Barking Carnival

Dispelling some myths and misconceptions as we possibly enter a period where things may open up again…

1. Texas has not been a good conference partner. We did not save the SWC, and we are not saving the Big 12. We have been in two conferences, and each chose (per our wishes) to not share media revenue equally (the Big 10 and SEC do share revenue…say, what are the two strongest conferences?). This can (and probably does) lead to resentment of Texas. In the Big 10, Indiana knows that a strong Michigan helps its own bottom line. In the Big 12, a strong Texas does nothing for Baylor.

2. There are conferences that are unified, and conferences that aren’t. The unified ones are the Big 10, the SEC, and the Pac-10. These conferences will not cast aside weaker members in a re-alignment. Talk of “The Big 10 should dump Indiana and Iowa, and take Texas, Nebraska, and OU” is nonsense. Indiana is a partner of the other 10 schools, and has been so for 90+ years. They are going nowhere. Also, the old Big 8 schools are not going to turn on KSU or ISU. They have been partners for many decades, and have reached an understanding…the “big ‘uns” (OU, NU) carry the “little ‘uns” along, and the “little ‘uns” take their beatings.

3. Arkansas is not leaving the SEC for the Big 12. That would be like jumping from CFO of Acura to GM of Saturn. Sure, the title is better, and you might make more money in the short term, but you will be looking for a new home in 4 years, and you know it.

4. There are no good replacement schools in the mid-majors. None bring extra TV sets to a contract. If Missouri or Nebraska go to the Big 10, the Big 12 will die. Add TCU? It gives us nothing to improve the TV contracts. As soon as one team leaves the Big 12, UT, OU, and TAMU start actively looking for new homes.

5. What can the Big 12 do to strengthen itself? Maybe (and this is a huge switch for me) … share TV revenue equally? I wonder if Texas should propose that anyway…if the Big 12 stays together, it will make the conference stronger. If it doesn’t, it will demonstrate that we can be good partners. Besides, it’s not like we need the money.

Thoughts?

Article Tags:

Big 10, Big 12, College Baseball, College Basketball, College Football, Media, Pac 10, Texas Longhorns, TV

136 Responses

srr50 said:

December 20th, 2009 at 5:12 pm

#5 — Texas might be looking forward to digital rights — which are about to become far more valuable to individual schools. I would assume that Texas might be willing to compromise over TV network money, but they haven’t built the infrastructure they have to share any revenue stream from digital media.
TaylorTRoom said:

December 20th, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Well, there’s that. But, there is also the fun to be had for Dodds in sitting across from Byrne and making the revenue sharing suggestion, and watching his face.
burntorangehorn said:

December 20th, 2009 at 6:21 pm

I disagree that there are no good mid-major candidates. I think Utah, although a bit of a hike from everyone but CU, would be an otherwise solid addition. Good in a number of sports, including the most important for conference purposes (FB and BkB), a pretty good alumni base, flagship status from the state, and plenty of market. I really don’t think it’d happen, but I think that Utah to the Big 12 is actually more realistic than Texas to the Big Ten.
SL Xpress said:

December 20th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

Do you believe what you just typed? That a strong Texas does nothing for Baylor in terms of revenue?

I assume you realize that the difference between the school getting the least amount from media rights and the school getting the most is $3 million, right?

It’s not about the money. It’s about the future money. And it’s about the principle. Texas has never exactly been a “one for all, and all for one” type of athletic program. They’re the Yankees. They’re not exactly looking for ways to share revenue.

As far as “unified conferences”, drastic change for any bureaucratic organization requires severe pain. The Big Televen and the SEC are rolling in the money. They’re not going to be looking for drastic change. Certainly not to kick members out.

I agree with you that the Pac 10 won’t be either…but, they’re becoming a have not conference at this point, especially compared to the Big 10 and SEC. And the west coast economy is battling head to head with the rust belt in terms of who can be in the worse financial situation. Long term the Pacific coast is in a better position, obviously, but in the mean time everyone is hemmorraghing over there, because that’s where many of the worst abuses occurred.

If anything drastic is going to occur to create some kind of “super conference” it’s likely going to involved the Pac 10. Personally, I’d probably prefer a super conference to involve the Big Televen simply because of time zones, but I’m not picky. Anything that doesn’t involve the SEC, going independent, or trying to keep a leaky boat Big 12* afloat after a school or two is pealed off by stronger conferences, is fine with me.

Frankly, I could see where the opportunity to get the Big 10 Network as part of basic cable subscriptions, or a basic sports package, everywhere in Texas, would hold a lot of appeal for the athletic directors of the Big Televen. Unfortunately, it’s the school presidents who will be the drivers on that, and I don’t see them being quite as progressive.
NorthDallasSooner said:

December 20th, 2009 at 6:44 pm

I would vigorously dispute that the Big Ten is a stronger conference than the Big 12. On what basis other than TV sets in declining cities (I commute to the Midwest, I know of what I speak). Certainly not football, basketball, baseball, women’s basketball or any other sport besides hockey.
TaylorTRoom said:

December 20th, 2009 at 6:56 pm

CTJ, I believe that Baylor doesn’t believe that a strong Texas is good for them. I think they preferred the ’80s, when they could beat Texas, and a weak Texas was killing the SWC (to your point).

NDS, yes, the Big 10 is stronger. I say that because the member institutions of the Big 10 are in aggregate stronger than the member institutions of the Big 12. They are also stronger institutions than the SEC schools, too, which is why I prefer the Big 10 to the SEC for UT. There are no news stories of Big 10 schools considering leaving, nor being poached away. That’s because the Big 10 schools are right where they want to be.
CloseToJumping said:

December 20th, 2009 at 6:59 pm

I find talk of trying to preserve a Big 12 Conference if Missouri splits to be absurd and I am not sure why it’s referenced above as something even remotely likely. If someone leaves, Texas becomes the biggest free agent in college sports. Good for us.

I also find the concept of the Big 10 wanting Nebraska to be something that should be dimissed out of hand. They bring nothing to the table for a conference like the Big 10. Nothing.

I am rooting for Missouri to jump. Take the aggies with us to the Pac 12 and let Tech and Baylor hang with the remainder of the Big 12.
CloseToJumping said:

December 20th, 2009 at 7:02 pm

Taylor–

While I did just respond to your thread, I want to clarify something. It appears that you mean SLX in your last response. To be certain, he and I are very different people, if friends.
NorthDallasSooner said:

December 20th, 2009 at 7:11 pm

Taylor, so strength is determined by the members’ commitment to the league? The Ivy’s are pretty committed to their league, are they stronger than anyone else?

I suspect DeLoss and Mack, et al, are more committed to the Big 12 than BC posters would like them to be. There are very few, if any, benefits to UT being in any other conference than the one you’re in.
dick said:

December 20th, 2009 at 7:29 pm

I’m not in favor of us leaving the Big 12, I just want the the conference to get a better fucking TV contract for football. If the Texas brand is as desirable as we think it is, it should be able to accomplish that regardless of affiliation.
TaylorTRoom said:

December 20th, 2009 at 7:29 pm

Oops, CTJ and SLX, my mistake. And my point in mentioning Missouri is only this- if Missouri leaves, it makes no difference what machinations Beebe or any power brokers make- the Big 12 will die. It may take 1 year, or it may take 8, but it will stop existing in anything like its current format. Merger with another confernce would be the only alternative to eventual dissolution.
Propper said:

December 20th, 2009 at 7:37 pm

Big 10 Top-50 Television Markets (with Mizzou)

3. Chicago
4. Philly
11. Detroit
15. Minneapolis
18. Cleveland
21. St. Louis
23. Pittsburgh
25. Indianapolis
32. Kansas City
33. Cincinnati
34. Columbus
35. Milwaukee
39. Harrisburg
41. Grand Rapids

Big 12 Top 50 Television Markets (w/o Mizzou)

5. DFW
10. Houston
16. Denver
32. KC
37. SA
45. OKC
48. Austin

The Big 8, with the exception of CU, brings almost nothing
Propper said:

December 20th, 2009 at 7:41 pm

The Big 10 also has 7 of the markets b/w 51-75 while the Big 12 has 2
BEHorn said:

December 20th, 2009 at 7:44 pm

NDS – “There are very few, if any, benefits to UT being in any other conference than the one you’re in.”

This is profoundly incorrect. Rev share from TV deal with a conference that includes the LA, SF, Seattle, and Phoenix markets is MUCH superior to a deal that involves trying to glamorize such hotbed markets as Norman, Ames, Manhattan, Lincoln, etc.

More simply, there is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more money to be made for UT by being in the Pac 12 than the Big 12.
BEHorn said:

December 20th, 2009 at 7:45 pm

Propper – just saw that you made my point, better than I did. Thanks.
TaylorTRoom said:

December 20th, 2009 at 7:50 pm

Here’s another difference between a unified conference, and a discordant one. Check out how the SEC coaches vote in the USA Today poll. They all vote all of their teams as high as they can. You saw it this year, where they all voted Bama #1, and many voted Florida higher than some of the undefeateds. They typically vote a 2-loss SEC team higher than any other 2-loss team in the nation.

Compare that to the Big 12, where coaches votesd a 1-loss Texas lower than many other 1-loss teams last year. Maybe they were voting their conscience, or maybe they were voting an agenda, but they were not supporting the conference.
BEHorn said:

December 20th, 2009 at 8:06 pm

Taylor – I cannot deny what you’re saying, but it just goes to show the depth of bitter feeling when Lane Kiffin, Urban Meyer, et al vote a Nick Saban team up, while the degenerate, evil Spawn of Stoops vote down a Mack Brown team.

God I hate this fucking conference, and cannot wait until Mizzou bails and gives us an easy rationale for moving to the Pac 12 with the dipshits from (A)gricultural.
Cricketslayer said:

December 20th, 2009 at 8:09 pm

No matter what happens, I could care less about taking the Aggies with us. Playing them is a no win situation for us. As long as we still get OU once a year…
java said:

December 20th, 2009 at 8:10 pm

I agree with SL X on this one. We share the revenue from media coverage and bowl games, and that is much more than Baylor and Tech would get if they weren’t a part of the Big 12. At least Tech plays in bowl games. Has Baylor qualified for a bowl game since they joined the Big 12, March Madness, CWS?

I believe the revenue sharing agreement on bowl games is 50% to the team that qualifies for the bowl and 50% to the conference for equal distribution among member schools. Is that correct? With the media, Texas opts for TV whenever a network picks up the game. Baylor has frequently had blackouts due to poor attendance. The member schools don’t share in the gate, do they?

I don’t see grounds for complaints from Baylor or Tech. They were the benefactors of political connections and rode the Texas coattails into the conference. Tech has made the most of the opportunity. Baylor has not. Baylor has, in fact, been the focal point of two scandals involving their athletic programs. The one involving their basketball program was shocking in the extreme.

It appears that Baylor has reaped the rewards of Big 12 membership and contributed little.

Hook ‘em!
uthookem said:

December 20th, 2009 at 8:17 pm

I lived in Northern CA for six years, anything that gets us going there for fall football games vice going to Ames, Stillwater, or Manhattan is a big step up in the world. the Big 10 is good for time zones, but we gain two hours every time we fly west to play football…I’ll take that.

Hook ‘em!
uthookem said:

December 20th, 2009 at 8:19 pm

It appears that Baylor has reaped the rewards of Big 12 membership and contributed little

At least Briles shit all over us last year with his vote in the poll.
Propper said:

December 20th, 2009 at 8:27 pm

Is it politically viable for Texas to leave behind the other Texas schools?

Would the SEC automatically add Texas A&M if Texas joined the Pac-10? The SEC already has the mega-deal and could wait until it is time to renegotiate it to add the Texas media-market arrow to its quiver. No need to give A&M a cut now IMO.

The best approach for the existing conferences would appear to be the Big 10 taking Mizzou now and the Pac-10 adding Texas and Colorado now.
java said:

December 20th, 2009 at 8:34 pm

TTR, I realize your point was about unity, as opposed to one school, but Baylor can be very annoying.

I don’t like the idea of the PAC 10 due to the 2 hour time difference. It seems to take a toll on the team that travels. With the regard to recruiting, it appears to even out. The exposure in Cali would be a plus, and the early start times would be a minus. A wash?

Big 10 football is always hyped early in the year, but by season’s end, the teams have normally been exposed. Playing in the same time zone would be a plus.

I trust that however this plays out, Texas will be a player. Our program is attractive. We have a large fan base, a clean, well-run program, and a respected University. We would carry our weight and a few others, too.

Hook ‘em!
Scipio Tex said:

December 20th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

java -

Two hour time differences take a toll on the team traveling East, not West. It benefits us. You’re also talking about three games a year. And if we must accomodate, that simply means more afternoon and night games here in Austin, which we all desire. Win/win.

What early start times are you talking about? We’re not the West Coast team.

The inclusion of Texas in the Pac 10 not only makes it more athletically viable in gaining Texas, but you also allow California/Arizona schools to tap into our recruiting the way that Okie St, Kansas, Mizzou, Nebraska have been. You’d create a total league strength easily comparable to the SEC in very short order. Mike Stoops and Dennis Erickson would be wildly supportive of the move, among others.
java said:

December 20th, 2009 at 8:54 pm

Propper, when everything went down with the Big 12, I believe that Texas had an offer from the PAC 10. The Big 8 also wanted Texas and the legislature wanted A&M and Texas in the same conference. So that was to be the deal.

Ann Richards and another politico, Clayton Williams perhaps, brokered the deal for Baylor and Tech to tag along. I believe they gave Texas and A&M no option to leave without the other two. The Big 8 and TV agreed, though the TV deal included no increased revenue with the addition of the Bears and Raiders. Member schools were forced to split the same pie 12 ways rather than 10.

If my memory is accurate and the politics haven’t changed, then Texas and A&M would probably be required to be in the same conference, if possible. The landscape of college football is changing; however, and it is possible that even the Texas legislature recognizes it.

Strangely enough, when the Big 12 was formed, Texas had been down for some time, and A&M was in its decade of glory. Even then, it was Texas that was in demand. Go figure.

Hook ‘em!
java said:

December 20th, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Scipio,

I typed before thinking. Thanks for catching that. Sometimes it’s tough to catch the Pacific Coast games due to the start times – because they are later! Sorry about that.

The recruiting is a double-edged sword. Although I haven’t been able to follow Texas recruiting as closely in the last couple of years as in prior years (just completed my Masters), it is difficult to become too anxious about recruiting with Mack on the job.

What do you think is the best option for Texas?
Scipio Tex said:

December 20th, 2009 at 9:12 pm

Pac 10 by a mile.
CrazyJoeDavola said:

December 20th, 2009 at 9:13 pm

Texas would be in a much better mood to share revenue if it could count on its partners, you know, sharing. Instead of, you know, sponging. The former is investment; the latter is welfare.

If nothing else, I’d love to move to the Big 10 or Pac-10 just so that we could get some actual, true-to-life partners in the deal.

Look at our history over the past half-century:

In the SWC, schools at a minimum despised us; they spent every waking moment trying to screw with us, going so far in a few cases as to cheating so badly they actually got the NCAA to act. The one non-Texas school bolted at its first opportunity. We were left with a couple of big schools who hated each other and a bunch of minnows that hated each other almost as much as they hated us (and one – Rice – that didn’t give a shit at all). It was a toxic swamp that needed to be blown up.

Flash forward to the Big 12 and once again we’re in a situation where Texas is resented at best and given no credit or benefit of the doubt when it comes to conference esprit de corps. Some of that is left over from the SWC; but a lot has occurred in the 15 years since the formation.

I think the two things that doomed it from the start were Texas’ demands for minimum academic standards, and its desire to shift the basketball tournament around. The former pissed off Nebraska most of all, and the latter probably ruined our relationship with KU before it ever really got a chance to develop.

Of course, what’s facing us now goes beyond such petty grievances. Just like there’s really nothing that we can do to rein in health care problems because of the inevitability of the baby boom generation hitting their sunset years, there’s really no way to finesse the television contract situation. There’s simply no way we can massage the numbers and gen up a bitchin’ marketing presentation to get around the fact that the conference is unavoidably top-heavy in TV sets.

Texas is doing all the heavy lifting in this situation, and it’s not really all that close. Of course we’re going to be wary of sharing revenues, because the conference has done little to indicate they’d have our backs in a pinch. If Texas ran into a rough spot, can you imagine getting any sympathy from Tech or A&M or OU? Would ISU or KSU even be capable of lending a hand even if they’d be inclined to do so?

Maybe this could have been avoided if we hadn’t been forced to bring along the poisonous relationships left over from the SWC. A&M was logical to bring along; Tech and Baylor, not so much (imagine if they could have brought in Utah and BYU and Utah in their place). Both of those schools would have been much better joining up with TCU in the MWC or WAC or whatever.

In any event I guarantee you, if Mizzou and/or Colorado leave, the answer will most assuredly NOT be to bring back yet another still-pissed-off and academically/financially limited former SWC conference member like Arkansas, TCU or UH.
java said:

December 20th, 2009 at 9:22 pm

By the way, the articles on BC have more journalistic value than any newspaper or sports magazine. Thank you for the masterful writing.

I think that I know which conference you prefer. Is it due to market share, recruiting, style of play, a combination of the three, or none of the above?

Do you feel like the conferences are slowly positioning themselves for four 16 team super conferences? It feels like TV contracts are creating the momentum for that scenario.
srr50 said:

December 20th, 2009 at 9:29 pm

If my memory is accurate and the politics haven’t changed, then Texas and A&M would probably be required to be in the same conference, if possible.

The politics have changed a great deal. Back then the most powerful politico – Bob Bullock – made it clear that not only would Texas and Texas A&M be taken care of, but Baylor and Tech would be accomodated as well.

The political landscape is different, and I don’t see any real pressure (with real consequences) out there when the next shake up comes down.
Frank the Tank said:

December 20th, 2009 at 9:41 pm

“Frankly, I could see where the opportunity to get the Big 10 Network as part of basic cable subscriptions, or a basic sports package, everywhere in Texas, would hold a lot of appeal for the athletic directors of the Big Televen. Unfortunately, it’s the school presidents who will be the drivers on that, and I don’t see them being quite as progressive.”

As a Big Ten guy (Illinois alum), I actually think that Texas is at the very top of the wish list for the conference for the very reason that you just stated: the Big Ten Network. Out of everything that has been stated by Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany about expansion, there has been only one specific criteria mentioned: opening up new markets. The university presidents would actually be the ones that would love Texas over any of the usual suspects like Mizzou because of superior academics and the number of households that the Longhorns that would deliver. In fact, the very existence of the Big Ten Network itself shows how “progressive” the school presidents are in that conference – it looks like a great move now, but it came with enormous risk considering that they could’ve easily taken a traditional media rights deal from ESPN with SEC-type money without the expense and effort of setting up a network.

I stated this on another post about expansion: the Big Ten isn’t going to make a “meh” move just for the sake of getting to 12 teams. The mantra of everyone in the conference is that Penn State is the standard for expansion. Well, there are only two viable schools that could exceed that standard: Notre Dame and Texas. Mizzou shouldn’t even be in the same discussion as Penn State, Nebraska is a great football name but with a tiny home market, Pitt’s market is already delivered by Penn State for the Big Ten, and Syracuse and Rutgers theoretically could bring in NYC market viewers yet that’s far from guaranteed. Texas, on the other hand, delivers its entire home state without a doubt.

Here’s the other thing: if a middle tier school like Mizzou leaving the Big 12 would spur an elite school like Texas to look to the Pac-10 or somewhere else, then why the heck would the Big Ten go for the minnow as opposed to the whale? The Big Ten has WAY more financial resources than the Pac-10 (if you guys in the Big 12 don’t like your media deal, check out the complaints of Pac-10 fans sometime), so it has a lot less incentive to “settle” for a “meh” type of school. There is little reason for the Big Ten to make a move without making the highest impact possible.

So, I think that the Big Ten would give you an invite in a heartbeat. The more I think about this, the more I believe that the Big Ten is going to go for broke in order to become the clear dominant power in college sports (if it isn’t already there). The question is whether Texas would reciprocate the interest (and even if it did, whether any political hurdles could be overcome).

On a side note, for those that are worried about the non-revenue sports like baseball, there’s one massive advantage to being in the Big Ten: those games/events are on national television via the Big Ten Network. There’s no other conference that gives its non-revenue sports that much exposure. Whether that trumps playing better baseball teams in the Big 12 is debatable, but the college sports financial paradigm today says that it won’t even be consideration – football is what matters and pays the bills.
Redfoot said:

December 20th, 2009 at 9:55 pm

“I would vigorously dispute that the Big Ten is a stronger conference than the Big 12. On what basis other than TV sets in declining cities (I commute to the Midwest, I know of what I speak). Certainly not football, basketball, baseball, women’s basketball or any other sport besides hockey.”

I suppose you didn’t catch the UPA Frisbee National Championships a few years ago when the Wisconsin Hodags took the Colorado Mamabird behind the woodshed for a severe beatdown.
uthookem said:

December 20th, 2009 at 10:03 pm

Frank, great post and good thoughts…the first argument that I have heard that sounds convincing for a Big 10 move.

Hook ‘em!
SWC Ghost said:

December 20th, 2009 at 10:07 pm

TTRoom, I agree with everything you have written. I’ve been amazed/suprise that the obvious cheating and recruiting abuses that go on in the SEC and PAC-10 has not led to the cannibalization that we saw in the SWC.

Every time a scandal surface I thought “This will be the one that breaks the dam.” Instead OU has been the school smeared the most in recent years.
Sugarpants said:

December 20th, 2009 at 10:45 pm

I also dispute that the Big 10 is a much stronger conference than the Big 12. Yes, we could solidify the conference by being more equitable with our revenue distribution, but talk of the Big 10 poaching a team from the Big 12 convinces me that they are desperate. They need another decent football and basketball school to keep them from becoming irrelevant. They may have a strong financial position, but winning is the lifeblood of conferences, and they haven’t done that.
CrazyJoeDavola said:

December 20th, 2009 at 10:46 pm

Frank the Tank, those are some compelling arguments from the Big 10 side. All I’ve heard so far from most regarding Texas is that it’s an awful idea on its face. But there have been a few columnists/bloggers who have said “You know, Texas makes sense from the Big 10’s perspective”.

And I think one of your main points – why do this if you’re not going to do something big? – is valid. Otherwise, just doing this for the sake of symmetry doesn’t make much sense. The Big 10 has no need or desire to look penny-ante here. And now there won’t be a time- and money-consuming tap dance with Notre Dame to worry about.

Fact is, as an institution, we’re very well aligned with either the Pac-10 or the Big 10 in everything but geography. And IMO, geography limitations are less and less relevant in this day and age.

My main concern with a Big 10 move has to do with demographics and economic conditions on the ground in the Midwest/Great Lakes. That said, if anyplace is going to have some shielding from bad economic times, it’ll be big universities.

Until the point at which English grads are fighting with environmental engineers over nutria carcasses for sustenance, in which case concerns over cable penetration and the 18-34 niche will be kinda far down the agenda.
BEHorn said:

December 20th, 2009 at 11:15 pm

With all due respect — and I did say, “with all due respect” — to all of the arguments on this thread, the issue isn’t that complex:

First choice = Pac 12.

Second choice = Big 10 + 2.

Third choice = wait and see.
PrimeTime said:

December 21st, 2009 at 2:18 am

A move to the Pac 10 or Big Ten would be bad for us in the football sense. Our chances of winning national titles and conference titles greatly diminish if we join the Pac 10. With the way the Big 12 is right now we baiscally play a three to four game season. The only game on our schedule form year to year that wouldn’t be considered an upset if lose is OU. Look how easy we have it. Look how many automatic Ws we have. Baylor, ISU, KU, Colorado, Missouri, and K-State are games where there is no way in hell we will lose. OSU, Nebraska, Tech, and A&M are all games we could lose on the road if the stars align for those teams. Basically we have a one game season for us. Beat OU and we are playing for all the marbles. Which it is disheartening that we only have two Big 12 titles and two national title appearances under Mack even though we have beaten OU four out of the last five years.

If we join the Pac 10 along with A&M these are the landmines we have to go through. Oregon, Oregon State, Arizona, Arizona State, and USC all who have better athletes than everybody in the Big 12 except OU, and maybe A&M. Plus you have sleeper powerhouses in UCLA and Washington to contend with. From a football standpoint it is a bad move to the Pac 10.

Mack would never let us join the Pac 10. He knows how easy we have it. People think we are an elite conference even though there are maybe three or four programs that have a legit chance at being a threat to us. OU, Nebraska, A&M and maybe Oklahoma State. In the Pac 10 we would have USC, Oregon, Oregon State, Arizona and maybe UCLA and Washington if those schools find the right coach.
flamingmonkeyass said:

December 21st, 2009 at 3:06 am

Here’s my question to the Barkers and the rest: Why does it have to be a&m we bring along? Why not take OU? Now before you go and start ranting at me, let me give you my reasoning, such as it is.

First, from UT’s perspective this move makes so much more sense than letting our little brothers at a&m tag along. We’d be bringing along our arch rival, which would probably be ensuring our continued October match-up with the doofuses from up North. This, in turn, would let us keep a great tradition going, and perhaps more importantly maintain our showcase game in the DFW area. A new conference probably means an end to the Red River Rivalry, and that means no more big time game in Dallas. Now there might be an attempt to fill that void by having Texas play some middle tier BCS teams in DFW (ala Notre Dame vs. Washington State in San Antonio earlier this year), but it won’t be the same, obviously, nor will it attract the same kind of eyeballs Texas-OU draws.

Second, from the potential conference’s standpoint it makes sense. Bringing in a&m does nothing for you market-wise. You’re already getting the state of Texas with the Longhorns, and you’re getting all the aggie viewers with the Longhorns as well, because, let’s face it, watching and rooting against Texas is what 99% of aggies do whenever Texas plays. They’re going to tune in because they can’t help themselves. By bringing in OU you’re at least bringing OKC and Tulsa. Granted not the kind of major markets that UT will be bringing, but their better than anything the ags would bring. Also OU is going to bring in some viewer ship from DFW and northern Texas as well. So there’s that. In addition, as a conference by adding OU you’d be adding a name brand, big time, powerhouse football program, not some shabby never-was that had a good decade 20 years ago. And the sooners also add some value to your other non-revenue sports as well, having put some decent basketball teams together; and they aren’t too terribly removed from having an okay baseball program. Again, they also have nationally recognized brand name drawing power, no matter the sport.

Lastly, it makes sense from OU’s perspective as well. I know this is point where I lose a lot of you. You’re going to say that the sooners’ ties to the old Big 8 are too strong; or that they’d never leave oSu. Look the Big 8 died 15 years ago and no one in the key demographic (18-40) gives a shit. The bulk of college football fans today associate OU more with Texas Tech than they do with Nebraska. That might be sad, but it’s also true. What’s more OU has shown that they’re willing to give up old associations for the good of the program. They gave their annual game with Nebraska in ‘95 in order to keep their game with UT and form the Big XII. I really don’t think it’d take a lot to convince them to leave behind this p.o.s. conference for greener pastures, regardless of how much their fans will bemoan the loss of playing Iowa State or Kansas State twice every four years. And speaking of that game against UT, as I said Mack Brown and company aren’t likely to continue the series should we switch conferences, and the RRR is way more important for OU in terms of recruiting than it is for UT. While we’re not likely to get a marquee name to play us in Dallas every year, Texas doesn’t really NEED that game to get recruits. OU does. They need to be in Texas as much as possible, and they need to be relevant in Texas when they are. They also need for DFW kids to see them in Dallas once a year. What they don’t need is to play oSu. Frankly the Cowboys have a lot more invested in that series than the sooners, and I don’t think it’d take a whole lot to convince OU to move on. Not much to gain, a whole lot to lose.

Your thoughts?
dudden madder said:

December 21st, 2009 at 7:06 am

how did i know what primetime said before reading it? and why did it not surprise me that a plaintive plea for ou came shortly thereafter? i gather the sooners don’t like this thread. they need us infinitely more than we need them, and they know it. we never even missed our historic annual date with the piggies.

regarding the pac10, i am uncomfortable with them primarily because of that fetid mass that is usc. usc is both oklahoma and nebraska, and i don’t like the thought of joining another conference that would play footsie with an oklahoma/nebraska. also, the early behavior of oregon after the blount incident troubled me. it would strike me dead to hear mack brown ask the conference to make a decision regarding the behavior of one of his players.

i don’t particularly like the big ten, but i cannot imagine them accommodating a weeping sore like the trojans, and if there is a feckless oregon in that conference, i don’t know about it. the big ten is probably the only major conference with both a backbone and a moral compass.
Johem said:

December 21st, 2009 at 7:08 am

OU would move with Texas if they could.

The Big 10 wouldn’t take them though
Sugarpants said:

December 21st, 2009 at 8:50 am

Yeah, think about this as DeLoss Dodds for a moment. You have to explain to the richest/most generous alumni base in the NCAA that instead of road games in Stillwater, Lubbock, College Station, Waco, Dallas, sprinkling in an occasional game in Omaha or Boulder with a conference championship game in Dallas, Houston, SA, STL, or KC…

now if you want to see a road game you’re going to have to pack up and go to “Happy” Valley, Columbus, Iowa City, Urbana-Champaign, Madison, Bloomington, Ann Arbor, East Lansing, and West Lafayette (not the good one). In the winter.

The PAC-10 makes a little more sense in terms of it being attractive to the alumni, but my guess is people would rather work something out closer to home, and that’s why the Big 10 and PAC 10 haven’t been beating down our doors.
Logan said:

December 21st, 2009 at 9:01 am

http://www.tigerextra.com/news/2009/dec/20/frustration-and-temptation/?sports

Above is an interview with Mizzou AD Mike Alden. Reading between the lines, sounds like he’s not happen with the current Big 12 set-up, knows it’s not going to change anytime soon, and would love to jump to the Big 10.

As a Missouri fan, I know how dependant our conference is on Texas. That’s why I want out. At some point, you guys are going to find a better deal elsewhere, and then the rest of the Big 12 is screwed. That’s why I hope Mizzou is given the chance to secure a place in a stable, wealthy Big 10, before the Big 12 ship sinks.
GUSTAVE said:

December 21st, 2009 at 9:36 am

I feel most of the poster are not taking the long view. Yes realignment with the Big 10+ or Pac 10+ could increase revenue in the short term. But TV contracts are very much a factor of when (i.e. newer = higher). However $ are not the main issue with UT sports (or the University at large). I agree with PrimeTime, terrible decision from Football perspective (and Baseball and Basketball). Join either of the mentioned conferences, and conference championships are much harder to come by, and thus shots at MNC also less likely. I don’t think Mack lets this happen. Also the UT level of influence in conference decisions is much less (i.e. the new kid).

However the biggest negative is recruiting. When you don’t get a chance to routinely defeat other TX schools (and OU), who’s the best is open to debate. If you think OU will continue to play TX in Dallas if UT leaves the Big 12, you are delusional. All of the TX and OK schools will quickly see that playing UT anywhere in Texas, benefits UT more on the recruiting side. I would go so far as to say playing UT post realignment would be frowned upon by the Big 12 (or what ever they are called).

If the problem is the Big 12 structure, fix it. If money/markets are the issue, don’t replace, expand. Houston (with a commitment to up-grade facilities), maybe TCU, Arizona schools, ACC schools (Miami!, FSU, Clemson), Utah, BYU, (even think long and hard about UNLV). Super conference? 16 teams or more. 4 division? Divisional playoffs (extra-game more money)? Plus the best thing about a new conference, you get to renegotiate the TV contract, and the timing couldn’t be better, start a biding war between Comcast and ESPN and whoever else.
Blueshorn said:

December 21st, 2009 at 10:07 am

“Ann Richards and another politico, Clayton Williams perhaps, brokered the deal for Baylor and Tech to tag along.”

It was Ann Richards and Bob Bullock, our Lieutenant Governor at the time.
Minnesotahorn said:

December 21st, 2009 at 10:28 am

GUSTAVE did you even read Taylor’s post? TCU and Houston bring nothing to the Big 12 that UT and A&M don’t already have locked down. The PAC-10 is a unified conference and the Arizona schools would laugh at the prospects of jumping to the Big 12. The same goes for the ACC schools.

“If you think OU will continue to play TX in Dallas if UT leaves the Big 12, you are delusional. All of the TX and OK schools will quickly see that playing UT anywhere in Texas, benefits UT more on the recruiting side.”

This is as inaccurate as it can possibly be. OU gets a huge recruiting boost from the game being held in Dallas and knows it. That’s why they’ve agreed to play it there for fifty years and long before we were in the same conference.
Roach said:

December 21st, 2009 at 10:30 am

Frank the Tank:

Thanks for the thoughts, you make excellent points. Previous to your post I was thinking Missiouri was in a good spot and was using a bit of leverage to either a.) improve their lot in the Big 12 or b.) jump ship to the Big Televen. It was a win win for them with no downside. After considering your post, if Texas were to decide that the dissolution of the Big 12 was immenent and that the Big 10 was better than the PAC 10 – not a far fetched thought. Missouri might very well be instigating a process that ends up with MU back in the old Big 8 – with limited access to Texas recruiting (something that has really turned their program around regardless of whether they see that or not) and few TV sets.

Now that I think about it Mizzou is playing a dangerous game.
TaylorTRoom said:

December 21st, 2009 at 10:31 am

A lot of people just aren’t getting point #4. Here are some numbers to clarify- average 2008 football attendance:

TCU: 30,389
UH: 21,518
Utah: 45,452

These schools can’t get fans to pay attention even when at historic competitive highs. What in the world makes you think they would be good long term partners?
Blueshorn said:

December 21st, 2009 at 10:35 am

The lightweights in this crappy conference are about to find out who’s their daddy. I can’t wait.
Roach said:

December 21st, 2009 at 10:40 am

Taylor TRoom:

I get the point with TCU and UH, but re: Utah have you seen CU’s attendance numbers? I think Utah and BYU are viable because they bring Salt Lake City. Also Utah’s stadium is only 45,000 capacity – they are selling out and have a potential to expand in the future. Just a thought.
Johem said:

December 21st, 2009 at 10:43 am

Texas won’t make a move until its hand is forced.

Mizzou holds all of the cards right now regarding the future of the Big 12 and there is nothing the Big 12 can offer them to prevent them from going to the Big 10 if Big 10 membership is available.

The Big 12’s only hope is that the Big 10 goes east rather than west in an effort to position the Big 10 Network in NYC.
Lark 47 said:

December 21st, 2009 at 10:44 am

Data from Outside the Lines “Television’s Impact on College Sports”

Average annual income from tv revenue

Big 10: 242 million
SEC: 205 million
Big 12: 78 million
ACC: 67 million
Pac 10: 58 million
Big East: 33 million
Ag_in_TX said:

December 21st, 2009 at 10:44 am

TTR, the problem is that many people are looking at the competitve aspects of programs. They fail to realize that, in the next shakedown, it will not be about competitiveness – it’s about the money. SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!!!!

I am convinced there is only reasonable one path forward for Texas – the Pac-12. Does A&M go with y’all or does $ Bill convince the SEC to lead the way into the land of 16 team megaconferences by adding A&M and ?
Minnesotahorn said:

December 21st, 2009 at 10:51 am

Indeed Ag_in_TX. You’re certainly a far better academic fit in the PAC-10 but if Byrne’s the AD when the music stops I don’t have the faintest idea which chair he’ll reach for.
Frank the Tank said:

December 21st, 2009 at 10:58 am

re: CrazyJoeDavola – “My main concern with a Big 10 move has to do with demographics and economic conditions on the ground in the Midwest/Great Lakes. That said, if anyplace is going to have some shielding from bad economic times, it’ll be big universities.”

That’s a valid concern, but it’s not quite as bad across the board. Certainly, Michigan and Ohio have been hit extremely hard. However, consider that the Big Ten has large markets like Chicago, Philadelphia and the Twin Cities that are relatively healthy by comparison along with a good distribution of fans and alums nationwide (large pockets on both coasts, Florida, Texas and Arizona). The Pac-10 has some healthier markets overall, but they are generally smaller (outside of LA and the Bay Area) and don’t have the same level of interest in college sports that the Big Ten markets have. Either way, the Big 12 doesn’t really have growth markets outside of Texas – Oklahoma, Missouri and Nebraska have been hit as hard as anyone and they don’t have the larger starting populations of places like Michigan and Ohio to cushion the blow. You’re right about big universities being relatively immune to the economy – even with Detroit not being that far away, Ann Arbor itself has held up very well (same thing with Columbus and Madison).
jonestopten said:

December 21st, 2009 at 11:16 am

DeLoss tending his garden may be the best front page post picture in the history of BC.

Nice work, Sailor Ripley.
TEXBB said:

December 21st, 2009 at 11:20 am

Lark 47 said:

December 21st, 2009 at 10:44 am

Data from Outside the Lines “Television’s Impact on College Sports”

Average annual income from tv revenue

Big 10: 242 million
SEC: 205 million
Big 12: 78 million
ACC: 67 million
Pac 10: 58 million
Big East: 33 million

————————–

1. The Big Ten would kill for Texas (second to only ND), maybe a preemptive move would be better than getting stuck in SWC-2.

2. I am sure money wise this could be a good move.

3. It is an issue relative to football scheduling. Would Texas go out of conference with both A&M and Oklahoma every year along with the Big Ten schedule?

4. The other option is preemptive move prior to Missouri defection….not sure what to.
Just Saying said:

December 21st, 2009 at 11:37 am

Good grief.

Why is Texas sitting around waiting for someone to kill off the Big 12?

Didn’t we learn anything from the demise of the SWC following the exit of Arkansas?

Being part of the remote Big10 or PAC10 without blowu and a$m will put Texas at greater risk recruiting. Nevermind the loss of traditional rivalies and a great weekend in Dallas every year.

If we are really on top of our game, we should be taking the lead in shaping our own future and the future of football in the middle of this continent.
Christian Wofford said:

December 21st, 2009 at 1:43 pm

After reading the above excellent posts and hearing the rumors in the press about the Big10 going to a 14-team league, what do you think about the following:

1. Big10 strikes out with Notre Dame (again) but still acts first, adding TX, OU and MO (14 team conference): Picks up major percentages of the big four texas markets (DFW, h-town, san antonio, atx), OKC and Tulsa markets and Kansas city and St. Louis TV markets.

2. SEC responds, adding A&M and TCU (14 team conference): Picks up large percentage of the h-town and DFW TV markets.

3. To keep from being left out in the cold, PAC 10 bites the academic bullet and adds Colorado and Utah-or-BYU (14 team conference): Picks up the denver and salt lake TV markets.

4. ACC and Big East cannibalize each other to form the fourth 14-team, mega-conference.

Too far-fetched?
CaptainObvious said:

December 21st, 2009 at 1:53 pm

TexaCali conference:

All teams from Texas and California unite. Blow up the Pac 10 and Big 12 and form a conference between two of the most populous states in the union.

It could be divided in two between the Cali and Texas conferences, with a conference championship game.

There’s mad money in the TexaCali conference, big states, big cities, big football.
Ag_in_TX said:

December 21st, 2009 at 1:58 pm

No reason the SEC would pick-up TCU. I think Virginia Tech is more likely – better TV numbers and less attachment to a conference they just joined a few years ago.
Roach said:

December 21st, 2009 at 2:02 pm

PAC-TEXAS
Johem said:

December 21st, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Again, the Big 10 is not going to take OU. Texas A&M is a far more attractive get for the Big 10 than OU
UT_BKC said:

December 21st, 2009 at 2:34 pm

Send Iowa St to the Big 10. Pick up Utah or BYU (kick Kstate wherever if we have to take both). Then we have:

5. DFW
10. Houston
16. Denver
21. St. Louis
31. Salt Lake City
32. KC
37. SA
45. OKC
48. Austin
UT_BKC said:

December 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm

Even better than above would be to also toss Baylor and steal Arizona so that we could pick up
12. Phoenix
66. Tuscon
Frank the Tank said:

December 21st, 2009 at 3:02 pm

re: UT_BKC “Send Iowa St to the Big 10.”

Why on Earth would the wealthiest conference in the country take one of the least valuable schools in the entire BCS in a small state that the Big Ten already has covered by a way more popular flagship (Iowa)? Too many people don’t understand that being within the current Big Ten footprint means that it’s completely UNDESIRABLE (add Pitt and Cincinnati to that list). Geographic purity seriously won’t be a consideration here – those are just constraints that sports fans (as opposed to university presidents) put in their own heads. Here’s the base question: would School X add more Big Ten Network subscribers? If the answer is “No”, then School X is a non-starter.

The Big Ten is aiming high, folks, so it’s going for the marquee schools as opposed to the dregs that people don’t want, regardless of geography. Think of why Jerry Jones still wanted to keep the Dallas Cowboys in the NFC East even though they would’ve made more pure geographic sense in the NFC West when the NFL realigned in the 1990s (and they were in the middle of those great games with the 49ers, to boot). Long-term, you don’t become “America’s Team” by playing Southern and West Coast teams. In order to get a national fan base, you need to playing in the major markets in the northeastern quadrant of the nation. In turn, the NFL got the league’s marquee fan base constant exposure in the nation’s top markets. So, it was mutually beneficial for both the NFL and Cowboys to continue to ignore geography and go for the highest impact matchups that cover the widest range of massive TV markets. That’s something that the Big Ten and Texas could do at the college level. Whether your state’s politicians would ever allow it to happen is a different question.
czarcw said:

December 21st, 2009 at 3:19 pm

There’s another moving part in all of this: the TV networks. ESPN is all locked up w/ the SEC. If ever there was a time for a big broadcaster to challenge the WWL, it’s now. The SEC’s price tag was driven up and up and up by the CBS’ fellatio, but remember, they don’t have a monopoly on great football. If a TV network with a similar level of distribution decides to, they could get a bargain deal that can compete with the vaunted SEC.

Suppose Comcast starts whispering into the ears of the AD’s at certain schools. If they can orchestrate the formation of a new conference and ink a massive TV deal, the SEC’s financial stranglehold could be over. A USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Stanford, Texas, Texas A&M, OU, OsU, Texas Tech, Colorado conference would be ridiculous (and likely wishful thinking).
srr50 said:

December 21st, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Some of the scenarios being thrown around here remind me of Houston Sports Radio Talk Guy who calls in and says, “How about we trade Shaun Cody and Rex Grossman for Peyton Manning, and we throw in a 5th round draft choice? Thanks, and I’ll hang up and listen.”
boilertiger said:

December 21st, 2009 at 3:38 pm

Missouri fan with a Purdue degree here.

Our administration is playing a very dangerous game. However, it’s one that seems to be somewhat orchestrated so far. I’d like to believe that we already know quite a bit about what the process is going to look like and that we have covered our flank by securing some votes on the Big 10 side committed to our favorable entry into their conference.

The rest of the dwarfs in the Big 12 have zero negotiating power to stand up to Texas while Oklahoma and Nebraska would probably just assume that we don’t continue improving our program with regards to football because long term they have the most to lose from our long term success.

How unlikely would it be for Texas to join the SEC? While the SEC doesn’t seem to have any need to add extra teams, they could be interested in UT and A&M especially if the Big 10 decides to add three teams as opposed to one.
Roach said:

December 21st, 2009 at 4:12 pm

“Some of the scenarios being thrown around here remind me of Houston Sports Radio Talk Guy who calls in and says, “How about we trade Shaun Cody and Rex Grossman for Peyton Manning, and we throw in a 5th round draft choice? Thanks, and I’ll hang up and listen.””

I don’t know specifically what you are referring to here, but with regard to Texas approaching the southern PAC-10 schools about forming a new conference, the difference of course is that Texas is not Shaun Cody and Rex Grossman (I know you know this better than most). Texas does bring something to the southern schools in the PAC 10 that they don’t already have. Also I’ll just point out that California’s financial troubles aren’t getting better anytime soon. UCLA and Cal may be desperate for creative revenue enhancement.
LonghornLawyer said:

December 21st, 2009 at 4:17 pm

I few disparate (and possibly contradictory) thoughts:

1) I really don’t understand what Missouri brings to the Big 10. The St Louis television market? Really? From every standpoint–fan support, academics, demographics, geography, tradition of athletic success, school colors–Missouri is nothing more than another Purdue. Is that really what the Big 10 is going to do? Expand to include another Purdue?

I think it’s in recognition of that fact that all of the buzz about “Missouri to the Big 10″ that I’ve seen has been coming from the Missouri–and not the Big 10–side.

2) From a political standpoint, we can probably ditch Tech and Baylor. Bullock is gone and the West Texas political power in Austin has waned over the past decade. But with Perry and Dewhurst, I don’t see how we avoid ditching aggy. That doesn’t mean they have to come with us, but it does mean they have to have a good home lined up before we can leave.

The only thing that gives me pause about this is the fact that legislative appropriations have declined significantly over the past decade. As a result, it is no longer such a huge proportion of our budget as to allow the legislature to hold us hostage. And anyway, what’s the legislature going to do–cut off appropriations to the state’s flagship university over football the year after stressing their commitment to having more Tier I research universities?

But regardless, cutting aggy loose makes them a free agent. And that’s dangerous. If the SEC comes in and gobbles them up, then they (and, more importantly, their SEC buddies) suddenly have a real recruiting advantage that they don’t have now. Even if we could ditch aggy, therefore, I think it’s foolish to do so.

3) I don’t know what happens to Texas-OU if we ditch OU. They need to have a game in Dallas for recruiting and revenue reasons, but as they’ve shown this year, that game doesn’t necessarily have to be against Texas. Instinctively, though, I think that game remains in place. It is too much of a cash cow for both athletic departments to upset. And neither athletic director is going to do anything out of spite if it costs them money.

4) Here’s the real question–why isn’t the Big 12 talking expansion? Perhaps take on Utah, Illinois, LSU, and Arkansas or something along those lines?

Because this is a shitty conference, and everyone in college athletics knows it. The sooner we’re done with it, the better.
Donny Boudreaux said:

December 21st, 2009 at 4:30 pm

Right before the Big X network everyone was talking about the decline of the conference. They keep getting slaughtered in the BCS games especially against the SEC. Now, suddenly they are envied? Don’t get me wrong, I personally would rather go their than the PAC-10. But it seems they’d need us more than we’d need them.

Their talent pool is dwindling. They NEED that life-line to a powerful state like Texas or Cali. Why should we give them that? Keep them down right?
boilertiger said:

December 21st, 2009 at 4:59 pm

Longhorn Lawyer, Purdue and Missouri are not favorable comparison’s in anything other than school colors.

Purdue is a classic Big 10 school with a very large campus (approximately 40k students) and an Engineering focus.

Missouri is almost identical to Iowa (athletically, academically, size, regional affiliations, school colors, etc. etc.) and they would be two of the three smallest schools in the Big 10 by a large margin. Northwestern would be the other. You alluded to it, but the thing that sets Missouri apart from Iowa and virtually every other school being discussed (aside from Rutgers and Syracuse) is that they would solidify the Big 10 as the dominant conference in the St. Louis and Kansas City markets. This is also why they are irreplaceable for the Big 12.

I still think the Big 10 still thinks long and hard about asking Pittsburgh because they are stronger academically than Mizzou.

Finally, most of the chatter for Mizzou to the Big 10 is coming from the Mizzou side, but the Big 10 certainly isn’t silent on the matter whatsoever.
LonghornLawyer said:

December 21st, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Boiler–you’re probably right that Iowa is a better comparison. But certainly that doesn’t change the underlying point. Why would you expand to add another Iowa?
CrazyJoeDavola said:

December 21st, 2009 at 6:14 pm

It didn’t occur to me until this thread really that the Big 10 could be using Mizzou as a stalking horse for Texas. It makes sense.

In all this discussion, I’ve often thought about the Ags. Personally, I don’t see that we could – or even should – make a move without them along. Obviously we have our differences, but ultimately if we’re all truly interested in Texas – the state, not just the university – we want to have them as part of a bigger, presumably more academically prestigious entity. Their football team should be good enough, and their other programs certainly are good enough to fit within a big conference. Their school profile – Corps antics aside – fits well within a Big 10/Pac-10 setting. Maybe they have too much of a whiff of anachronism to fit a Pac-10 or Big 10, I don’t know. But I’d prefer them to come along than not.

And if nothing else, including them in any move we make could buffer us against bullshit from the legislature. As said above, the fuckers in the capitol building have been putting the squeeze to us for years, so much so that they’ve removed a lot of their own leverage.

There’s a theme in a lot of posts about how if we (or some other conference) just drops a conference member … has that ever happened, ever? Do conferences just kick schools out? I just don’t see that happening anywhere. We’re not going to “kick out” anyone. We’ll either move, or we’ll try to do something to boost the Big 12.

Also, something tells me this will be DeLoss’ last big task as AD. I have a feeling that if something’s going to happen, it’s going to be within a couple of years. Once he uses his influence and power to affect the best change and transition for Texas – if any – he’ll step aside. Depending on what happens, he could end up being the most important figure in UT sports history.
Texas Wahoo said:

December 21st, 2009 at 6:29 pm

“There’s a theme in a lot of posts about how if we (or some other conference) just drops a conference member … has that ever happened, ever? Do conferences just kick schools out? I just don’t see that happening anywhere. We’re not going to “kick out” anyone. We’ll either move, or we’ll try to do something to boost the Big 12.”

Temple was kicked out of the Big East…
Tim said:

December 21st, 2009 at 7:14 pm

I just don’t get it, UT makes more money than any other school in the country, has a larger football budget than anyone else in the country, gets a top 5 recruiting class every year, and just had one of the easiest paths to a National Championship game in the history of college football. What more do you want? How much better can it really get for you idiots?
CrazyJoeDavola said:

December 21st, 2009 at 7:17 pm

Well, I can think of one way…
Roach said:

December 21st, 2009 at 7:43 pm

Tim
we’re not pushing the panic button Mizzou is surely even you can see how that might negatively effect the big 12?
TB said:

December 21st, 2009 at 8:47 pm

RE: Conferences ejecting schools

The old Big 8 was one vote away from getting rid of Kansas State in the 1980s.
TigerFan said:

December 21st, 2009 at 10:12 pm

As far as I can tell, this isn’t so much about inequity in the conference, but rather a bad tv deal. The big dogs in the conference are getting less than 10 million dollars each year from the current TV deal. If MU were to jump to the Big 10, that number would be over 20 million dollars in the first year. Additionally, there are research monies that the Big 12 (or any other conference in the Nation) can’t match.

Texas is not in the discussion for Big 10 expansion. Texas will not be in the discussion for Big 10 expansion. Certainly Texas (and it’s partners) is an attractive institution for another conference, but not the Big 10. The SEC would seem to be the most likely destination.

How about this…let’s get together and get a better TV deal. Let’s share that revenue relatively equally. Seriously, Texas is well Texas, but Texas is running out of people to screw.
GUSTAVE said:

December 21st, 2009 at 10:28 pm

Minnesotahorn, I read it, I disagree.

OU would drop UT if they leave and OU stays. Pre-Big 12 it was OU’s marquee game in TX, prime recruiting focus. In a UTless Big 12, there are plenty of other games in TX, much easier to win, still lots of exposure. Yes they get a huge recruiting boost from the game, and so does their major (dominant) recruiting competition. Had to, pre-Big 12, doesn’t make sense in a UTless Big 12. OU would play in Dallas, just not against UT. Even sooners are smarter than that.

Think UT would even want to schedule OU in addition to a Pac10 schedule? A&M maybe, OU NOT.

Remember I was talking about adding a number of schools not 1 or 2, you just need some new Iowa States for numbers. This changes a lot of TV numbers. I agree the Arizona schools are a long-shot, but some ACC schools might look longingly at a super conference that brackets the SEC, and I still think (U) Houston has potential as does UNLV. Tell me the addition of the Miami and/or Atlanta markets would not mean a lot more TV money. I also think current game attendance is not a deal breaker. Doesn’t matter who buys the tickets, did you get a look at the stands at some of CU home games?

Of course this is hypothetical, a lot of reasons it might not happen, but before you dismiss it compare it to the likelihood of UT joining the existing Big 10+ or Pac 10, all are VERY unlikely. But don’t forget a “Super Conference” expansion could start somewhere else. I would suggest that the likelihood of a SC of some kind, somewhere, is higher than the UT moves that have been discussed.
GUSTAVE said:

December 21st, 2009 at 10:36 pm

Tim got it in his usual clear cut (and still acidic) manner. UT will do everything in its power to hold the Big 12 (or new Big 12) together.
TigerFan said:

December 21st, 2009 at 10:42 pm

Also, for those who think Texas would just go to the PAC 10…adding a conference member to the PAC 10 requires a unanimous vote of all the schools in the conference. In other words, if only one PAC 10 school opposes Texas, it doesn’t happen. Last time Texas tried to join the PAC 10, Stanford opposed the deal and Texas was out. Is Stanford still in the PAC 10?
BEHorn said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 12:16 am

Tiger – I am curious … are you Leland Stanford Jr Jr, or Leland Stanford Jr Jr Jr?
admin said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 1:00 am
Johem said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 6:32 am

Anyone who thinks adding UofH provides anything to the Big 12 can safely be ignored
justwinbaby said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 7:46 am

Some Figures that may help Texas fans see things from our shoes.

The Big 10 money that is on the table is close to 14 million in TV revenue annually. That’s actually more than Texas makes – est: 12 mil. Yeah, Northwestern or the Golden Gophers in Squarehead, Minnesota makes more TV money than you folks in Austin. And with the Big 11 comes the CIC academic sharing plan, 4-5 million dollars in academic monies.

In 2007 Missouri and Kansas both finished with a better record than Oklahoma and Texas but still made approx 8 million in TV Revenue – close to 3 to 4 million less than Oklahoma and Texas. That’s a real head scratcher there- the cheddar should come with the wins. Period.

I realize that the Bowl slights may be part of the issue. I can see the point why Missouri was the fat kid the bowls picked last but there is a common theme with the Big 12 office. They sold the selection rights to the bowls – (33% increased payout)who therefore turn schitzophrenic about their team selection – to cover increased cost?

And our St Louis Market really isn’t what it could be. Maybe even Kansas City as well. One of the reasons for that is the big 10 is aggressive in ST Louis and up until our recent success – Missouri wasn’t even on TV there every week. Think about that happening some Saturday – instead of the Longhorn game they show Baylor and Iowa State. That’s what we dealt with there. I mean, could anyone in Austin give a crap about that game?

Anti Texism aside The Big 12 office has in a large part pretty much bungled every negation for TV deals they have made. The supermajority vote stagnates to administration to the point of uselessness. Our AD Mike Alden stated in an interview that at one time there was work being done for a Big 12 network -resembling the Big Tens example, they just couldn’t get to the point of action. I don’t have all the answers But I know The Big 10 secures programs financially and we have to consider that. The Big 12 has some dysfunctional issues and we hope that its failure to equal the revenue stream isn’t in a competitive interest, but I know its in all of our interests to take a close look at our leadership in Dallas.
LonghornLawyer said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 8:12 am

Tiger and Justwin still haven’t answered my fundamental question. I understand what the Big 10 brings to Missouri. That’s obvious. I just don’t understand what Missouri brings to the Big 10.

Missouri isn’t the most attractive girl at the dance. If the Big 10 or the Pac 10 or anyone else decides it can poach a Big 12 member, why would they choose Missouri when they could just as easily get Oklahoma, Nebraska, or Texas? I really doesn’t make any sense at all.
shockthenation said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 8:32 am

“Some Figures that may help Texas fans see things from our shoes.

The Big 10 money that is on the table is close to 14 million in TV revenue annually. That’s actually more than Texas makes – est: 12 mil. Yeah, Northwestern or the Golden Gophers in Squarehead, Minnesota makes more TV money than you folks in Austin. And with the Big 11 comes the CIC academic sharing plan, 4-5 million dollars in academic monies.”

We definitely get it as far as the Big Ten being a better conference. That is why I am wondering why people think UT will just watch this go down and stay in a crumbling conference just like it did with the SWC instead of throwing its hat into the ring as far as becoming a free agent.
Randy said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 8:47 am

I do not understand the benefit to UT in becoming a “free-agent” either. If they leave the BigXII they become “another big” school that will share revenue. Doesn’t matter where they end up, they won’t be the big dog in that conference, they’ll be the new school.

UT Dominates TV coverage and TV sets in the BigXII, they won’t even be third in the SEC, PAC-10 OR Big10.

Those other conferences have very long standing alliances and rivalries. UT’s ONLY rivals are in the BIG XII.

PAC-10, with three California markets will do to UT what UT has done to the BigXII.

UT would be best served to stay in the BigXII, keep a similar revenue structure (teams that bring in more should get to keep a little more) but also throw their weight around (with OU, aTm, KU and NU) to get a $150mil + TV deal. THAT is possible and every school would (at least) double their current revenue.
justwinbaby said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 8:52 am

“It has to do with similarities of institutions, similarities of academic mission, similarities of research, professional schools that they have, contiguous ideals, regionalization, things like that. ”
A quote from an interview from our AD. I think by regionalization I don’t believe Texas, or Oklahoma would be a consideration. I was suprised to see Texas fans here talking about joining the Big 10 or the Pac 10. Honestly, and no offense intended, Texas has as much in common with those two conference as they do the ACC. Wheres the connection? Why would the conference want to travel all the way to Austin? And Facts as they are – why would you leave the Big 12 if your “working for the house”?

I believe Nebraska is part of a group that could be talked about because of proximity but there television footprint isn’t one that would bring the Big 10’s networks back to the negotiation table. I think St Louis and Kansas city does. But I’m sure Nebraska will be a name that they will consider.

I’ll say this – our AD and the powers that be are proud to be in the Big 12. They want to make it stronger. There are dysfunctional issues with the decision making process, We’re competeing with Iowa and Illinois, as well as you may with LSU – and their making more than twice the money we are and over a four year period the Big 12 hasn’t been able to do anything about it.
TigerFan said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 9:03 am

“Tiger and Justwin still haven’t answered my fundamental question. I understand what the Big 10 brings to Missouri. That’s obvious. I just don’t understand what Missouri brings to the Big 10.

Missouri isn’t the most attractive girl at the dance. If the Big 10 or the Pac 10 or anyone else decides it can poach a Big 12 member, why would they choose Missouri when they could just as easily get Oklahoma, Nebraska, or Texas? I really doesn’t make any sense at all.”

I’m not sure I can answer that but the schools I’ve seen mentioned are Missouri, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Rutgers. Several sources have Missouri at the top of that list.

One factor is geography. Missouri borders the Big 10 and it is in their rules that new members must border existing Big 10 states. It is possible that the rule could be waived for a more distant school but geography is obviously important or the rule wouldn’t be there to begin with.

Media markets are another factor. Missouri has two major media markets that the Big 10 does not in Kansas City and St. Louis. The population in Missouri is almost 6 million whereas Oklahoma and Nebraska combined don’t have that many people.

Finally, perhaps the Big 10 is looking for a partner. It is a wealthy, successful conference. Maybe they don’t need someone to upset that but rather a school that can fit in.
Ag_in_TX said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 9:30 am

“Maybe they (A&M) have too much of a whiff of anachronism to fit a Pac-10 ….”

What if we promised that all the Yell Leaders were gay? The Pac-10 would then welcome us with open arms…
CurrentLonghornStudent said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 10:04 am

The Pac-10’s skill at negotiating TV contracts resembles a wet shoe. Stanford would definitely not want another Director’s Cup contender in Texas joining the conference–it already has UCLA and USC to deal with (although UCLA is generally the more competitive school). Stanford and Texas would cannibalize each other within the conference and get screwed when it came time for national tournament seedings (e.g. volleyball, baseball, etc.)

Texas does belong in the Pac-10 though, as the Pac-10 bills itself as the Conference of Champions.
boilertiger said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 10:46 am

LonghornLawyer, the Big 10 is actively pursuing expansion and therefore Missouri or whoever they decide to add inherently brings something they are considering adding, another team.

That being said, adding Missouri appears to be one of the more attractive options available based on all the factors being judged with the primary supporting factors being the Kansas City and St. Louis media markets.
KCFan said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 10:48 am

It’s pretty laughable when people think Mizzou is going to bring KC to the Big 10. Mizzou only gets a fraction of the TV ratings that KU does and has 1/3 of the alumni that KU has in KC. KC is a KU town and it’s not even close. Just like even though Illinois is in St. Louis, MU dominates St. Louis.

I saw someone pointing out Tucson. Here are some other North markets.

Tulsa #61
Wichita #69
Des Moines #72
Springfield, MO #74
Omaha #76

Also, here’s the Big XII revenue distribution from the 2007-08 school year:

1. Texas: $10.2 million
2. Oklahoma: $9.8 million
3. Kansas: $9.24 million
4. Texas A&M: $9.22 million
5. Nebraska: $9.1 million
6. Missouri: $8.4 million
7. Texas Tech: $8.23 million
8. Kansas State: $8.21 million
9. Oklahoma State: $8.1 million
10. Colorado: $8.0 million
11. Iowa State: $7.4 million
12. Baylor: $7.1 million
Minnesotahorn said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 11:50 am

“That is why I am wondering why people think UT will just watch this go down and stay in a crumbling conference just like it did with the SWC…”

I know that perception is out there but that’s not an accurate portrayal of UT’s attitude or actions as regards the break up of the SWC. UT actively encouraged Arkansas to jump to the SEC which obviously facilitated everything that followed. I think Srr50 has a pretty good story about it actually. I’d encourage him to share it but something about this topic tends to make people tune out anything relevant so they can tell you about the conference they’ve come up with consisting of Texas, TCU, the secretarial school their sister attended, two SEC teams and the University of Barcelona.

“What if we promised that all the Yell Leaders were gay? The Pac-10 would then welcome us with open arms…”

Ha. Boy that’ll take quite a bit of convincing let me tell you.
Ag_in_TX said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 12:07 pm

“Boy that’ll take quite a bit of convincing let me tell you.”

Will it?
LonghornLawyer said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm

Boiler–they’re looking for more than a warm body. They’re looking for a contributor.

Here’s the math: The Big Ten’s deals with ABC/ESPN and the Big Ten Network generate about $212 million annually. In addition, it has two BCS berths ($22.3 million) and five other bowl berths (about $14 million). The total is $248.3 million in shared revenue, or $22.6 million per team. Therefore, any potential 12th team would have to add $22.6 million in “value” to renegotiated TV and bowl deals to prevent the others from losing money. Does Missouri do that? Does it even come close?

There is one available team that does that: Notre Dame. And right now they say they’re not interested.

I’m interested to hear Minnesota’s story about the departure of Arkansas to the SEC. The story I’ve long heard is that the SEC took Arkansas as a way to entice Texas to join. Obviously, taking Mizzou isn’t going to entice us to do shit. But I wonder . . . if the Big 10 reaches an agreement in concept with Missouri, wouldn’t Texas immediately become a free agent rather than sticking with yet another dead conference? And if Texas is available–and it’s currently not–why would the Big 10 take Missouri when it could take Texas?

I agree with Randy that our best option is to stay in the Big 12. I know DeLoss agrees. That’s why you’re not going to hear any talk from us about jumping. But let’s be clear–if Missouri jumps, then the Big 12 is dead. And if we get an inkling that Missouri is jumping, we’re not going to stay on this sinking ship for very long.
tOfficial Missouri as a candidate to join the Big Ten discussion thread - Page 5 said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm

[...] perspective on Big Ten expansion… Barking Carnival — Blog — Things To Know About Conference Re-alignment __________________ Purchase the latest MSU Nike gear from: SpartanTailgateShop.com! [...]
TaylorTRoom said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm

It’s not just us. Remember my comment about schools like TCU and Houston, that can only sell 30K tickets per game (at prices half of those in Austin) while their programs are at historic highs? TAMU sells 80k per game, at prices near Texas’, despite being at a historic low in competitiveness.

How happy is TAMU right now? Does their AD seem like it’s happy with the status quo? In some ways, they may be as attractive of a conference addition as Texas, in that they bring TV sets, fans, but don’t seem as likely to screw up a current competitive situation. Texas looks at other conferences as a defensive response, but the Ags may see it as an offensive move.

My point is that if Missouri moves, I wouldn’t be surprised to see TAMU get very active in talks, very soon.
Ag_in_TX said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 1:20 pm

If Bill Byrne is nothing else, he is proactive. And greedy. And a weasel. But that’s three things.
kwl88 said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm

A KC Tiger Fan here.

Obviously the MONEY is a major criteria. BUT, The Big10 is interested in expanding to a contiguous state – thus ANY and ALL schools from Texas are eliminated.

The Big10 thus wants to expand into the State of Missouri for St. Louis & KC. They also want to consider trying to get the Eastern TV market of NYC. Thus – the major contenders are ND, RU, SU, MIZZOU.

The St. Louis(the Lou) Alumns are desperate to be like UT without the Southern accent. Their delusions are that THEY will be the Big Fish in the Pond in The Big10. That won’t happen but then again they are delusional after all they are from the Lou!

KC is split unevenly between MIZZOU, ku & KSU – thus the Big10 wouldn’t get the entire #32 TV market. During a regular Football season – KC is about 60% MIZZOU. During Basketball season when ku begins the season in Top Ten – KC becomes about 60% ku.

I and most of KC would prefer to stick in the Big12. We do want better revenue sharing rules and better rules on which team goes to which Bowl where the performance on the field decides who goes to which bowl game etc. We also prefer the Big12 Tourney to be in KC EVERY year – since Texas(the entire state including UT) doesn’t even care about Basketball as they wait for Spring Football to start. But a rotation between a regular South Div locale and KC would work just as well too. Same with the Big12 Title Football – one year in Arrowhead the next in Dallas, repeat ad nauseum.

Why would UT be opposed to joining the SEC? Too much competion to UT being the Big Fish in a little Pond? SEC would easily be the best Conference ion everything if UT joined – PLUS the SEC would make a killing with TX & FL inside their geographic territory! HECK – I’d rather join the SEC than Big10 if thew only consideration was on the playing field/court. BUT, instead I see UT going to the PAC-10 so that they can again be the Big Fish in a little Pond. USC only has Football and sometimes Baseball – & football is down this year. UCLA has Basketball and its down this year. Oregon & Or. St. are in an aberration this season in Football and track is sometimes good there. Stanford has the obscure sports and sometimes out of a fluke a decent Football & Basketball teams. ALSO the Pac 10 much like the Big 10 would able to stretch their reach into the middle of the country and cover half of the country.

I see MIZZOU, ku, & NU moving to Big 10. ku comes along much like A&M goes where you go of the arch-rivalry. NU because they HAD a football prgram in the 70’s – 90’s. Big 10 then adds Pitt with SU or RU. PAC-10 adds UT, A&M, Colorado & Utah. SEC adds OU & Okie St.

At least that’s how I seeing it fallout or at least if it HAS to FALLOUT this is where the chips fall….
srr50 said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 2:03 pm

Why would UT be opposed to joining the SEC?

Academics and the culture of “pushing the envelope” when it comes to NCAA rules.
thebeeve said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 3:18 pm

One of my complaints about a possible move to the Pac-10 is that UT would immediately be seen as the hillbilly country cousin, truth about academics be damned. We only think our BigXII brethren dislike us. I suspect the target on our chests would only grow far larger. All those condescending west coast articles before the first Rose Bowl appearance come flashing back.

I’m no fan of an SEC move either. If we have to move before whatever superconference comes to pass a Big Televen slot to hang out in seems a lot more friendly, even though it seems entirely out of the realm of possibility.
CrazyJoeDavola said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 4:12 pm

“One of my complaints about a possible move to the Pac-10 is that UT would immediately be seen as the hillbilly country cousin, truth about academics be damned”

Which is why we bring along A&M.

Anyway, there’s no doubt we’d be seen as a bumpkin in such an arrangement, at least on the superficial (i.e., Bill Plaschke) level. But I honestly think that Texas and Austin in particular has had so much interface with California and the tech industry that it wouldn’t be nearly as extreme a situation as it would have been 15 years ago when this discussion first came up. Oh well – just something else to motivate us.

Incidentally, we’d probably have the same label in the Big 10.

As an aside, you know who would LOVE to have increased ties between the Pac-10 and the University of Texas? Hewlett-Packard.

And as much as it pains them, I bet California in general wouldn’t mind having a few increased ties to the state of Texas. Hell, it seems like have of California is already in Austin or Dallas. For some reason, they don’t seem to be thick on the ground here in Houston. We have a lot more Florida and North Carolina and Ohio plates hereabouts. Go figure.

Agreed with srr50 – the last thing we’d want to do is get caught in the briar patch of the SEC. The shenanigans we’re seeing at USC of late is baseline behavior in that conference. As long as we’re keeping up the commitment to staying out of that particular game, we’d be at a severe disadvantage.

kwl88 – revenue sharing would be a logical move … if there was more to share. The SEC and Big-10 are just fine with it because there’s so much of it to go around. We’re in an almost impossible situation in the Big 12 – revenue sharing won’t mean squat until we get a significantly better TV contract, which we won’t get without a better television profile. Unless we figure out a way to conjure up a couple million more loyal viewers in the plains states, we’ve topped out our network $$.

Missouri is acting completely rationally right now. A school’s loyalty should be to itself first by far, to its long-term rivals/partners second, and conference affiliation a distant third. And, really, WTF does Mizzou really care about a handful of schools that they’ve been in league with for less than two decades?
GoldenRichards said:

December 22nd, 2009 at 8:38 pm

If Pac10’s the choice, I think A&M, not Colorado, should go with us. Gives us one close travel spot in conference, and A&M’s a stronger conference member than CU. More importantly, it eliminates the possibility that SEC takes A&M, which is my nightmare scenario: we’re playing on the west coast in front of the wine and cheese crowd and A&M’s playing in the south in front of the most rabid fans in the country. That could turn into a legitimate recruiting advantage for A&M.

But my preference is for us to go alone to the Big 10 which I think is the best combination: better, bigger schools but with football passion approaching the SEC’s.
Eric said:

December 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 am

In regards to KC Tigers fan’s misinformation,

As a Mizzou fan who lives in St. Louis, I don’t think anyone here has any illusions of grandure if we jump to the Big 10, and anyone who says “the Lou” is a fucking tool.
Donny Boudreaux said:

December 23rd, 2009 at 8:49 am

“BUT, The Big10 is interested in expanding to a contiguous state”

Really? Where have you seen this?? Every single article i’ve seen of late has said they are looking EVERYWHERE. He said, “from all over the country.”

You just don’t say things like “from all over the country.” if you meant…. in about an 8 state range. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4735336

Like 2-3 years ago the contiguous state thing WAS a criteria. I haven’t heard a whisper of it this time around. Do you have a link to support that claim? I haven’t seen it.
Joe said:

December 23rd, 2009 at 9:03 am

A couple points:

The Big Ten’s charter has not been made publicly available, but in a recent interview a spokesman said that being in a contiguous state is NOT a requirement for expansion.

The Big Ten Network’s agreement with the major cable companies stipulates that all homes in a Big Ten state will have the BTN on basic cable. So, adding a state is obviously a major priority, and adding Mizzou specifically means that all the cable subscribers in STL as well as KC will be adding to the BTN’s coffers on the standard tier. That’s one thing Mizzou has over Nebraska.

If the Big 12 is truly dead without Mizzou, then here’s what I think the Big Ten will do. They’ll tell Texas that they’re prepared to take Mizzou, which would probably cause Texas to look for a new conference regardless. If Texas is going to switch conferences, the Big Ten will tell them “it might as well be with us.” They’re also looking at adding three members and forming a 14-team super-conference. Maybe they’re take Texas, aTm (to appease the legislature) and Oklahoma/Mizzou/Nebraska. That would give the three Big 12 teams a bunch of league games in their region along with a few on the Eastern half of the Big Ten.

Or, they’ll probably try to do the same to the Big East. They’ll give the Big east an ultimatum – sever all ties with ND (non-football sports, bowl tie-ins, etc) or the Big Ten will take Rutgers, Pitt, and Syracuse and form a 14-team super-conference. Knowing that it will signal the end of the Big East, the Big East will cut ties to ND, leaving them ripe for a Big Ten deal.
LonghornsWin said:

December 23rd, 2009 at 10:10 am

The Missouri and OU fans here who suggest that the Big Ten would not expand to Texas in a heartbeat are nutty. This is the 21st century. Transportation is actually easier to most of those sites than it is to a lot of the northern Big 12 sites.

And to suggest that Texas would not bring in an even larger TV contract is also nutty. Imagine the excitement of Texas playing Minnesota and Illinois and Indiana. While those might not be strong schools from a football perspective, the games would be the talk of the whole state.

If Texas, A&M, and Missouri went to the Big Ten, it would become the dominant football conference overnight.

I want SLE to suggest why the PAC Ten is better? I am not seeing it for football or basketball.
NVHorn said:

December 23rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm

“But regardless, cutting aggy loose makes them a free agent. And that’s dangerous. If the SEC comes in and gobbles them up, then they (and, more importantly, their SEC buddies) suddenly have a real recruiting advantage that they don’t have now. Even if we could ditch aggy, therefore, I think it’s foolish to do so.”

Bingo.
NVHorn said:

December 23rd, 2009 at 1:40 pm

“I just don’t get it, UT makes more money than any other school in the country, has a larger football budget than anyone else in the country, gets a top 5 recruiting class every year, and just had one of the easiest paths to a National Championship game in the history of college football. What more do you want? How much better can it really get for you idiots?”

This isn’t about the present, Tim, you fucking retard. No one is complaining about how things have been or how they are at this very second.
innocent bystander said:

December 23rd, 2009 at 9:17 pm

lessee
Utah just handed Cal its bear ass on a plate. With the bowl season just underway its the MWC 3 and the Pac 10 zip. That USC record looks a even lot weaker now. Carrol is on a fast track to pass Brown as the biggest black hole for talent in the country.
You hornies sure you want to join a conference that may replaced by the MWC in the BCS?
innocent bystander said:

December 23rd, 2009 at 9:30 pm

ok
my bad
Wyoming beat Fresno. however they are another overrated team from Caleefornya
HoyaSooner said:

December 24th, 2009 at 1:17 am

“What if we promised that all the Yell Leaders were gay? The Pac-10 would then welcome us with open arms”

…Wait a minute. You mean… They *aren’t?* Hmm… right now I’m going over all the games I’ve seen A&M play, reviewing them in my head, looking for the clues. Like at the end of Sixth Sense, when you find out Bruce Willis is dead. ….Nope. Still pretty sure they’re gay. :)

The way I see the conference shake up is this. No one knows what the Big 10 is going to do. They could be looking to add one, three, or even five teams. I’m not even sure that the Big 10 knows what they’re after. But given how well they’ve negotiated TV contracts in the past, I think they’ve got a pretty good plan. I really see a few options they could pursue.

#1: Notre Dame. This is the match everyone expects. It’s Sam and Diane, Ross and Rachel, Bert and Ernie. Notre Dame is unlikely to go unless the Big 10 can bring substantial pressure. If they could pull this off, it would be bigger than adding Texas, because ND’s moronic fanbase is everywhere. The Big 10 network just might wind up in every state, as part of the basic cable package. This is the big one, and if the Big 10 is talking expansion, you can bet your balls they’ve got a plan to catch the great white whale.

#2: The Big 10 may simply be happy with things the way they are. Schools like Missouri or Rutgers would give them a moderate gain. It’s simple. Add an unremarkable member in a state with decent TV markets, a member you can push around and who doesn’t upset the holy duo of Ohio State/Michigan. Those two schools may not be looking to add a real competitor (unless it’s Notre Dame). Regardless of anything else, everyone knows that if Texas comes in, they will want to do things their way. Sometimes the most attractive girl at the dance is a total bitch. MU, on the other hand, is fairly cute, and she’ll let you cum on her face.

#3: They could be positioning themselves to cherry pick a different team. A team like a Texas, or a Boston College, or a Virginia, all have good academic reputations and bring in significant TV markets. It would make the Big 10 much stronger, make them much more money, and keep them significant throughout the end of November and early December. They wouldn’t have to lower their academic standards either.

#4: The Big 10 may be looking to cement its status as a super-conference. In this case, it’s not about money. It’s about power. The Big 10 could position itself as the #1 conference in all of sports by adding several powerhouse schools. Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, OU, Missouri, lock up a couple of those and you’re incredibly relevant. You could even set up a schedule where most of the powerhouse teams wouldn’t play each other that often, giving you a very good chance of having a team in the MNC every single year. Say you have a Big 16 South and a Big 16 North. Take the 5 Big 12 teams, kick Iowa, Indiana, and Purdue down to the Big 16 South, and leave the other teams in the North. Teams play a rotating 6 games against teams in their own part of the conference (with one permanent partner, to preserve OU/Texas and Ohio State/Michigan), and two teams from the other half. With these schools, the SEC suddenly becomes decidedly second best. The Big 10 dominates media coverage every year. It would be the ultimate power move.

I think #4 is unlikely. The Big 10 has always been just as concerned with academics as they have with athletics. Much as I love OU, and much as the school has made huge strides academically in the last 10-15 years (US News and World Reports now lists it as a Tier 1 university, and tied in rankings with Missouri), if the Big 10 was looking to add us, it wouldn’t be because of our academic credentials. Really the same goes with Missouri and Nebraska. I can see the Big 10 bringing in one school that was a reach, but four? They’d be diluting their academic reputation. They wouldn’t be increasing their per-school revenue much, either (if at all). And they’d be adding a bunch of teams that could steal the thunder of existing team members. I think Ohio State and Michigan would be pretty pissed off if Texas and OU started winning the Big 10+6 they way we have the Big 12.

So I think it’s one of the first three. Of course, option #1 is always going to be their first choice. The question is, if (err… when) Notre Dame rejects them, what is their fall back plan? Money isn’t the only important thing. The Big 10 cares deeply about tradition. Not in that creepy A&M way, but they still care about it. It would have to be a school that added to the conference as a whole. They’d have to be decent academically, competitive athletically, probably would have to have a storied history (like a Nebraska), lots of research dollars (or at least a willingness to pour money into that realm and get up to par quickly), and have a suitably boring Big 10-style culture.

The question for Texas is, is the money you bring worth the trouble? Seriously, there is a reason most of the Big 12 hates you. It’s not just because you’re Texas and we’re jealous. Of course the old SWC schools are going to hate you, and of course OU is going to hate you. But why Kansas? Why Missouri and Oklahoma State? It’s because there are allegations of favoritism. It’s because the Big 12 was basically structured around Texas’ wishes. No more non-qualifiers? Fine. Nebraska objected, but everyone went along with it. Big 12 championship games in Texas nearly every year? Fine. Not too bad for the South teams, as it’s a closer drive and warmer weather. But the North resented it (though at least they got to be warm as they were getting their asses kicked). Don’t think other conferences don’t see it. Is having the hottest girl at the dance worth her constant whining and attention grabbing? Do Ohio State and MIchigan want to add another belle to the ball? If they can add Rutgers, get half the extra money and none of the trouble, is that worth it?

The question for the rest of the Big 12 is, how can we avoid this outcome? I agree that if Missouri leaves, the Big 12 is dead. Oh sure, we’ll add Utah or BYU, make concessions about the multiple wives thing, and move on for a while. We might even expand to 14 teams. Add UNLV and bring on the gambling. But the Big 12 would have lost a founding member of the Big 8, and shown a striking lack of solidarity, a lack of ability to keep its own teams around. We would be vulnerable, and everyone else would come cherry-picking. So how do we avoid it?

We’ve got to get a better TV deal. Fortunately, as bad as our TV deal is, other conferences are even worse. The ACC and the Pac 10 both have worse TV deals than we do. This is surprising given the fact that they have a lot more people than us. We need some sort of deal similar to the SEC or Big 10. Not necessarily a Big 12 network, but something. OU and Texas are really the only two draws in the conference. Nobody nationally cares about anyone else, except maybe Nebraska, and Kansas only during basketball season. OU and Texas both dominate the conference anyway. We’ll be the leverage they use to negotiate a deal. We won’t get the money the Big 10 and SEC get, but we should be able to get something like 125 to 150 million a year.

To get that, we’ve got to improve the quality of games. Start a conference rule regarding scheduling. Require teams to play high profile opponents, perhaps one home and home series with a BCS opponent every four years. Reduce the number of Div 1aa schools on the schedule, say a maximum of one every two years. OSU did a good job with scheduling Georgia. But when was the last time Kansas State played anyone of note? We need games that will put butts in front of the TV.
HoyaSooner said:

December 24th, 2009 at 1:27 am

Oh, I recall OU and Texas both trying to get something done about scheduling around two years ago. Both were making noises to the rest of the conference about needing to step up the level of competition. I believe vague pseudo-threats were made (as in “if something isn’t done, we’ll really have to look at what can be done, examine our options…”). My recollection is that the rest of the conference basically ignored the request. Anyone remember this?
innocent bystander said:

December 24th, 2009 at 7:46 am

Why doesnt Texas just make it’s own damn conference? Tesscans have always been proud of the fact they were their own damn country at one time. There has even been talk of seceding lately over the liberal resurgence in the rest of the country.

TCU and Houston are members you could be proud of now. Only problem is you might have to keep OU and OSU around to have enough members. You could call it the Royalty Check Conference
Texantt said:

December 24th, 2009 at 8:46 am

Wow! I can’t believe everyone has such short memories…. This just played out not too long ago (when the Big 12 formed) and the same thing will play out again IF it ever happens.

1. Texas will NOT join the PAC 10 or Big 10 because of geography. Do you know how much MORE money Texas would lose by having all their teams travel to the schools in these conferences? Texas would NOT make this up in extra revenue either. Not to mention the fact that none of Texas’ rivals would go, therefore forcing the worst case scenario: APATHY

2. State legislature will not allow Texas to move to another conference without A & M, Tech and Baylor. THOSE teams would lose even MORE money than UT for traveling.

3. Regardless of what was said in this post, Arkansas would shampoo a buffalo from 50 yards if they could get back in a conference with Texas. We are STILL their biggest rival and how long have they been in the SEC? Arkansas is a clear example of what happens to an athletic program when APATHY hits…

My scenario if Mizzou goes… Arkansas comes to the Big 12 and probably forces some type of revenue sharing (which Texas is already looking at). Trust me that Texas will NOT lose money in the deal, though… It will be a win/win for everyone. The SEC picks some from the ACC or Big East and everyone is happy.
srr50 said:

December 24th, 2009 at 10:11 am

Texantt:
1. Yes the travel would be more expensive. However, if the move doubles the TV revenue taken in (and you shouldn’t make the move unless this is likely) than the travel expenses don’t matter.

2. The landscape has changed dramatically — both politically and with the Universities you mentioned. Tech and Baylor are SOL when it comes to wielding any kind of threat this time around. They do not have the power in the legislature they wielded last time, and the facts of how much money it now takes to compete at the BCS level is going to eventually cause another downsizing in the BCS.

It will eventually come down to a round of Texas Hold ‘Em. Texas is no longer in the business of carrying other programs with them. You are either all in or you are out.

3. Arkansas brings nothing to the Big 12. No TV markets, no financial clout, no national prestige. If your scenario comes true (where the SEC picks up some ACC teams it is not a win-win. We will be in serious trouble if we let that happen.
jimmyjazz said:

December 25th, 2009 at 1:42 am

I completely agree that adding Missouri does almost nothing to differentiate the Big Te(leve)n. Mizzou IS Iowa. Mediocre sports, mediocre fans, mediocre town, mediocre academics.

The idea that Mizzou will carry its weight in TV revenue is laughable. Illinois already has almost half the St. Louis viewership, and KC doesn’t support Mizzou much (if any). This leaves Springfield, Columbia, Jeff City, Edgar Springs, and Rolla. Best of luck with that.
bruce alosis said:

December 25th, 2009 at 2:44 pm

found this:

here’s what i came up with on air mileage. next to the school name is the city i’m guessing a visiting team would fly into. next to that is the one-way air mileage that i got from austin, using this website:

http://www.webflyer.com/travel/mileage_calculator/

[i'm using air miles since we're just looking at feasibility for transporting the texas team and they would for sure fly to all these locations.]

then i averaged the distances doubled (to get the round trip). i’m assuming usual 12-team arrangement where the 12 are split into two divisions, and a team plays all the teams in its division every year, home and home, and half the teams in the other division home and home on a rotating basis. that suggests that a team would visit the average far division team 1 1/2 times on the average each year and the average near division team 2 1/2 times on the average each year. so i multiplied the avg trip two-way distance by the avg number of trips per annum to get the avg total air miles per annum for the near division and the far division. then summed the averages for the two divisions to get the conference average air miles for the texas team. that appears below for the pac-10 and for the big ten.

certainly we don’t know how the conferences would be split into divisions, so i’m guessing on that. also note that i included colorado to give the pac-10 its 12 teams.

note that the pac-10 average annual air miles would be almost 2000 miles more flying.

Pac-10 NW
Stanford – Palo Alto 1480
California – Oakland 1490
Washington State – Pullman 1540
Oregon – Eugene 1690
Oregon State – Corvallis 1700
Washington – Seattle 1760
avg trip two-way 3220
avg trips per annum 1.5
avg total per annum 4830

Pac-10 SE
Arizona – Tucson 791
Colorado – Boulder 795
Arizona State – Phoenix 866
UCLA – Los Angeles 1230
USC – Los Angeles 1230
avg trip two-way 1964
avg trips per annum 2.5
avg total per annum 4910

Pac-10 Conference annual avg air miles 9740

Big Ten North
Wisconsin – Madison 998
Minnesota – Minneapolis 1040
Ohio State – Columbus 1070
Michigan State – Lansing 1120
Michigan – Ann Arbor 1130
Penn State – State College 1330
avg trip two-way 2228
avg trips per annum 1.5
avg total per annum 3342

Big Ten South
Iowa – Iowa City 856
Illinois – Champaign 856
Indiana – Bloomington 858
Purdue – Lafayette 923
Northwestern – Chicago 972
avg trip two-way 1784
avg trips per annum 2.5
avg total per annum 4460

Big 10 Conference annual avg air miles 7802
bruce alosis said:

December 25th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

and this:

these ratings come from the us news & world people. i know there are other lists that may be at least as viable, but i don’t know where they are on line. at any rate, these numbers reflect perception to a decent degree and have some validity if only for that reason. certainly we expect northwestern to be highly rated, and it is here, and some schools that we think are pretty light show up that way in these numbers.

in addition to the big ten and the pac-10, i’m showing the ratings for the big 12 and sec for comparison. some interesting things show up.

also, you probably know that notre dame got a rank of 20 from these people.

for stat purposes, i had no idea how to account for ‘tier 3′ schools, so i arbitrarily assigned 150 to any tier 3 school to derive conference avg and std dev scores. i figured putting them 20 points behind lsu would be sufficient penance.

one interesting thing, the big ten has an excellent average rating and a low standard deviation. really, a comparatively tight group. compare that with the pac-10 which has a very good average but a large standard deviation. the scores here suggest that the pac-10 has a schism. there is a huge drop from the top 5 to the other 5.

the lowest rated big ten school would be a very solid member of any of the other conferences here. the highest rated big 12 school *ahem* *ahem* with a decent lead over the next in line and a large lead over the conference average would be a comfortable middling school in the big ten. wouldn’t burnish your resume, really, but certainly wouldn’t be a perceptual liability (and i don’t see that your academic standing needs any burnishing). strong enough academically and from a research standpoint to add some value, particularly when you take into account regional specialization such as latin-american studies and maybe something like oceanography. i know a lot of you guys border an inland sea, but we bring a long border with the gulf of mexico. and anything you might want to know about deserts or piney woods or high plains if you don’t have them, we can probably speak from experience. throw in melted automotive interior plastics or sidewalk culinary arts, for that matter. : )

i have a hard time believing that missouri is the equal academically of oklahoma, but, regardless, if these numbers have any validity, mizzou is not that comfortable a fit academically in the big ten.

note that the big 12 and sec have very similar numbers, really, even with texas still on board. texas in the sec would co-lead there if vandy went away. doesn’t vanderbilt stand out in that group? like a smart, ugly girl the gang keeps around just for the fun of it. vandy really brings that avg up but also perks up the std dev.

i think these numbers bear out my claim that the big ten is a better fit from the texas perspective academically — as well as from a proximity standpoint — than the pac-10. texas in the pac-10 would be on a middle island with washington with nobody else that similar — here again, if the numbers mean all that much. also, texas bringing a coastal experience or latin-american perspective to the pac-10 would probably induce a yawn of epic scale.

Big Ten
avg 50.2
std dev 19.5
Northwestern 12
Michigan 27
Wisconsin 39
Illinois 39
Penn State 47
Ohio State 53
Minnesota 61
Purdue 61
Michigan St 71
Iowa 71
Indiana 71

Pac-10
avg 71.1
std dev 52.6
Stanford 4
California 21
UCLA 24
USC 26
Washington 42
Arizona 102
Washington St 106
Oregon 115
Arizona State 121
Oregon State Tier 3

Big 12
avg 99.9
std dev 34.3
Texas 47
Texas A&M 61
Colorado 77
Baylor 80
Iowa State 88
Nebraska 96
Kansas 96
Oklahoma 102
Missouri 102
Oklahoma St Tier 3
Texas Tech Tier 3
Kansas State Tier 3

SEC
avg 100.5
std dev 41.7
Vanderbilt 17
Florida 47
Georgia 58
Auburn 88
Alabama 96
Tennessee 106
South Carolina 110
Kentucky 128
Arkansas 128
LSU 128
Mississippi Tier 3
Mississippi St Tier 3
NVHorn said:

December 26th, 2009 at 2:23 am

Texantt, you’re way off on every single point.

Increased travel costs would not even come close to wiping out the gains in TV revenue if we joined either conference. Not even close.

The political obstacles of 15+ years ago are not the same as those of today. Again, not even close. Texas is not handcuffed to Tech or Baylor.

Finally, the fact that you think Arkansas would ever leave the SEC for the Big 12 shows just how little you understand the topic under discussion. You couldn’t be more wrong.
Frank the Tank said:

December 27th, 2009 at 4:56 pm

If anyone is interested, here is my Big Ten Expansion Index looking at all of the candidates explaining why some (i.e. Iowa State, Pitt) are complete non-starters and how Texas going to the Big Ten would be mutually beneficial:

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/the-big-ten-expansion-index-a-different-shade-of-orange/
abbey deer in the head lice said:

December 29th, 2009 at 10:35 am

very good summary of the situation, frank, and i really like your putting the various issues into a matrix of weighted significance.

also note that a&m is mentioned only with respect to traditional texas rivals. i have seen some mention of texas and a&m going to the big ten together. i have no clue whether it was for comic effect or whether the couple of posters were serious. my question to you is have you given any thought toward that? and seeing that you have ‘mutual interest’ and ‘cultural fit’ pegged at 5 points max, does your scale allow large negative values for those categories?
Major Cult said:

December 29th, 2009 at 11:47 am

I don’t care how mutually beneficial a Big Ten spot would be. I’d be damned if I would travel to the Rust Bucket and put up with the shitty sportsmanship of the rank and file of the Big Ten sports fan. I would gladly suffer Pete Carrol’s obnoxious personality rather than have to deal with profiligate pus and slime known as the Ohio State fan.
Major Cult said:

December 29th, 2009 at 11:58 am

Oops, ^profligate – sorry i got a bit worked up.
lebear said:

January 5th, 2010 at 4:46 am

Знакомый стиль.
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 8th, 2010 at 8:30 am

[...] 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 the Big [...]
Honda said:

February 3rd, 2010 at 1:54 am

Поздравляю, мне кажется это отличная мысль
Автомобили Hyundai said:

February 3rd, 2010 at 6:37 am

Вот это да! Крутая статейка!
Автомобиль Hyundai said:

February 3rd, 2010 at 10:18 am

Ради такого поста можно и попробовать почитать. поверьте мне на слово)
Народные средства said:

February 4th, 2010 at 9:26 am

Отлично пишете. Надеюсь, на вашем блоге такие посты будут появляться почаще.
Авто Mitsubishi said:

February 4th, 2010 at 12:25 pm

Здорово пишите вы конечно, Хотелось бы, чтобы на вашем блоге такие посты появлятьслись почаще.

63

Big 10 Getting Serious About Expansion
By srr50 on February 12th, 2010
8

Pac 10: “Getting our own network is inevitable.”
By srr50 on May 15th, 2009
79

Can This Marriage Be Saved?
By TaylorTRoom on February 16th, 2010
6

The SEC Trying To Restrict Media Coverage
By srr50 on August 13th, 2009
13

For Texas, It’s All About Protecting The Brand Name
By srr50 on February 18th, 2010

Hot Forum Topics

Apology to Kansas Basketball
Last Post By: dick
Inside: Barking Carnival Forum
Oklahoma State AD Mike Holder
Last Post By: Ibas water bottle
Inside: Barking Carnival Forum
Only two have what it takes: Beakers and Bears
Last Post By: admin
Inside: Oread Boom Kings Forum
Only two teams have what it takes: Beakers and Bears
Last Post By: Vasherized
Inside: Bear Crawl Forum
Rumor on Cory Joseph
Last Post By: raoulduke
Inside: Barking Carnival Forum
Bergeron Ran an 11.1 Yesterday
Last Post By: CloseToJumping
Inside: Barking Carnival Forum
Baylor Bears to Final Four?
Last Post By: Sailor Ripley
Inside: Bear Crawl Forum
Perrish Cox banned from pro day
Last Post By: The General
Inside: Pokelahoma Forum
The Ides of March
Last Post By: bateshorn
Inside: Barking Carnival Forum
Good News - Tech will still suck next year as Pat Knight is coming back!
Last Post By: Sailor Ripley
Inside: Spence Park Soapbox Forum

Activity

RSS Feed

Hiphopopotamus wrote a new blog post: Big Dance: Day Two 4 minutes ago

A quick recap of yesterday’s action before we get to today’s tilts.

Midwest – Kansas and Northern Iowa take care of business at the top. Tennessee squeaks by San Diego St, and the shocker of the day, Georgetown falls to Ohio. Just a complete no-show by the Hoyas, which we all knew they were capable

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
dick commented on the blog post FLV March Madness First Round Bets 12 minutes ago

I tailed Trips’ over on BYU and under on ND so I ended up more than fine yesterday. I’m not in the mood for humour after last night but I’ll throw up some quick picks in a second.
Phenomenal Smith commented on the blog post First Round: Clemson Tigers 36 minutes ago

I knew what you meant with the homer comment.

I agree that it mostly comes down to Denmon and English shooting well again. They don’t have set career highs, but they do have to at least hit their season averages for Mizzou to have a chance.
whiskey commented on the blog post Chalk Talk: The ND 3-4 Transition Part II- Defensive Line 2 hours, 24 minutes ago

LB Coach right before we moved over here usmc53 left the below question for you in response to one of your comments. Based on this post I take it the NT is just reading the Center’s head after the snap. I thought he asked a great question though and didn’t want it to

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
Phenomenal Smith commented on the blog post First Round: Clemson Tigers 2 hours, 35 minutes ago

I agree that the Tigers will win.
whiskey commented on the blog post Chalk Talk: The ND 3-4 Transition Part I- Expectations 2 hours, 38 minutes ago

I am starting to feel progressivley optomistic. Hopefully we can glean some discernable info about how this transition is going during spring practice. Valpodoc, glad to see you are still with us here at the new place. Your comments always add to the quality of the discussion.

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
Phenomenal Smith commented on the blog post Chase Daniel makes The Economist 2 hours, 38 minutes ago

Well, here at AT we talk about Chase Daniel coming back to Mizzou to coach QBs and recruit the Dallas area. We haven’t taken it off the table, but not sure it carries much predictive value on our table.
Ibas water bottle commented on the blog post Oklahoma Sooners – Recruiting So Far 2 hours, 48 minutes ago

Oklahoma sports media coverage is slanted towards OU? I refuse to believe Dean Blevins would do that.

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
Ibas water bottle wrote a new blog post: NCAA tournament day two 3 hours, 21 minutes ago

If we can stop Stephon Marbury from eating the rest of the Vaseline we have a chance.

Peter Graves has more life than my bracket. I pick games like Gary Johnson shoots free throws. Nebraska is better off in the standings than I am in the bracket contest. Get the point? Yesterday was one of

SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: ””, url: ”” });
GoHornsGo90 commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 8 hours, 1 minute ago

Barnes’ three “strengths”:

Defense, rebounding, recruiting.

This team just proved the first two are non-existent (out-rebounded by 25; fucking KIDDING me?) and the last one is over-hyped as well. Every ESPN basketball recruiting analyst who actually had Bradley ahead of Wall should be taken out back and executed Inglourious Basterds style.

I hate Turgeon and I
skymonkeyhorn commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 8 hours, 45 minutes ago

a Good System will usually beat a talented team that does not play together and are thinking instead of playing basketball ,over a season the system wins more then they will give away.
A team that is scared to make a mistake and thinks before they react is going to lose to a confident but
Patrick Bateman commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 19 minutes ago

Nordberg,

Ironic indeed……teachable moment, I guess….

NY Horn,

I hope your drunk, because Izzo ain’t coming to Texas……Why don’t we just get Coach K. I mean Coach G came from Duke, they have to be dying to get out of Durham….
Trips Right commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 23 minutes ago

Egg, that’s fine, but at what point do you blame Barnes? Seriously, man. You’ve thrown players under the bus left and right, but at a certain point, doesn’t the buck stop somewhere. I know you’re more of an NBA guy so it begins and ends with players there, but we need fucking
Trips Right commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 23 minutes ago

Egg, that’s fine, but at what point do you blame Barnes? Seriously, man. You’ve thrown players under the bus left and right, but at a certain point, doesn’t the buck stop somewhere. I know you’re more of an NBA guy so it begins and ends with players there, but we need fucking
Patrick Bateman commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 25 minutes ago

Trips,

I hear ya. I’m frustrated as well. I guess I just don’t prescribe to such a black and white characterization of the situation. I do know that no matter what happened in the huddle, JCB made a dumb play. If Rick didn’t explain or remind him of the situation, then I
Trips Right commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 32 minutes ago

Pat, know I don’t, but I’ve had coaches draw up plays to free up the best foul shooter and then tell that guy they’d put their foot up his ass if they passed the ball. It’s funny, but as a fans of football we nitpick blitz pickup and shit like that. Shit that’s
Trips Right commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 32 minutes ago

Pat, you know I don’t, but I’ve had coaches draw up plays to free up the best foul shooter and then tell that guy they’d put their foot up his ass if they passed the ball. It’s funny, but as a fans of football we nitpick blitz pickup and shit like that. Shit
Trips Right commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 32 minutes ago

Pat, you know I don’t, but I’ve had coaches draw up plays to free up the best foul shooter and then tell that guy they’d put their foot up his ass if they passed the ball. It’s funny, but as fans of football we nitpick blitz pickup and shit like that. Shit that’s
Patrick Bateman commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 35 minutes ago

Shitty season…..Rick needs to hire some offensive help and someone needs to say it to him. Deloss?
Patrick Bateman commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 37 minutes ago

Trips,

Do you know that he didn’t? JCB has made bad decision all season, why would this be any different. Barnes coached a shitastic game, but on the teams I was the best FT shooter, I never game up the ball unless it was an uncontested layup…..It’s not hard and it doesn’t take a
Trips Right commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 38 minutes ago

mcpayne, yes, you don’t leave that shit to chance. You don’t let your guys break the huddle or dead ball not knowing precisely what’s expected from them. Barnes doesn’t get 2 mil for coaching PE where he’s hoping the right guy gets fouled.
uthookem commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 39 minutes ago

mpayne, I’d agree with you if J’Covan had been playing all season and had been in situations to make that decision. Like, you know, against Baylor, when he played all of 3 fucking minutes thanks to rick.

So yes, it is rick’s fault.
Trips Right commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 40 minutes ago

With 15 seconds left, out of a dead ball, most coaches would make it perfectly clear who they wanted to be fouled.
uthookem commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 43 minutes ago

Stupid decisions by Brown are one of the reasons he sat on the bench for most of the season…lack of coaching maybe, or just a lack of basketball IQ?

Oh well, if Brown doesn’t go off in the 2nd half, we aren’t even playing in OT. Too bad he didn’t get much of a chance
Trips Right commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 43 minutes ago

Pat, if you were making 2 million a year, would you leave that up to chance?
Patrick Bateman commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 44 minutes ago

Actually, if your a PG and the best FT shooter on the team and played basketball your entire life, you’d pretty much know not to give up the ball if you had any brains…..Such a dumb play…..
D W commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 45 minutes ago

Oh, and a stupid decision by Brown in giving up the ball to Johnson.
Trips Right commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 45 minutes ago

Be nice if we’d coached our 90 percent foul shooter not to give the ball up.
Patrick Bateman commented on the blog post Texas Hoops vs. Wake Forest Open thread 10 hours, 45 minutes ago

Ransom,

1 for 2, that was not shitty defense……
Mister Mike commented on the blog post State of the Union – NU Basketball, Part 1 (or Why We Are Where We Are) 10 hours, 45 minutes ago

Well if you had read it all the way, you would’ve noticed this little tidbit:

In the second part I’ll do my best to give an outline of what exactly is wrong with the program, what we can do to fix it, and then what will probably happen TO fix it.

So to answer your question:

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

Baseball Articles

Things To Know About Conference Re-alignment

Article Tags:

More from this Barker

Scattershooting the 2009 Season

A Quick Look At Vince’s Progress

Things To Know About Conference Re-alignment

Rah, Rah, TCU!

Texas

Share This

136 Responses

srr50 said:

TaylorTRoom said:

burntorangehorn said:

SL Xpress said:

NorthDallasSooner said:

TaylorTRoom said:

CloseToJumping said:

CloseToJumping said:

NorthDallasSooner said:

dick said:

TaylorTRoom said:

Propper said:

Propper said:

BEHorn said:

BEHorn said:

TaylorTRoom said:

BEHorn said:

Cricketslayer said:

java said:

uthookem said:

uthookem said:

Propper said:

java said:

Scipio Tex said:

java said:

java said:

Scipio Tex said:

CrazyJoeDavola said:

java said:

srr50 said:

Frank the Tank said:

Redfoot said:

uthookem said:

SWC Ghost said:

Sugarpants said:

CrazyJoeDavola said:

BEHorn said:

PrimeTime said:

flamingmonkeyass said:

dudden madder said:

Johem said:

Sugarpants said:

Logan said:

GUSTAVE said:

Blueshorn said:

Minnesotahorn said:

Roach said:

TaylorTRoom said:

Blueshorn said:

Roach said:

Johem said:

Lark 47 said:

Ag_in_TX said:

Minnesotahorn said:

Frank the Tank said:

jonestopten said:

TEXBB said:

Just Saying said:

Christian Wofford said:

CaptainObvious said:

Ag_in_TX said:

Roach said:

Johem said:

UT_BKC said:

UT_BKC said:

Frank the Tank said:

czarcw said:

srr50 said: