenryJames said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

Riano,

39-33 was in primetime like six others in the top ten. 45-35 was not.
magnusbleuveigner said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

Can we not equate us to Springsteen? How ’bout we’re Mandingo to Techs fluffer? Or we’re Sinatra and they’re Peter Lawford. Anything but that Jersey cunt.
magnusbleuveigner said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:50 pm

GunBarrel,

Sooooo, it’s basically a concession……
uthookem said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

I think Tim is Bill Little, and he is doing his absolute best to bring down the blogosphere!
January 8th said:

December 16th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

And now three words that have never been uttered: I’m coming tim…
Toadvine said:

December 16th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

“And when we hit the twin cities, I didn’t know that much about them, I knew Mary Tyler Moore and I knew Profane Existence”
Minnesotahorn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 1:07 pm

Tim it’s been fun but the big people are going to talk now so why don’t you go find something to do.

Thanks to Huck for starting this discussion and it’s interesting to see the different takes on it. Quite a few people fail to grasp some of the important dynamics going on here and just want to look at the last few years football records. If Mizzou splits this is a dead conference walking (if it’s not already). There’ll likely be a quick replacement but the Texas schools will be the only ones left bringing much in the way of major market viewership and we’ll likely hang together just long enough for UT to get its AV studios finished and its television network figured out.

Srr50 on several occasions has enumerated the reasons that independency isn’t a real option for us at this juncture and NateHeupel touches on a couple of them. dedfischer brings up some valid points about leaving OU and A&M to their own devices in the heart of our recruiting territory but his insinuation that joining the PAC-10 schools means we become Stanford is a little silly. There’s absolutely no one on our commitment list right now we couldn’t get as part of a PAC-12 or whatever. Still it is a little daunting to think of the two of them as part of the SEC. It’s not tough to imagine some serious bidding wars right here in our backyard.

Nobody I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make about Southern roots and conference affiliation considering the fact that UT and A&M were a Bob Bullock power play away from joining the PAC-10 12 years ago. By the way, for those of you dismissing the possibility of splitting up the Texas teams, you do understand he’s still dead right?

Personally I’d have no problem with any number of scenarios that end up with us in a western conference. I could live with a Big 10 affiliation but like HJ I’d picture that as a temporary parking spot.

In any case I always enjoy these discussions although I suspect it’s somewhat moot for the moment as I believe the Big Ten’s going to look to Rutgers in an attempt to grab the New York market.
homesickalien said:

December 16th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

If Missouri leaves, how would TCU be as a replacement option?

I haven’t given it a lot of thought, but to me, an obvious advantage is increased penetration in the Dallas/Fort Worth TV market.

But maybe we already own that market as much as it can be owned. Like I said, I don’t know a lot here.

I am interested in others’ thoughts on replacing Missouri with TCU.
homesickalien said:

December 16th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

Also, I think we should maintain the Big 12 just so the Big Ten/Eleven/Twelve has no name that makes any sense at all.

The Big More Than Nine.
Huckleberry said:

December 16th, 2009 at 1:26 pm

I recognize that Rutgers is in the NYC market, but how much of that market do they actually command as a TV presence?
srr50 said:

December 16th, 2009 at 1:30 pm

So, in 08′ UT is the #1-#2 team in the Nation and played Texas Tech at #7 which brought in top 5 ratings for the year. Then in 09′ UT is still #1-#2 team in the Nation, but Texas Tech is unranked and the TV ratings don’t come any where close and you’re going to argue that people are only watching because of UT(springsteen)???

This year’s Texas-Texas Tech game was the highest rated show on network TV that night, pulling in 6.2 million viewers, and giving ABC the win in bother overall viewers and in the coveted 18-49 demo.

Aside from the fact that this time the game was early in the year with no real national championship implications, I guess you are right. We held up our end of the bargain, its just that we played a team that didn’t bring that many casual fans to the TV set.
Minnesotahorn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

Yeah, good question. They’ve got a pretty sizable enrollment so that’s got to count for something right?
jimmyjazz said:

December 16th, 2009 at 1:35 pm

Well, they probably own the lower goombahs, so what’s that, 20 million sets?
Eric said:

December 16th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

I don’t know what’s going on in the back rooms right now, but I have to think Mizzou is just posturing because they feel that the Big XII brass didn’t do enough to keep them from being passed by lesser teams in the bowl musical chairs the past few years, but I guess we’ll see.
trkhorn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 1:41 pm

Joining either the Big 10/Pac 10 is absurd.

I say fix the Big 12: Get rid of ISU and/or Baylor, replace w/BYU and/or Arkansas. Problem solved.
NateHeupel said:

December 16th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

“None of the major conferences would accept UT without football.”
“incorrect, they took Notre Dame in only those sports, they would take us.”

No, they wouldn’t. The Big East took Notre Dame in the non-revenue sports for the same a guy has sex with the “good personality” friend of the hot girl he really wants. He wants to earn his way to the main prize.

The Big East wants the Domers to join the conference for football, too. They’ve made no effort to keep it secret. Notre Dame is on a steady glide through being average. Texas is on a steady cruise among the clouds of the BCS elite. Which one of those do you think might break their morals/principles to go from being independent to a conference member? After all, the hot girl must dangle the hope to make sure her fat friend continues to get laid.
uthookem said:

December 16th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

Just a stop-gap, but surely an idea that would win TV sets: if Mizzou bolts to the Big 10, could Notre Dame take their place? Notre Dame brings TV sets (and all of the fucking mexicans along with them) and would be able to move in as a the big dog of the Super 12 North. Brian Kelly already wants to play Texas – he’d get to at least twice every four years.
srr50 said:

December 16th, 2009 at 1:49 pm

Notre Dame is not going to join a conference, especially since NBC has been bought by Comcast, the largest cable provider in the country.

As Nate and others have pointed out, no other league would take us unless it was a total package. Notre Dame was accepted into the Big East in part because their overall program is not great, and they figured it was a good enough gamble to already have a home ready for the Fighting Irish if they ever decided they needed one.
Toadvine said:

December 16th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

I kind of like uthookem’s idea. Because I’d love to pound ND every year.
Minnesotahorn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 1:51 pm

It’s like the italics have no respect for borders!
BEHorn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Tim – we’re the cake. In 08, you were icing. In 09, you weren’t. But people will always show up for the cake.

And there’s no assurance Tech will be icing again any time soon. Being 4th best in the Big XII is like being the 4th tallest guy in a room with Yao Ming, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant and 8 Munchkins. It doesn’t mean you’re the same height as the tall guys, even if you’re a lot taller than the midgets.
Christian Wofford said:

December 16th, 2009 at 2:00 pm

“Big Ten’s going to look to Rutgers in an attempt to grab the New York market.”

1. nobody in NYC cares about rutgers football, even the rutgers grads. this is fact, straight from many a rutgers grad’s mouth.

2. nobody in NYC cares about college football at all, save from the subset of people who graduated from big-name programs and then moved to the city.

among them, only the bigtime fans watch their alma mater’s games, and they do it in big groups at sports bars that cater to a specific team as a way to provide a meeting place for ex-pats to congregate and commiserate with their regional peers and revel in their shared roots.

NYC is not a market that any of these proposed conference moves can “capture”. it’s just not there, nor worth having.
Huckleberry said:

December 16th, 2009 at 2:06 pm

That’s kind of what I was figuring as far as NYC is concerned as a college football market.
MaduroUTMB said:

December 16th, 2009 at 2:21 pm

The Big XII is the strongest or second strongest athletic conference in the NCAA. Leaving that conference for independent status or far off conference would eventually wreck UT athletics.

How about massive fixed expenses for every road game, every year with dismal ticket sales?

How about no road games in Texas?

How about the fact that Texas owes a huge portion of its present success to OU? Did we forget that the RRS has been our marquee game for nearly a decade? OU’s strength last year and UT’s victory over them led directly to our high preseason ranking this year, which is the main reason that UT is going to the NCG admist much whining rather than the opposite.

How about the fact that before OU, it was Nebraska?

How about the fact that sports other than football exist (and no, “basketball” and “women’s basketball” is not a complete answer), and that everyone in the Big XII contributes to them?

How about the fact that you could buy a ticket for $40 at the gate, at halftime, at DKR and walk in to see UT finish getting its ass kicked by (insert team here) in 1997? There seems to be a generation of fans who believe that dominance is a permanent state, and that decisions should be made under the assumption that UT football will consistently kick ass for the rest of ever. Those are the kinds of decisions that come back to bite you in the junk. There are good times and bad times, and you plan for both.

Note that I am mainly responding to the responses, not the original question. The hypothetical is interesting, but the “We need to bail on this heap of a conference while we still can” posts are just mind boggling.
jimmyjazz said:

December 16th, 2009 at 2:31 pm

Tell the Pac 10 and the Big 10 whichever conference sets the higher road guarantee wins our services. Problem solved.
Christian Wofford said:

December 16th, 2009 at 2:32 pm

“NYC is not a market that any of these proposed conference moves can “capture”. it’s just not there, nor worth having.”

except — of course — for the massive illegal immigrant-heavy, burnt-orange t-shirt fan, restaurant kitchen staff and bodega delivery guy market.

thanks for reminding me, tim.
Doperbo said:

December 16th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Can someone summarize this thread for me so I don’t have to read it?

Someone other than Huckleberry?
hornshornshorns said:

December 16th, 2009 at 2:58 pm

Indulging the hypothetical, it leaves us with three options which quickly become two options. Join the Big Ten, Pac Ten or stay in the Big 12 and add a team to replace Missouri after we decline the invite and it joins the Big Ten.

First, let me explain why the latter is not an option (or is an option so poor that only a fool would take it). It doesn’t matter who we add to replace Missouri–the Big 12 becomes a weaker conference. TCU brings nothing. They can’t sell out a 40,000 seat stadium when they are #4 and unbeaten. We already have DFW, so no new tv sets to make enhance the conference’s bargaining position in contract negotiations. How about Arkansas? Basically it’s the same problem. Sure you have some tradition and they have great facilities, but ESPN/NBC/CBS etc aren’t clamoring for the Little Rock market. It certainly doesn’t come close to replacing St. Louis and Kansas City. So a conference that already trails the SEC and Big 10 by large margins in the money race is now weaker in the one statistic that really matters in earning more money. Another option thrown around is ditching ISU, KSU, Baylor, etc. That simply isn’t happening and it still doesn’t address the issue of adding media markets to replace Missouri. The end result is slowly riding the ship down as it inevitably meets its watery grave. That can’t be what anybody wants.

Joining the Pac Ten would be rough in my opinion. Every year would involve a trip to either the state of Oregon or the state of Washington in addition to 2 trips to California (I’m making some assumptions here with division setup). It’s not that we couldn’t make the money work, because we’d have a lot more money from an SEC-esque tv contract to play with. But that is a LOT of travel. I can’t imagine that wouldn’t wear on the team by year’s end. Maybe I’m pessimistic here, but throw in the fact that baseball, basketball and all of the non-revenue teams would do the same, it just becomes a major issue in my estimation. The 2-hour time difference is somewhat of a problem, but it’s not like we’d be playing games at 10 pm.

Joining the Big Ten works for me. The worst trip is to Penn State, and that would be every other year. There isn’t another road trip that makes me wince. The time difference issue is also a non-issue. And a conference that can offer up Chicago, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and the many good-sized cities in Ohio as part of an exceptionally tradition-rich package brings with it a salivating package.

I can’t say the Big Ten makes more sense by leaps and bounds than the Pac Ten does, but it makes a little more sense to me. What makes no sense whatsoever is trying to save a Big 12 without Missouri. I would hope that if all of this bluster comes to fruition that Texas would be proactive in joining another conference.

And I don’t think A+M would be a problem in the legislature as long as they are provided for (say by joining the SEC). I recall efforts to have them join the SEC when Texas and the Pac 10 were flirting last decade. As long as they aren’t left to dry, we would be fine there.

One thing that would worry me would be a vindictive OU refusing to schedule us out of conference. That game is so special that losing it should give any fan (and any administrator) serious pause, but they’d be cutting off their nose to spite their face, so I don’t think that would be a major issue.

And, Tim, if you think Texas would hesitate to leave Tech behind based on some belief that they would be missing out on an annual ratings bonanza, you’re kidding yourself. Or you’ve gone full retard.
Dave said:

December 16th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

invitation
srr50 said:

December 16th, 2009 at 3:28 pm

The Big XII is the strongest or second strongest athletic conference in the NCAA.

And has the fourth-best TV contract. That is what any movement is all about.
HenryJames said:

December 16th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Can someone summarize this thread for me so I don’t have to read it?
Huckleberry said:

December 16th, 2009 at 3:32 pm

Joining the Pac Ten would be rough in my opinion. Every year would involve a trip to either the state of Oregon or the state of Washington in addition to 2 trips to California (I’m making some assumptions here with division setup).

No, that’s the best way you could set it up. One trip to either Washington or Oregon each year. For California, though, you would have one trip one year then two trips the next year.

Example:

4-year rotation like the Big 12 (call them years A-D)

Year A: @ Washington, Oregon St., @ Stanford, Southern Cal, @ UCLA, Arizona, @ Arizona St., Colorado

Year B: Washington, @ Oregon St., Stanford, @ Southern Cal, UCLA, @ Arizona, Arizona St., @ Colorado

Year C: @ Washington St., Oregon, @ California, Southern Cal, @ UCLA, Arizona, @ Arizona St., Colorado

Year D: Washington St., @ Oregon, California, @ Southern Cal, UCLA, @ Arizona, Arizona St., @ Colorado
January 8th = tim free BC said:

December 16th, 2009 at 4:04 pm

“Can someone summarize this thread for me so I don’t have to read it?”

We had a nice little hypothetical going and tim stopped by with a pop gun and a bleeding twat and ruined it. He was taken to the internet showers, bound with duct tape, and gang raped by 25 to 30 carnies (stop me if you’ve heard this before). tim claims he won though, as he hurt everybody’s dick real bad..
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 4:07 pm

“Tim – we’re the cake. In 08, you were icing. In 09, you weren’t. But people will always show up for the cake.”

I guess you’re saying icing is better than cake? Considering 39-33 and all!

“And, Tim, if you think Texas would hesitate to leave Tech behind based on some belief that they would be missing out on an annual ratings bonanza, you’re kidding yourself. Or you’ve gone full retard.”

You either have not been reading what I have said or lack basic reading comprehension. I could care less if UT leaves, don’t let the door hit you on the ass on your way out as far as I’m concerned. I have not used “Tech’s TV ratings” as an argument as for why UT should stay, just to defend Tech vs. Wisconsin arguments. I think you got confused hornshornshorns.
Tim said:

December 16th, 2009 at 4:09 pm

“We had a nice little hypothetical going and tim stopped by with a pop gun and a bleeding twat and ruined it. He was taken to the internet showers, bound with duct tape, and gang raped by 25 to 30 carnies (stop me if you’ve heard this before). tim claims he won though, as he hurt everybody’s dick real bad..”

Since when did this place become TexAgs.com?
Big 20 said:

December 16th, 2009 at 4:26 pm

Be honest, break up all conferences and create the Big 20, based total athletic dept revenue.

1.University Texas Austin——-$138,459,149
2. Ohio State University——-$119,859,607
3. University of Florida——–$108,309,060
4. The University of Alabama—-$103,934,873
5.Louisiana State University—-100,077,884
6.Pennsylvania State————$95,978,243
7.University of Michigan——–$95,193,030
8.The University of Tennessee—$92,524,125
9.University of Wisconsin——-$89,842,749
10.Auburn University————$87,001,416
11.University of Georgia——–$81,496,357
12. University of Oklahoma——$81,487,835
13. University of Notre Dame—-$81,088,368
14. University Southern California-$80,151,282
15.University of Iowa———–$79,521,143
16.University of South Carolina-$76,254,236
17. Michigan State————–$75,624,811
18.University of Nebraska-Lincoln-$74,881,383
19.Stanford University———-$74,695,254
20.Florida State University—–$74,417,324
Toadvine said:

December 16th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

Tim, you’re the best. I know it sucks in Pampa.
hodad said:

December 16th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

Beyond the currently shitty TV deal I don’t see what’s wrong with the Big 12. We’re going to the MNC game this year despite a weak OOC schedule and the weakest Big 12 since its founding – based purely on the Big 12′s (and UT’s) rep.

That said, I doubt Mizzou goes to the Big 10 for a few reasons. First, Mizzou doesn’t come close to matching the other Big 10 schools academically or research-wise. Second, Mizzou would lose their rivalry with Kansas which means about as much to them as any rivalry in the country, possibly even moreso due to the non-sports origin of it.

On the topic of Wisconsin, I’ve partied/been to college football games in both Lubbock and Madison and given 100 opportunities to choose between them I’d take Madison 97 of those times, even during cold weather months. Madison rules.
Mysterious Package said:

December 16th, 2009 at 4:43 pm

Basically we should move to the Pac 10.
BEHorn said:

December 16th, 2009 at 5:04 pm

“’Tim – we’re the cake. In 08, you were icing. In 09, you weren’t. But people will always show up for the cake.”

I guess you’re saying icing is better than cake? Considering 39-33 and all!”

You’re being this way on purpose, right?

If not, then no – that’s not what I’m saying. In simplest terms, most people tune in to watch Texas. Tech added value in one year when you had a season = the best one in the history of your school. (In other words, you’ve been valuable once. Once.)

Otherwise, Tech largely irrelevant to the ratings as compared to other Big XII schools (besides OU), as you’ll see by looking at the ratings of our other games. Again, you’re the 4th-tallest guy in the room.
Donny Boudreaux said:

December 16th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

No thanks to the Pac-10. Right now in the big xii / pac 10 challenge in basketball Okie State is playing Stanford tonight. The starting time? 10 pm central time. WTF??

We’d be the ONLY team in the central time zone. You think they’d cater the majority of tv sets just for us? You are out of your mind.

Just look at what happens in the NBA playoffs. Home games for the Lakers are always 9:30 central time. Home games for the Texas team are typically pushed to 8:30 to appease the west coast markets. Suddenly we think the markets will appease us?

They might do it ON OCCASION in FB if they get a primetime spot. But in almost any other sport a 7pm Central start is 5pm and in most cases people wouldn’t even be off work yet on the west coast let alone be able to attend the game.

Finally, I’m young. What about all our old fogies??? Surely they go to sleep much earlier than me. BAD BAD IDEA.
texastough said:

December 16th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

Tim actually suggested the answer without realizing it – we just replace Mizzou with Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Thats an extra 110 million viewers right there. Probably more than the SEC, Big 10, and Pac 10 combined.
Mysterious Package said:

December 16th, 2009 at 5:23 pm

Time to appeal to the NCAA governing body and make Laredo JC eligable for D1, our headquarters could be Boyztown!
horning hong kong said:

December 16th, 2009 at 5:29 pm

“Those that think A&M would flounder in the SEC have perhaps not thought it through completely. A&M is a program with lots of resources that just happens to reside right in the middle of one of the most fertile recruiting areas of the country. For the entire history of the program our best recruiting pitch has been “Come play for us! Sure Texas has everything we do and more, but hey…we’ve got quirky traditions!” Now imagine A&M as the sole SEC team located squarely in the middle of the Texas recruiting territory and being able to sell its conference affiliation to recruits. That might be enough to bump perennial top 20 recruiting classes up to top 10 classes. Perennial top 10 classes plus competent coaching puts a team in the hunt for championships.”

We get it – you can cheat and pay players and no one will care in your conference
Donny Boudreaux said:

December 16th, 2009 at 5:31 pm

I like the BIG X option better.

Do ya’ll know how often Bama and Florida play each other? Once every 4 years!! We could do something like that with the few schools that are the farthest away from us in BIG X country. That means you have a trip to Penn State once every 8 years. Very doable. It would however mean a more frequent opponent to overcome that infrequent trip. We’d have to play Wisconsin 3 out of every 4 years for example if they weren’t in our side of the conference.
hornshornshorns said:

December 16th, 2009 at 6:02 pm

Huck–

I still look at those travel schedules (which, as you mentioned, are probably best case scenario) as rather demanding. Maybe it would be enough for Texas to steer towards the Big 10, maybe not. It’s certainly not enough of a deterrent to stick with a sinking Big 12.

Tim–

If your point was no more than Tech-Texas will always outdraw Wisconsin-Texas (not exactly a compelling argument), then you’ve brought up a completely irrelevant point. I thought maybe you were saying that the regionalism of the Big 12 intensifies the interest in the games, leading to higher ratings and more tv money, giving Texas a reason to stick around in the Big 12. My point is that this chain of logic fails early on. Either way, you’re not adding much to the discussion.
jon said:

December 16th, 2009 at 6:05 pm

i have nothing insightful to post on here, so i figured i’d just post some of tim’s classics:

“Taylor Potts is a MAN, the guy was getting knocked around, had someone in his face all night, got lit up and still stood in the pocket and delivered the football. He out-played McCoy and Colt had about 1/8 of the pressure Potts had. Potts is only going to get better, as the year goes on.”

“It’s a shame Tech had to move this game up for money, because if these two teams lined up in November, Texas Tech wins.”

“However, it was Taylor’s poise, leadership, and toughness that were truly impressive. All of our QB’s in the Leach era have been remarkable, but Mr. Potts may well have the potential to be the best of all.”

“From a national standpoint either Tech earned some respect tonight or UT isn’t as good as most thought. Wonder which way this one gets spun cause it’s one or the other?”

“This Texas team will not go undefeated and win the National Championship this year, in fact if this Texas longhorn team goes undefeated and wins the National Championship this year I will leave and never post on BC again.”
czarcw said:

December 16th, 2009 at 6:09 pm

I don’t think any of these options are realistic. Texas going to the PAC-10 or Big 10 opens the door to too many new schools trying to get the state’s talent. If Texas wants to be in a Texas-centric conference, then it needs to literally be in the center of the conference, geographically. So, draw an expanding circle from the state of Texas and you’ll get:

Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
OU
Ok. State
LSU
Arkansas

and a handful of others that are geographically convenient (TCU, Houston, Baylor, Tulane). Plus, you’ve got to have some bottom feeders. Not every school gets to be the big boy.

Having said all that, the whole “conference re-alignment” talk is a double-edged sword. Sure, we have a crappy TV contract and the rest of the league is filled with Texas-haters. But the flip side is that we have a much easier path to the championship than if we played in a more competitive conference. Our football, basketball, and baseball programs are/were #2 in the country currently. As much as I’d like to say that falls 100% on our university’s athletic department… I’m not naive. The Big XII has allowed us just enough exposure to dominate the Texas recruiting landscape but without putting our stranglehold at risk to several other top programs. Be careful what you wish for.
Mysterious Package said:

December 16th, 2009 at 7:37 pm

This
Monahorns said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:03 pm

All of this discussion makes me think that Texas has an interest in keeping Missouri in the Big12. I would think there is something we can offer them to improve their desire to remain. None of the other options seem all that great.
XOVER said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:25 pm

PAC10. Hands down. Easy.

Someone upthread said academic standing is not a factor. Absolutely incorrect. Standing is key and critical to the school’s “culture.”

Texas and Mizz fit the B10 “culturally.” But the B10 does not fit Texas. Texas does not want to give up baseball. Many B10 schools do not field a team.

The PAC10 has it all. Glamour. Culture. Flash. Sports (including baseball).

If Mizz goes B10, Texas will go PAC10.

And this time it does not look like the politicians will care. Aggy will go to the SEC and be happy as a clam.

As for OU threatening to back out of Dallas, it don’t make a shit (to quote an old Longhorn legend). Texas will just go out and plug in some other glamour team to take the Sooner’s place. But that won’t be necessary. OU would never pull out of Dallas — recruiting Texas is too important.

PAC10. Yea. There’s the ticket.
Mike said:

December 16th, 2009 at 9:41 pm

Meh. I think what you’re all trying to talk around is that change is good. We joined the Big 12 and with a few exceptions, we’ve owned it from the beginning. Stoops’ 5 or whatever championships (and BCS losses) notwithstanding.

We’re Texas, assholes. We do what we want wherever we are. Get over your fucking pussy complexes and stop trying to quantify the possibilities. Qualify them.

Hook ‘em, bitches.
Chili Switch said:

December 16th, 2009 at 10:15 pm

UT-San Antonio is starting a football program. Larry Coker (the U) is the coach. Couldn’t they replace Mizzou? They’ll play in the Alamodome. Talk about Mexicans. Just a thought.
joefickey said:

December 16th, 2009 at 11:46 pm

I’m for whatever conference prompts the most “mudhole” posts.
CrazyJoeDavola said:

December 17th, 2009 at 12:00 am

There are a couple of ideas floating around these endless realignment threads that baffle me:

– How can anyone think that adding a TCU somehow makes up for losing a Mizzou?
– How can anyone think that Texas would survive – much less thrive – as an independent?
– How can anyone think that Arkansas (or even more ludicrously, LSU) have any desire to leave the SEC for a proposed Texas-centric conference?
– How can any Tech fan actually want Texas to leave them behind in conference reshuffles? I mean, I’ve seen TCU and UH fan gripe that Texas somehow kept them out of the Big 12. Tech fan, on the other hand, sometimes seems to BLAME us for bringing them along with us to the Big 12. Whatever.

The time difference would actually help us in a Pac-10 move. It’s a hell of a lot easier on the body and mind to travel West and acclimate than East. What would you rather get used to? Us having a 7 pm game that feels like a 5 pm game, or a West Coast team having a noon game that feels like a 10 am start?

No doubt it would be a problem for our fan base, but I think they’d figure out a way to cope. One thing is for sure: It would make demand for home-game tickets increase. Which increases prices, which increases revenues, which provides money for capital improvements, or better coaches salaries and who knows, maybe even a little more money getting back to the academic side.

And don’t think for a second that the faculty would have any issues with throwing OU and Tech and OSU and ISU over for Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington (or pretty much the entire Big 10).

And as long as we’re worth a shit, you can bet that any PDT team we play will be plenty happy to start their games a little early if it means a national TV audience. srr keeps valiantly reminding people that what we have now in terms of TV coverage could be significantly different 5 years from now, especially given the Comcast deal.

Some have worried about recruiting. But that cuts both ways: If we go to the Pac-10, all of a sudden we have legitimate access to California. If we go Big 10, we have access to the Midwest – which obviously pales in comparison to the Sun Belt, but even then we could probably turn a few heads by emphasizing our weather, our co-eds, and the fact that a player could get the fuck out of the Rust Belt. Chicago, Ohio and Pennsylvania offer up some exceptional talent.

Anyway, if we’re all having these conversations, you can sure as shit bet that we have people in the administration and athletic department are deep into “chats” with other like-minded entities.

One thing does seem certain to me: If this stuff goes down, we absolutely do have to make sure A&M is taken care of. Either they come to the Pac-10 with us, or they get a spot in the SEC or something AND we ensure that our athletic teams will continue to play. And yes, if push came to shove, that would mean the end of Texas-OU, at least on an annual basis.
honkskillet said:

December 17th, 2009 at 1:18 am

Scheduling would be a nightmare in either a big 12 of Pac 10 scenario. I think adding BYU, which has a national following, would be much preferable. The Big 12 would live on. Stronger even.
Bookman said:

December 17th, 2009 at 5:53 am

If Mizzou were to leave the Big XII would find another team to replace them. Maybe Arkansas, BYU, or Utah.
Bob in Houston said:

December 17th, 2009 at 7:20 am

If Texas wants to be in a Texas-centric conference, then it needs to literally be in the center of the conference, geographically.

What makes you think that these sorts of schools would want to be in a Texas-centric conference?

Scheduling would be a nightmare in either a big 12 of Pac 10 scenario. I think adding BYU, which has a national following, would be much preferable. The Big 12 would live on. Stronger even.

Presuming BYU would be interested, I suspect you’d have to bring Utah. They’ve been connected for some time.
jimmyjazz said:

December 17th, 2009 at 7:35 am

I would so much prefer annual marquee matchups with schools like tOSU, PSU, Michigan, USC, UCLA, and Washington to “who cares” matchups with schools like BYU or Utah. There is just no comparision. Yeah, losing (at least) one of our two main rivals would suck, but time marches on. The Big XII is not going to get any more glamorous in the future. It will just suck harder.
henley said:

December 17th, 2009 at 8:30 am

I stopped reading halfway through, but I thought I’d point out that Springsteen doesn’t have opening acts.

Which might make the analogy the most appropriate one this board has ever seen.
hodad said:

December 17th, 2009 at 8:30 am

Utah and BYU aren’t going anywhere without each other.

Also, having BYU in the Big 12 would suck. They won’t participate in any sporting events on Sundays. Plus, their players are all 24 years old or so.
BEHorn said:

December 17th, 2009 at 8:55 am

I’m not sure that “Texas-centric” is the model of choice going forward, in tems of recruiting. In my view, the value of being a media darling will soon outweigh the value of being seen live, if it doesn’t already.

Consider: Is playing Rice in Houston (or Tech in Lubbock) going to have a greater effect on Houston-area recruits than the 24/7 SEC-style coverage that would come from playing USC or UCLA every year, one in Austin and one in LA? Imagine the media coverage of the frenzy when the Horns show up in Autzen Stadium to play the Ducks. (Granted, I could do without the Wazzu trip, but nothing’s perfect.)

Consider, also, the effect on home-game revenue. I sometimes wonder if the presence of near-home “road” games (Baylor, Aggie, etc) doesn’t dilute to some degree the value of going to DKR to see the team (in the sense that there’s a feeling the team is kind of “around” most of the time, anyway – this obviously doesn’t apply to schools like Colorado). If the closest road game was in Tempe, I see DKR ticket prices going up because seeing the Horns play live suddenly becomes a much rarer commodity for the Texas-based Horn fans.

Then, of course, there’s the TV deal … let’s see, would we rather be in a conference whose revenue drivers are the LA, SF, Phoenix, Portland and Seattle markets, or the Ames, Manhattan, Norman, Lawrence and Boulder markets?

(Plus, I live in LA so I won’t mind seeing the Horns come to town every year. Not that that biases me, or anything.)
Toadvine said:

December 17th, 2009 at 9:08 am

BE has a really good point about exposure. I suspect that part of the reason the heat has left the UT-A&M rivalry, at least from a Texas and media perspective, is that TV contracts and programming allow for much more national exposure for all games, diminishing the importance of relatively provincial in-state rivalry games. Would that happen to a once every two years UT-USC game? Maybe, eventually, but I think the interest it would generate nationally, assuming on the of the two teams is top 15 at the time, would be very high and far more likely to positively influence recruits than dragging ass to College Station once every two years.
coolhorn said:

December 17th, 2009 at 9:09 am

If UT showed any interest in Big 10 membership, they’d move right to the front of the line for that membership, Don’t expect any interest in that direction from Belmont Hall…the logistics and the weather simply don’t work.

Interest in SEC membership is as it’s always been…less than zero.

Going the independant route doesn’t work for UT. Eventually, it’s not gonna work for Neutered Dame, and they’re the only school out there right now that, as an independant in football, gets preferential treatment from the BCS. UT would NOT get that kind of treatment as an independant.

The Big 12 has always felt like a shotgun wedding, and Mizzou leaving for the Big 10 (They WILL be the Big 10′s choice as a 12th school when all is said and done, and they’ll accept.) will have the same effect on the Big XII that arky’s departure did on the SWC. UT has, at best, just a few more years in the Big XII, and Dodds knows that.

The PAC 10?…there are drawbacks, but not nearly as many as some think. Modern airfare means it’s as easy to get to Phoenix, southern Cali, etc. as it is to get to the Big XII outposts. UT has a lot in common with the PAC 10 schools, and if Colorado joins in the move, that would put UT in a PAC 10 division with the Buffs, the Arizona schools, and the L.A. schools…not a bad division at all.

Like it or not, UT’s gonna be faced with a difficult decision when Mizzou heads to the Big 10, and UT’s already shown an interest in PAC 10 membership from back in the Bob Bullock days. We could keep rivalry games with aggy and okie if necessary, and of all the choices out there, the PAC 10 choice seems to make the most sense.
burnt orange outrage said:

December 17th, 2009 at 9:17 am

magnus, you call Springsteen a “Jersey cunt”? Fuck you.
BEHorn said:

December 17th, 2009 at 9:21 am

I don’t know if Springsteen’s a “cunt”, but anyone who refers to a fastball as a “speedball” is, at least, a little ditzy.
Minnesotahorn said:

December 17th, 2009 at 9:27 am

CJD I’m wondering why you think we’d have to drop the OU game. Do you mean only if we’re in a different conference than A&M? Are you thinking that two OOC rivalry games would be too difficult to manage? I guess I can’t really think of any other school that does this but I can’t come up with a reason it couldn’t happen.
houstonearler said:

December 17th, 2009 at 9:33 am

If we move to the Pac 10 we will have a new powerhouse rivalry with a storied program and a classy fanbase — USC.

Fuck OU, it’s a storied program built on cheating. Those sumbitches actually named a building after Switzer. And fuck their inbred, six toed, sister banging, skunk pelt trading fanbase. I would not give a shit if we ever played that corrupt piece of shit program ever again if we joined the Pac 10.

We can still play our retarded little stepbrothers to the East if the want to play on Thanksgiving. If they don’t, I do not care. The Pac 10 would be plenty strong.
magnusbleuveigner said:

December 17th, 2009 at 9:45 am

burnt orange outrage, what, is he not from Jersey?
UTIceberg said:

December 17th, 2009 at 10:02 am

Another negative about going independent: bowls

The landscape is such that every bowl has a tie-in which guaruntees they will have a team but greatly limits the ability of teams to play in different bowls. This was sort of the predicament Notre Dame was in this year. Had those chosen to go to adowl this year, b/c they weren’t eligible for a BCS bowl, their only other tie-in was the Gator Bowl and that’s only when certain conditions are met. Thus, if they couldn’t have gone to either (as in this years case), they have to wait around and see if another bowl opens up, which only happnes after other conferences can’t fill their boll eligiblty requirements. Had ND accepted an invite this year it would have been something like the Little Ceaser’s bowl or some such.
BirminghamAggie said:

December 17th, 2009 at 10:06 am

Texas is doing pretty damn well for itself as it is. Why would you want to fix something that isn’t broken? What the Big 12 needs is for A&M to get its shit together and start pulling its own weight. That goes for Nebraska and K State to some degree as well. Still, there are always going to be the underlying TV and revenue problems for the Big 12, but that’s never going to be Texas’ problem.

And while TCU doesn’t necessarily replace Mizzou, I’d be willing to bet there would be a lot more enthusiasm for the program if it joined a BCS conference like the Big 12. They would sell out more games get more viewers, etc. if they knew they would being playing Texas, OU, A&M, Tech and the Ok schools every year. Sure, they are pretty much like Baylor, but they can win and are located in a big TV market.
BirminghamAggie said:

December 17th, 2009 at 10:15 am

Also, in my humble opinion, I think there would be an awful lot of resentment towards Texas if decided to jump ship for the Big10/Pac10, especially in the state of Texas.

I’m just having a hard time buying that this would really help Texas in the long run.
magnusbleuveigner said:

December 17th, 2009 at 10:23 am

There already is a lot of resentment towards Texas. See how the coaches voted last year.
Roach said:

December 17th, 2009 at 10:57 am

Clearly the solution is to raid the Pac 10 for the schools we want i.e. the southern schools – USC UCLA ASU Arizona, Cal, Utah, Colorado, Tech, ATM, Kansas, Texas and a school to be named later. Have western and eastern divisions.

Now that’s a conference. – California, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Kansas City. All the major western media markets except portland, seatle and vegas (we don’t want to deal with the shit storm that Vegas would generate) are covered. We eliminate some of the travel issues, still play a number of games in Texas, and we play in LA once or twice a year that would not suck.

So why would the PAC 10 schools go for it? Basically they are trading Portland and Seattle for DFW, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Kansas City, Salt Lake and Denver. A much more attractive line-up to the networks. Also they get something they have been whining about for years, access to the central time zone i.e. they aren’t playing all their games after everyone on the east coast is in bed.
Bob in Houston said:

December 17th, 2009 at 11:47 am

Texas and Mizz fit the B10 “culturally.” But the B10 does not fit Texas. Texas does not want to give up baseball. Many B10 schools do not field a team.

Many would be one, Wisconsin.

But that doesn’t mean it’s OK now for Texas baseball.
Redfoot said:

December 17th, 2009 at 11:50 am

I’ve gone to school at both Tech and Wisconsin. I rarely have interest in watching the Red Raiders play. I always make a point of watching Wisconsin. Their gameday atmosphere was superior, their message boards are better, their fans are more fun to be around.

When it comes to which town is better, I don’t think that I really even have to address that.

In terms of which team brings more to the table in the form of matchups:

1. Wisconsin is good enough to win a CC every so often. Tech is not, and hasn’t been since they played in the Border Conference.

2. Wisconsin has a Heisman trophy winner. Tech does not.

3. Wisconsin has Rose Bowl trophies. Tech’s best seasons have been capped with Cotton Bowl losses.
NVHorn said:

December 17th, 2009 at 11:51 am

It would be bad for us if A&M went to the SEC.
magnusbleuveigner said:

December 17th, 2009 at 12:15 pm

I think Redfoot caught the clap while schooling at Tech.

For any of you Houston-ite Techsters. Check out Griffs. It’s quite Techcentric. The owner ladies are nuts, plying everyone with free shots after a win. This applies to basketball season as well. It was named one of Americas top 25 sports bars in America, although I wouldn’t say it was that great.
mojo said:

December 17th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

If Missouri was to leave….. Texas shouldn’t go to either the Pac10 or Big10+2. Big 12 should kick out Iowa st and add TCU and Arkansas..move OU and OK state to north division.
houstonearler said:

December 17th, 2009 at 1:19 pm

If Mizzou leaves, kick out ISU, KSU, and Baylor. Invite Utah and BYU in. That means basically no weak sisters or no teams without the potential to do well.

Play the Pac 10 model. Texas, A&M, OU, NU, BYU, Tech, Utah, CU, Okie Lite, and KU make up a much better schedule of games than the slop we have now that gets diluted by Baylor, ISU, and KSU. Plus, the tv revenue and bowl money is split 10 ways instead of 12. No more b.s. divisions making it easier for one division to win the conference. 9 conference games instead of 8 and getting rid of the trash teams means better matchups and stronger schedules overall. So there would be more tv money and better conference respect.

In addition to being better teams, BYU and Utah would add the 35th largest media market — Salt Lake City.

What would be even better would be keeping Mizzou for its market, adding BYU, and ditching the three crap schools.
houstonearler said:

December 17th, 2009 at 1:20 pm

And TCU should never be added. They add nothing. Don’t let temporary success in football lead you astray. They should not be added for the same reason K State should be, after ISU, the first team discarded from the conference.
Mikey said:

December 17th, 2009 at 2:52 pm

Oklahoma fans afraid to attend their bowl game in El Paso:

http://newsok.com/juarez-violence-sparks-sun-bowl-fears-for-ou-fans/article/3425571
CrazyJoeDavola said:

December 17th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

OU fans should be scared. So should Stanford fans. That place is fucking Thunderdome.

Let’s get a bunch of white, middle class naifs wandering around El Paso and thinking a trip across the river would be a kitschy hoot. I foresee no problems here!

Incidentally, I don’t think Texas would be down with adding BYU to an athletic conference, and even less so an academic affiliation. For the same reason that BYU will never be in the Pac-10.
magnusbleuveigner said:

December 17th, 2009 at 4:00 pm

Tours of El Paso courtesy of Trips Right!!! Ass, gas, or cash, no one rides for free!!

You can see picturesque Lee Trevino Blvd., Hand Job Mountain, and the truck stops of Anthony.
Mike said:

December 17th, 2009 at 5:25 pm

nate,

If you’re one of the brave few Sooners fans to make it down to El Paso with your (life) partner, try to avoid Chico’s Tacos:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_12790543
Mike said:

December 17th, 2009 at 5:34 pm

Let’s get a bunch of white, middle class drunk naifs wandering around El Paso and thinking a trip across the river would be a kitschy hoot. I foresee no problems here!

There. FTFY

But it’s funny someone should mention that. I lived in El Paso last year when Texas played UTEP and several friends from Austin came down for the game. I’ll be god damned if they weren’t f*cking begging me to take them down to Juarez (I hadn’t been down for about a year at that point) when I kept telling them that there had already been over 1400 murders up to that point in the year.
I can only imagine how many drunk tough guy traveling sooners fans will try to go. Leave it up to the city council to pass a measure blocking anyone wearing crimson, cardinal, or missing more than 3 teeth from the international bridges.
Schwetty Balls said:

December 17th, 2009 at 7:51 pm

“Incidentally, I don’t think Texas would be down with adding BYU to an athletic conference, and even less so an academic affiliation. For the same reason that BYU will never be in the Pac-10.”

Care to elaborate? Why would Dodds and company care about BYU’s scholastic pursuits?
VoiceOfReason said:

December 17th, 2009 at 9:08 pm

I can’t see any way in the world Texas would ever want to leave the Big 12. Texas owns the Big 12. I’d suggest you guys focus your energy on a contingency plan if Mizzou leaves for the Big 10. And if that contingency plan includes adding anybody from the SEC or Pac 10, forget it. You will have your choice of Mountain West teams and can enjoy the CCG in Jerry World in the new SWC part 2 which would then be small time especially when CU bolts for the new Pac 12 and SWC part 2 is forced to pick up two crappy MWC teams.

If Texas wants the conference in tact then the focus should be on running that douchebag Beebe off, getting ALL the conference football games on TV, revenue sharing, and continue rotation of the CCG as it should be. Oh and and a bowl destination or two more favorable to North teams wouldn’t suck either. There’s no doubt that Texas is the superpower of the conference, but unless there’s some teamwork with the other conference partners, especially those within states that actually have a respectable population like Missouri and Colorado, there won’t be a big time conference to compete in, and you will be the New York Yankees competing in the Carolina League.
Sailor Ripley said:

December 17th, 2009 at 9:14 pm

Neither Stanford nor Oklahoma fans are middle class.
CrazyJoeDavola said:

December 18th, 2009 at 12:33 am

“Why would Dodds and company care about BYU’s scholastic pursuits?”

Let’s call it … cultural differences. More so between California and BYU than us and BYU, but they’d still be significant. The opposition wouldn’t come so much from the athletic department than the academic and administrative side.

One other related stumbling block that would affect the AD: BYU doesn’t play sporting events on Sundays.

IMO, they wouldn’t bring in near enough money to overcome the issues they’d present. Utah would be a much easier sell, but I’m not sure the Utes would be able to do much without the Cougars involved.
EarlCampbellSausages said:

December 18th, 2009 at 5:17 am

What is a Big XII? What is a BYU?
TaylorTRoom said:

December 18th, 2009 at 6:03 am

If the Big 10 snatches up either Nebraska or Missouri, the Big 12 is done, over, finis. All that will be left is the crying. UT, TAMU, and OU will be OK, and find nice new homes. The others might not. It’s in their interest to figure out how to make the Big 12 a better partnership for all schools.

Do you ever watch how the SEC coaches vote? They all vote other SEC teams as high as they rationally can, regardless of rivalries. Several voted Florida #3 this year after it lost to Alabama, and all had Florida as the highest rated 1 loss team. They see conference strength as being more important than individual rivalries. Compare that to last year’s Big 12 coaches’ votes, where several coaches voted Texas several spots below other 1 loss teams. That is why the Big 12 is in danger of falling apart. It’s not a real union.
Schwetty Balls said:

December 18th, 2009 at 6:34 am

“The opposition wouldn’t come so much from the athletic department than the academic and administrative side.”

Really? We’re already in a conference with such academic heavyweights as Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and Kansas State. BYU brings with it several highly touted programs and an outstanding law school. The same with Utah. I also don’t think that UT cares one flying monkey’s ass about BYU being an LDS school. Remember, Baylor didn’t even allow dancing until just over ten years ago.

As for playing on Sundays, how often have revenue-generating BYU teams ever even had the chance to play a meaningful game on Sundays? The answer is never. College football teams rarely if ever play on Sundays and BYU never makes it pass the second round in basketball.

All this being said, I prefer an attempt to build a new super conference along the lines of what Roach said: “USC UCLA ASU Arizona, Cal, Utah, Colorado, Tech, ATM, Kansas, Texas and a school to be named later. Have western and eastern divisions.” The chances of that are probably less than zero at this point. Though I would OU to that mix.
Ag_in_TX said:

December 18th, 2009 at 8:56 am

Notre Dame tells the Big 10 – “don’t even bother to ask”.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sportscenter/post/_/id/11973/notre-dame-not-intered-in-becoming-number-12
Earl_Campbell's_Sausage said:

December 18th, 2009 at 11:24 am

After reading some of these posts, I find these truths to be self-evident….

1.) If you are okay with Texas losing that game in Dallas, or that one with that para-military organization that farms and works on cars, then you have either never been to those two games, or you have your head up your ass, or both.

I even like talking trash to my Tech friends once a year about something other than our enormous income disparities.

Those types of rivalries take oh… about a century or so to build. Do you really want to through away that type of tradition so that you can go out west and play USC and Arizona? Or BYU? Come on.

2.) Moving to the Big11, and being into a bitch division without Ohio State, Michigan, or Penn State would be a disaster for all sports.

There goes Baseball, which is important to some of us. We would lose out on a great budding rivalry with Kansas in Basketball, and, can you imagine what it would do to our lady’s soccer team? For what? Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, and a conference championship in Detroit or Indianapolis every year.

Calm down. Stay Put. Missouri can stay, go, whatever. Replace them with Tulsa, Colorado State, or Oral Roberts, same difference.
magnusbleuveigner said:

December 18th, 2009 at 11:37 am

He meant to say taxidermy.
admin said:

December 18th, 2009 at 11:40 am

Do you ever watch how the SEC coaches vote? They all vote other SEC teams as high as they rationally can, regardless of rivalries. Several voted Florida #3 this year after it lost to Alabama, and all had Florida as the highest rated 1 loss team. They see conference strength as being more important than individual rivalries. Compare that to last year’s Big 12 coaches’ votes, where several coaches voted Texas several spots below other 1 loss teams. That is why the Big 12 is in danger of falling apart. It’s not a real union.

That is very interesting.

Anybody read that article either in the WSJ or NYT about the SEC’s ascension?
Earl_Campbell's_Sausage said:

December 18th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

WSJ? I think the Securities and Exchange Commission is a different SEC.

I think that that type of conference loyalty takes time to build. The big XII is a young conference. I think that type of loyalty shows itself among the old SWC schools to some extent, and between the old Big 8 schools as well.
TaylorTRoom said:

December 18th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

“I think that type of loyalty shows itself among the old SWC schools to some extent,”

No, actually it doesn’t. Texas’ old SWC chums (TT and BU) intentionally voted it farther down than they needed to in 2008. The SWC collapsed precisely because the member schools did not like nor trust each other.
Toadvine said:

December 18th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

The probem with the Big 12 comes down to two letters: T.V.
Earl_Campbell's_Sausage said:

December 18th, 2009 at 3:18 pm

Is that why the SWC failed?

I thought it was because half of the football programs had become irrelevant…. and a better option presented itself in the form of the Big XII.
Mysterious Package said:

December 18th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

We have got to kick out ISU and K State. They should be involved in a BCS conference
jimmyjazz said:

December 18th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

I think it could literally take a decade or more for the Big 8 schools’ lingering resentment of Texas to fade. We called the shots in the formation of the Big XII. It would be a different scenario joining the Pac 10 or Big 10 — we would be the new guy in every way, and any demands we made in the formation of the Big XII would be largely unnecessary in those two conferences. I just don’t believe their member schools would develop anywhere near the instant “Texas hate” that the Big XII did.
Mysterious Package said:

December 18th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

err-not be involved-sorry to chung to type
srr50 said:

December 18th, 2009 at 4:39 pm

Is that why the SWC failed?

I thought it was because half of the football programs had become irrelevant…. and a better option presented itself in the form of the Big XII.

They became irrelvant because they were parochial and just a blip on the TV landscape, which is what the Big 12 is facing should Missouri go away.

Calm down. Stay Put. Missouri can stay, go, whatever. Replace them with Tulsa, Colorado State, or Oral Roberts, same difference.

Now that’s funny.
Frank the Tank said:

December 18th, 2009 at 9:27 pm

As a Big Ten guy (attended Illinois), I initially didn’t consider Texas being in the discussion for expansion. However, as I think about this more and more, I believe that Texas is the ONLY option other than Notre Dame for the Big Ten.

A prominent concern among the commenters here seems to be that the Big 12 might implode (or at least be severely damaged from a TV market perspective) where the entire conference would be at risk if Mizzou were to leave for the Big Ten. If the Big Ten understands that this would happen (and they probably do), then why the heck would they bother going after a middle tier school on the athletic and academic spectrum if all of the conference members are up for grabs? They might as well go for the biggest fish possible in the Big 12, which of course would be Texas. Unlike Eastern candidates Syracuse and Rutgers, Texas would be guaranteed to get the Big Ten Network into virtually every cable household in its home state. (Please note that the main source of revenue for the Big Ten Network is getting into as many basic cable households as possible, which is why the ability to deliver large numbers of cable homes is at the top of the list of the criteria for any expansion candidate.) Unlike any of the other usual suspects for Big Ten expansion, Texas would bring a monster football program and an elite basketball program, to boot. I feel that the Big Ten would play the “What if we had just waited for Notre Dame?” game with any of the other expansion candidates mentioned, but the addition of Texas would mean that the conference has moved on from the Irish and got someone even better.

So, why would Texas want to move to the Big Ten? As mentioned elsewhere, the Big Ten’s TV money dwarfs the Big 12′s revenue as of today, which is likely going to be a permanent situation because of the sheer number of major TV markets that the Big Ten has in its footprint (Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, the Ohio cities, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, etc.). Adding Texas to that TV pot would make that revenue skyrocket even further with all of the households added for the Big Ten Network.

Even more importantly, think of your pro football counterparts: the Dallas Cowboys. When the NFL realigned divisions in the 1990s, Jerry Jones insisted that the Cowboys stay in the NFC East even though they would’ve geographically fit better in the NFC West and were in the middle of a great rivalry with the 49ers at the time. Why? Because in order to be “America’s Team”, the Cowboys needed to continue to play against teams in the major markets east of the Mississippi River. The Cowboys wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the national fan base if it had played its divisional games against West Coast teams as opposed to East Coast teams.

Likewise, Texas would have the opportunity in the Big Ten to become a true national program and school that would go beyond its regional power. It would be playing schools that deliver the major markets of Chicago and Philadelphia along with the top football school on the East Coast (Penn State) and the major powers in the Midwest (Michigan and Ohio State). Think about that for a second: that hypothetical Big Ten would have the main football powers from the East Coast, Midwest and Southwest altogether in one conference. Even for those that worry about the supposed numbers games outside of Texas, it really wouldn’t be the case. If you have 4 home conference games, continue to play Oklahoma in Dallas and Texas A&M in the non-conference schedule, and then add on 2 guarantee home games, you’ll always have 8 games in the state of Texas each year. That’s not materially different from the 9 or 10 games in the state as of now when it comes to recruiting purposes, particularly when you have national exposure for those games outside of Texas (as opposed to going to places like Oklahoma State and Kansas).

Certainly, this bears some risk for Texas on the historical rivalry side, which can’t be taken lightly. I’m sure that the Average Joe Sports Fan that doesn’t think for a single second about finances and only takes into account “What have you done for me lately on the field?” without consideration of TV contracts and markets would vehemently object to Texas moving to the Big Ten. However, I still think that if you’re able to maintain the OU and A&M games in the non-conference schedule, then you keep what appears to be your most important relationships in your home region while opening yourselves up to massive exposure in the rest of the nation.

Anyway, I really hope the Jim Delany of the Big Ten is smart enough to push the conference members toward Austin (and I think he is – that guy is as savvy as they come when it comes to financial power and college sports).
Neon said:

December 19th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

Missouri is an interesting situation for TV/advertisers. It is the biggest school in a fairly populace state but remember the layout of the state. The 2 cities that have real TV value, they are 2nd (3rd?) fiddle in one behind some other B12 schools and splitting with a Big 10 team for first place in the other.

Because of that I don’t think the B10 gains enough $-wise to offer Missouri (they’re also 3/4 in the north in endowment, research $, ‘ranking’ and athletic revenues though none of that is as important as the TV $).

I do think the Big 12 loses a significant amount if Missouri were to move because of how few major cities there are in our conference. Even 1/2 of St. Louis is worth more TV sets than all but DFW, Houston, Denver-Boulder, Kansas City, San Antonio and Austin in this conference. That would be a big loss.

My guess is they’ll go with Pitt, who is a better fit both financially and academically. If not Pitt they’ll begrudgingly call Rutgers or (my dark horse) Maryland. All of these and Syracuse would have to turn it down before they approach MU. They’d obviously love Texas for a lot of reasons but the downsides are enough to knock them down the list quite a bit.

From a Kansas persepective I do find it funny that they’re threatening to move because the Big 12 is not “giving them” good enough bowl games. Seems to my biased eyes to be the perfect Mizzou response.
HoyaSooner said:

December 19th, 2009 at 4:38 pm

Interesting. For several years now, I’ve felt the Big 12 was doomed long-term. It was only a matter of time before the Big 10 or Pac 10 started looking to expand. If the Big 10 goes to 12 teams, as they’ve discussed doing, their absolute first choice is Notre Dame. But as we see, ND is perfectly happy where they are right now. So they’ll look at 2nd choice schools.

Cincinnati is a non-starter. Ohio State would never want another Ohio team in the conference. It would legitimize them, and tOSU doesn’t want that. You could probably say the same for Pitt. Penn State has managed to distance themselves from Pitt in football due to Big 10 membership. Besides that, Pitt has strong basketball ties to the Big East. So, Rutgers or Syracuse? Both would give a New York presence, but nobody in New York gives a rat’s ass about college sports.

So then the Big 10 looks elsewhere. Missouri fits geographically. If Texas wanted in the Big 10, they would certainly get a look, but they’ll need to be proactive to do it. I don’t think the Big 10 will approach Texas. If Missouri is offered, they’ll be gone before you can blink. They’ll pay the exit fee. That leaves a Big 12 with 11 teams, missing two large TV markets. That’s not good.

How it plays out from there depends how the remaining schools respond. Will the Pac 10 look at expansion? If Texas and Colorado jump to the Pac 10, the Big 12 is deader than disco. But I can see this playing out a few ways.

1) Missouri leaves and the Big 12 looks for a suitable replacement. Utah or BYU would be a good fit, though we might have difficulty getting one without the other. Utah has a growing population and brings a decent TV market. Forget TCU. We already have Dallas as much as it can be had. There are more UT and OU fans in that city than there are TCU fans. Replacing Missouri will be tough, but a decent replacement leaves the Big 12 pretty much where it is right now, 4th in conference revenue, and dominated by UT and OU.

2) Texas and Colorado jump ship to the Pac 10. This leaves a number of schools with good football tradition, but not necessarily large TV markets, floating around looking for a stable home. A now 9 team Big 12 would still retain BCS privileges due to the structure of the BCS contract, at least until the next round of negotiations, but it would certainly be seen as a Big East level nobody conference. Which leads us to:

2a) Invite some of the better teams from the MWC to try and maintain the Big 12. Utah, BYU, and Air Force would bring respected teams and some decent geographic areas. This would fill the 3 empty spots in the Big 12. We keep the BCS bid, but suffer from the loss of Texas as far as national prominence goes.

2b) The conference is dissolved and some of the stronger Big 12 teams attempt to form an all new conference. OU, Ok State, A&M, Tech, Nebraska, and Kansas try to add the Utah schools, perhaps TCU and Houston, Air Force, and maybe UNLV or New Mexico. A BCS bid is up for grabs.

2c) Every man for himself. OU, OSU, and A&M all begin talks with the SEC to expand to 14 teams. Yes, this means one team will be left out in the cold, probably OSU unless the Oklahoma legislature tries to intervene. After the SEC cherry picking is complete, the remaining teams either try to raid the Mountain West and the WAC, or are raided by them in turn. People will be looking to snag Nebraska and Kansas. The rest of the conference just falls wherever it falls.

The only thing that can save the Big 12 is a better TV contract. To do this, some of the crappier teams in conference need to step up and improve their programs. They need to stop scheduling patsies fpr OOC games. The conference needs to mandate only one Div 1aa opponent every other year (Kansas State). The North needs to become competitive again. As much as it pains me to say it, the stranglehold by OU and Texas will have to end. It can’t just be the Big 2 and 10 Dwarfs. Perhaps we need to move to an East/West alignment, so the North schools can have a better shot.
Neon said:

December 19th, 2009 at 6:39 pm

What’s the second media market that goes with Missouri? As I said before, the St. Louis market wasn’t a total B12 market anyway, with Illinois and Missouri State (plus transplants) eroding Missouri’s hold. The only real B12 markets are Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio. Not good if you’re trying to get B10 Network-type money. The thing is, the B12 is making PLENTY of money. It’s really a quite good situation for everyone involved- crying about bowl games notwithstanding.

From what I can tell most of the teams in the North (besides Colorado and ISU I guess) are making every effort to improve on the football field. It’ll take time and the strength of Texas and Oklahoma certainly doesn’t help. The fact that very little high school talent comes out of Iowa, Kansas or Missouri doesn’t help the conference.
srr50 said:

December 19th, 2009 at 7:02 pm

What’s the second media market that goes with Missouri?

Kansas City — shared by Kansas and Missouri.
Neon said:

December 19th, 2009 at 8:57 pm

KC would still be firmly Big 12. KU runs that town (so much so that Missouri fans constantly cry about it).
jimmyjazz said:

December 20th, 2009 at 8:23 am

What “Missouri State” market share are you referring to in St. Louis?
Neon said:

December 20th, 2009 at 10:12 am

The former Southwest Missouri State (changed their name to Missouri State a few years back (much to the chagrin of the Tiggers) trails UM-Columbia in enrollment by only about 5,000 students.

Obviously they don’t play D1 football, but St. Louis is definitely a city with quite a few collegiate allegiances. I would say it’s definitely a Big 10 town more than a Big 12 town as it stands.
jimmyjazz said:

December 20th, 2009 at 10:18 am

That’s what I thought you were referring to. In terms of TV sets, it’s a non-player, regardless of enrollement. For football, I’d say Mizzou is stronger in StL than Illinois, with all other schools a distant third or worse.
Neon Boudreaux said:

December 20th, 2009 at 10:43 am

I would say whichever team is better wins St. Louis in terms of football TV sets, but either way it’s far from a majority of sets. Pretty obvious that Missouri has been the better program of late.

My point wasn’t that we should discount the loss of Missouri. Quite the opposite considering how few legitimate media markets the Big 12 has (and as we know, a 1,000,000 person media market is more valuable to advertisers than 5,000,000 people spread out in non-markets). Losing even 1/4 of St. Louis would be a major blow unless we countered that with gaining Arkansas or Utah (each of which would be a net win, especially Arkansas).
Barking Carnival — Blog — By Popular Demand: Kansas Basketball Catchup said:

December 20th, 2009 at 11:05 am

[...] with a coaching search, learning about our new staff, and biting our nails at the possibility of B12 Armageddon, we’ve written very little about the #1 basketball team in the nation. No excuse, just [...]
Frank the Tank said:

December 20th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

“My guess is they’ll go with Pitt, who is a better fit both financially and academically. If not Pitt they’ll begrudgingly call Rutgers or (my dark horse) Maryland. All of these and Syracuse would have to turn it down before they approach MU. They’d obviously love Texas for a lot of reasons but the downsides are enough to knock them down the list quite a bit.”

Nope – Pitt will never get an invite from the Big Ten because they don’t open any type of new markets for the conference. Penn State already delivers Pitt’s home market and then some. Thus, not a single new Big Ten Network cable subscriber would come from adding Pitt, which makes it a non-starter. This is the same for any school that overlaps a current Big Ten market (i.e. Cincinnati, Iowa State, etc.).

Honestly, as a Big Ten guy, I’m starting to think that the conference will only expand if the 12th team is Notre Dame or Texas. I don’t know why some commenters think that the Big Ten would actually rather have a school like Missouri instead of Texas – you guys are WAY WAY WAY farther up the list than Mizzou, Rutgers and Syracuse athletically, academically and national TV marketability. Geography is not going to be an issue for the Big Ten in the case of Texas – it’s more of whether geography is going to be an issue for Texas with respect to the Big Ten. Once again, if Texas would entertain going to the Pac-10 if a middle tier school like Mizzou went to the Big Ten, then there’s zero reason for why the Big Ten, which is financially superior to the Pac-10 in every way (TV contracts, bowl tie-ins, etc.), wouldn’t go after Texas itself. Remember that the Big Ten’s expansion standard is Penn State – anyone that doesn’t add as much as they did will have a hard time getting serious consideration. The only two schools that could add as much or more than Penn State are Notre Dame and Texas. Mizzou, Rutgers and Syracuse are nice enough, but they’re “meh” moves. The Big Ten is the last conference that’s going to add someone just for the sake of adding someone – it’s either going to go big or not do it all.

I think that you guys would get an invite from the Big Ten in a heartbeat and the conference wouldn’t think twice about it. The question is whether the interest would be reciprocated by Texas.
Joe said:

December 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 am

“Honestly, as a Big Ten guy, I’m starting to think that the conference will only expand if the 12th team is Notre Dame or Texas.”

Frank, I tend to agree with you. I think the Big Ten will use a few Big 12 and Big East schools as bargaining chips for Texas and ND. Threatening the Big 12 that they will take away Mizzou, or threatening the Big East that they’ll take Pitt (and maybe also Rutgers and Cuse) could get the Big Ten what they really want. If Texas knows Mizzou is ready to jump ship, that could likely send them scrambling to the Big Ten or Pac 10 commishes quickly. Same with ND – if they know the Big East conference is about to crumble, that could convince them that the Big Ten is the place to be.
The Big Ten Expansion Index: A Different Shade of Orange « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT said:

December 27th, 2009 at 4:49 pm

[...] there’s a CYA aspect to all of this for Texas. Please take a look at this discussion about expansion options on Barking Carnival, which is my favorite Texas blog. I was shocked to find very few “BIG TEN FOOTBALL [...]
mike said:

December 28th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Why not have Texas, Texas A&M, OU, OSU go to SEC to create a 16-team mega conference. Convenient for all to cover from Texas to the Carolinas. Give the SEC recruiting in Texas, and the Big 12 schools coverage in the SEC region for recruiting there as well. The PAC 10 would involve way too much travel for Texas in my opinion. Baylor & TT and Colorado, could join the Mountain West, and give them a 11 team conference. Which covers the Big 12 south. NU, Mizzou, KU, Kstate, ISU could go to the big 11, extending the Big 10 west.

Shrug..
chewynacho said:

January 4th, 2010 at 11:03 pm

I’d rather see Texas stay in the Big XII and add Florida State & Miami. TCU and the hogs bring nothing. Being an independent instantly means you’re screwed out of the BCS title game. Adding Florida State and Miami gives us access to the large Florida TV markets and more recruiting opportunities. The Florida schools would be better-off being in the Big XII because it’s way better than what they have now.
Big Ten Expansion Index Follow-Up #2 – Nationwide and Longhorns Fan Responses on Texas to the Big Ten « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT said:

January 7th, 2010 at 11:29 pm

[...] required), the comments from my previous two posts, and as these two Barking Carnival posts here and here about the prospect of Texas switching conferences that were written before I had created [...]
Between Mizzou and Pitt, who would you prefer for a 12th member? - Page 3 said:

January 31st, 2010 at 11:59 pm

[...] links to the specific posts on Texas boards: Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this… Barking Carnival — Blog — Big 10 vs. Pac-10: Which is better for Texas? Barking Carnival — Blog — Things To Know About Conference Re-alignment [...]
Truman Bennett said:

June 28th, 2010 at 11:24 am

You’re a very good writer, I found this post very interesting, I have added your site to my favorites and will be sure to come back to read more. Thank you.

33

Deloss Dodds: “If We Need To Finish It, We’ll Finish It.”
By srr50 on June 2nd, 2010
94

Texas To Pac-10 Story Revisited
By srr50 on July 14th, 2009
38

Pac 10 Getting Serious About Expansion
By srr50 on February 9th, 2010
89

More Things To Know About Conference Realignment
By TaylorTRoom on May 11th, 2010
64

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

Activity

Sailor Ripley commented on the blog post Podcast #2: The One Where Scipio Inaugurates The ‘Hog Call’ and Talks Trench Warfare With Blake Brockermeyer 8 minutes ago · View
Foedaescosy commented on the blog post The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly – Texas 34, Rice 17 15 minutes ago · View
David commented on the blog post Texas-Wyoming Football Preview 2010 18 minutes ago · View
Irish Rising commented on the blog post Notre Dame’s Womens Athletics: A Love and A Legacy 35 minutes ago · View
Scipio Tex commented on the blog post The Week That Will Be (09.11.2010) 38 minutes ago · View
Foedaescosy commented on the blog post K-State loaded with shiny new receivers 1 hour, 14 minutes ago · View
Scipio Tex commented on the blog post A Defense of Situational Packages: Down With Depth Charts 1 hour, 15 minutes ago · View
Just an old guy that loves this forum commented on the blog post A Defense of Situational Packages: Down With Depth Charts 1 hour, 17 minutes ago · View
Trips Right commented on the blog post Raylee’s Coming Home: Thanks to All of You 1 hour, 27 minutes ago · View
Drew Dunlevie commented on the blog post The Peso’s Devaluation? Two (quick) additional thoughts on NU-WKU 1 hour, 30 minutes ago · View

Barking Carnival

Football Articles

Big 10 vs. Pac-10: Which is better for Texas?

Article Tags:

More from this Barker:

Adjusted Stats 2009 Year in Review Part IX

Adjusted Stats 2009 Year in Review Part VIII

Adjusted Stats 2009 Year in Review Part VII

Adjusted Stats 2009 Year in Review Part VI

Adjusted Stats 2009 Year in Review Part V

Share This

254 Responses

HenryJames said:

mockingbird said:

srr50 said:

mockingbird said:

Levander Williams said:

uthookem said:

What if said:

TOR said:

jimmyjazz said:

Boddicker Is Clutch said:

TXinDC said:

TXinDC said:

Bob in Houston said:

Bob in Houston said:

dedfischer said:

BatesHorn said:

BatesHorn said:

Tim said:

Huckleberry said:

Triston27 said:

Huckleberry said:

holdem said:

dedfischer said:

dedfischer said:

HenryJames said:

Levander Williams said:

jdlooneyii said:

BatesHorn said:

bigdukesix said:

Huckleberry said:

Tim said:

Levander Williams said:

spider said:

Einstein said:

mockingbird said:

dedfischer said:

HenryJames said:

texfan76 said:

Tim said:

TOR said:

eskimohorn said:

HenryJames said:

dedfischer said:

Live Bait said:

Tim said:

Just Saying said:

uthookem said:

TOR said:

jimmyjazz said:

mockingbird said:

Magnificent Bastard said:

veronicacorningstone said:

HenryJames said:

Tim said:

Tim said:

jimmyjazz said:

Tim said:

magnusbleuveigner said:

Tim said:

Toadvine said:

scagnetti said:

OldTimeHorn said:

Magnificent Bastard said:

texastough said:

HenryJames said:

srr50 said:

Bob in Houston said:

TaylorTRoom said: