Shark4
1000+ posts
01/04/10 09:06 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
|
| |
...and I'd love to hear your comments. It is the most thoughtful piece I've seen and completely changed my mind about the possibility of...well, read the article.
All in favor say "Aye"
This would bury the SEC 
\/\/\/\/
Shark4
/\/\/\/\
Post Extras:
|
Back to Texas
250+ posts
01/04/10 09:22 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
I have a lot of respect for the academics in the Big 10, but this just doesn't excite me. Texas has almost nothing to gain by playing most of the schools in football and wouldn't mean more to me than winning out current schedule.
OU>tOSU
UNL=PSU
Ok State = Wiscy
Tech = Iowa
A&M = Michigan
etc
etc
He makes great points about the power position Texas is in with bringing the Texas TV markets, but this isn't what I would blow ups status quo for.
"It takes a special person to understand and love being a part of the traditions that encompass being an Aggie. The "average" person will never understand what it means to "Bleed Maroon"." -texags poster
Post Extras:
|
SitraAchra
100+ posts
01/04/10 09:26 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Aye.
Post Extras:
|
kgp
2500+ posts
01/04/10 09:33 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Aggy=Michigan???
pax,
kp
Post Extras:
|
texas_ex2000
1000+ posts
01/04/10 09:39 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Texas does not belong to a conference that includes Pennsylvania.
Post Extras:
|
smwhorn
2500+ posts
01/04/10 09:42 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
aggy = Michigan ? Please tell us all you were joking.
"Meet me in the Land of Hope and Dreams. . . . . "--Springsteen
Post Extras:
|
general35
5000+ posts
01/04/10 10:01 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Geographically it makes little sense, however, academically it does. TX would not be a good match for the SEC. Tx couldnt leave alone though. I think we would be stuck with A&M.
Post Extras:
|
dmkhorns
< 25 posts
01/04/10 10:06 PM
|
|
UNL=PSU??
Not in 1994.
Post Extras:
|
Texasboozer
1000+ posts
01/04/10 10:07 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
When Texas went to the Big12, the state politicians got involved. Not sure that wouldn't happen again. It would certainly spruce up our schedule.
Post Extras:
|
BigWill
10,000+ posts
01/04/10 10:10 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Northwestern would kick the [censored] out of aggy.
Post Extras:
|
BevoJoe
2500+ posts
01/04/10 10:20 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
No way!! We don't belong with all those yaqnkee schools. That would suck.
"Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid." John Wayne
Post Extras:
|
Shark4
1000+ posts
01/04/10 10:21 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: BigWill] |
| |
In reply to:
Northwestern would kick the [censored] out of aggy.
Yeah, pretty much.
\/\/\/\/
Shark4
/\/\/\/\
Post Extras:
|
Texanne
10,000+ posts
01/04/10 10:29 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
I'd like to see the Texas powers that be explore this. It's an interesting proposal, and one I'd prefer to the Pac 10.
Oklahoma: First they stole the land. Then they stole their colors from Harvard, their fight song from Yale, their players from Texas, and their state song from a Broadway play. -- Elgin Hot Sausage
Post Extras:
|
Orangesweat
2002 Omaha Challenge Champion
01/04/10 10:37 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
In reply to:
A&M = Michigan
Post Extras:
|
Shark4
1000+ posts
01/04/10 10:40 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: BevoJoe] |
| |
In reply to:
No way!! We don't belong with all those yaqnkee schools. That would suck.
Perhaps but I'd bet that $30 million/yr in TV money (up from $12 million now) would diminish the suckage.
\/\/\/\/
Shark4
/\/\/\/\
Post Extras:
|
jdelatorre
250+ posts
01/04/10 10:42 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Any major conference realignment at this point will likely involve "geographic challenge" if the goal is bring in new television markets.
Post Extras:
|
Friday
1000+ posts
01/04/10 10:49 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Interesting. Eventually, I think Notre Dame will come around. If Texas did bolt, the remaining scramble would be mayhem. Colorado, Aggie, Nebraska, and Oklahoma would start banging on the Pac 10 door.
Post Extras:
|
catfishhorn
500+ posts
01/04/10 10:51 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Not just no, but HELL NO!!
At least now it's pretty easy to travel to the away games.
A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover...
Post Extras:
|
TexLaw04
1000+ posts
01/04/10 10:53 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
I am not a fan of Texas moving to the Big Ten, but this guy has put forward the best arguments for both sides and unquestionably the best analysis I have read. There's no doubt there would be a good academic and program-profile match with the likes of Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, etc.
However, I cannot simply get over the geography. The poorest analogy of this guy's piece is the Cowboys and the NFC East. When it comes to pro sports divisions, geography can be meaningless (remember when the Braves were in the NL West? And the Falcons in the NFC West?). It's not a big deal for the Cowboys to make a trip to New York, Philly and DC over the course of a season.
For college sports, though, it's a whole different story. In sports like basketball, we'd have to make trips all the way to State College in the middle of the week in some instances. The closest Big Ten city to Austin is farther away than the farthest Big XII city. This means that there's no way we could make the move by ourselves.
In the long run (say 10-15 years), I just don't think the Big XII is viable. The population base is by far the smallest of the BCS conferences, and this means our TV deals will never be what the SEC's or Big Ten's is. Eventually, the large TV markets of the west coast will be tempting to Colorado, or the Big Ten markets will tempt Missouri or possibly Iowa State. If either of those things happens, the conference will be hard-pressed to survive, as Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma simply have a fraction of the TV sets as Texas does.
I really think that we could see a shift toward some 16-team "superconferences," which I personally think is long overdue. For example, you could have a Pac-10 that includes Colorado, Utah, BYU, Boise State, Colorado State and Nebraska. An expanded Big Ten could add Iowa State, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State and Notre Dame. The SEC could add Texas, A&M, OU and Oklahoma State.
The next step would be to further define the strata in Division I athletics. Whereas we currently have I-A and I-AA, a new I-AAA subdivision could be created, with the likes of New Mexico State, Idaho, Ball State, Florida International, etc. These schools really have no business competing at the I-A level anyway.
With 16-team conferences, you'd have two 8-team divisions, and you'd play only the teams in your division during the regular season. Then you'd play the other division in a CCG. This sets things up perfectly for an eventual national championship playoff.
Just my two cents.
It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am not a big man.
Post Extras:
|
Longhorny630
500+ posts
01/04/10 10:54 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Aye, as I currently get the Big 10 network and would love to see every single game on TV.
IM Legend 2009
"Civil Engineers build targets, Aerospace Engineers build the bombs."
Post Extras:
|
Wesser
1000+ posts
01/04/10 11:13 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
I actually like the Big 12. I think it is funny that no one even contemplates that the conference will negotiate a better (not SEC or Big Ten) TV deal and that revenue disparity will decrease. Personally, I think that the Pac-10 and Big 12 should form an alliance where each school would match up one of their non-conference games with the other conference (obviously 2 Big 12 teams will have to be idle a year and schedule a sun belt team). Also, you take it to NBC as a package deal. NBC can use all of its broadcast and cable networks to show Big 12/Pac 10 football. They could run tripleheaders on the big network, with Notre Dame at 12:00 central; B12 game at 3:30 central ; Pac 10 game at 7:30 central. In addition, NBC could show all of the other games that are covered by FSN and the other BS on CNBC/MSNBC and Bravo. Let's face it Tech v. Aggy on Bravo would get better ratings than some rerun of Queer Eye. NBC Sports would be completely resurrected from its two decade grave and ESPN would lose its deathgrip on college football.
Something like that is what is needed to save the Big 12. DeLoss needs to investigate whether something like this is doable - pronto. If it is not, I do not want to let some middling program like Missouri exile us to limbo. I would rather fire the first shot in conference realignment if the Big 12 cannot be saved. I must say that the Big Ten is enticing to me.
Post Extras:
|
XOVER
5000+ posts
01/04/10 11:15 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
The article makes a powerful and persuasive case for the B10, especially from the point of view of a university President.
Make no mistake that academics are hugely important to Texas, and this CIC program would be especially enticing.
I personally prefer the PAC10 if the B12 goes away ("California cool" and all), but, like I've always said, the B10 is pretty nice as well.
I have always heard that the negative of the B10 is that many schools do not field a baseball team, but man, that B10 money is hard to overlook.
PAC10? B10? I'm good with either. Just keep us out of the nasty SEC please. Let aggy go SEC since they seem to love it so much.
The problem is that Texas is kinda like the ancient Romans: We always want the other guy to be the bad guy. Unless the B12 breaks up on its own, such as MO going to the B10, I don't see Texas making a move out of the B12, unless . . . . Machiavelli, anyone?
The only way I could foresee Texas breaking up the B12 would be if, say, the B10 told MO, "you're our second choice - will you come if our first choice says no?" Assuming MO says "yes," then the B10 leverages Texas by telling Texas, "It's you or MO - you pick."
Now Texas could leave first without being the "bad guy." JMO.
Post Extras:
|
Endust
5000+ posts
01/04/10 11:25 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
with regard to travel for non-revenue sports, i wonder if increased revenue from the Big 10's tv contract would offset that?
the big xii's tv contract is simply horrible and small time.
Post Extras:
|
misirlou
1000+ posts
01/04/10 11:38 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Couple of points to consider...
1) Our marquee non-conference games every year would be OU and A&M. Little chance of us adding a tOSU, UCLA, or even Ole Miss to a schedule with 8 Big 10-twelve schools and OU+A&M. There is almost no chance of us dropping the game with A&M. That is when state politicians get involved.
2) Assuming that the conference is split into geographic divisions, then here is a likely split. The teams that I would most want Texas to play are in the East (tOSU, Mich, and PSU as long as Paterno is still there). Of the teams in the West, Wisconsin and Iowa would be interesting matchups, but we would be looking forward to the East games more.
West................East
Texas.............tOSU
Iowa...............Michigan
Northwestern...MichSt
Illinois..............PSU
Minnesota.......Purdue
Wisconsin.......Indiana
Personally, I hope that they avoid a fixed geographic split and go with some form of a round robin where the 8 conference games rotate while preserving historic rivalries (e.g. Mich-tOSU; Mich-MichSt). The issue is that any arrangement is going to disrupt historic rivalries but hopefully not as bad as the Big 12 breaking up the OU-Neb yearly matchup.
3) Cold weather games. Texas would have to play a lot more. On the flip side, those northern schools would have to play a couple of games in the September heat. Texas has won in the cold, but it is still something that you cannot prepare for as easily practicing in Texas.
Overall, it still seems strange for Texas to play in a conference that far flung. I know Hawaii does worse. However, Texas should at least try to work a deal for travel money. That alone will cost us a few million extra per year for all of our sports.
Also, why do athletic conferences have to necessarily be about including all sports? Couldn't you mix and match? The Big East adds a lot of teams for basketball including Notre Dame. I assume the tv contracts are negotiated per sport anyway. This would greatly help with the travel cost question.
Post Extras:
|
MaduroUTMB
5000+ posts
01/04/10 11:50 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
If Texas could pick up and move to any location and was a current independent with offers from every conference, the Big XII would still be a front-runner. When you consider geography, the Big XII is the only conference that makes sense. I am continually amazed at the sentiment that Texas needs to move elsewhere to be competitive. The Big XII has done wonders for UT athletics, and we owe our national title spot to two things: an undefeated season and our membership in the Big XII. Further, UT is a dominant force within the conference.
The only issue that the Big XII currently has is a terrible TV deal. Guess what? That glaring weakness is also a great opportunity. If we negotiate a deal with a major cable provider, we get lots of dollars because we have an awesome brand, great markets, and the precedent for a big payday is there. If we don't that may be even better. Television as we understand it is changing. It's a data stream, and it doesn't care how it comes to your house. If the Big XII retains rights to that data stream (as opposed to signing them away), the Big XII gets the ad revenue. Distribution costs for video streams are falling radically and the remaining costs are largely born by consumers paying their ISPs. In 5 years, we may be very glad that we are not half way through a TV deal that puts half of what independent advertising could've done.
January 7th, 2010. No Mercy.
Post Extras:
|
XOVER
5000+ posts
01/04/10 11:53 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
2 big reasons, Maduro:
#1) Money.
#2) Academics.
There's a helluva lot more of both in places other than the B12. And them's the cold, hard facts.
BTW, if geography were so important, we'd never have broken up the SWC. Couldn't ask for better geography than the old SWC.
And why did Arkansas leave again? $$$.
Post Extras:
|
Shark4
1000+ posts
01/05/10 12:00 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Endust] |
| |
In reply to:
with regard to travel for non-revenue sports, i wonder if increased revenue from the Big 10's tv contract would offset that?
With TV revenue for Texas jumping from $12 million to probably $30 million, and all other B10 schools jumping from $22 million to $30 million, I think they could afford to fly the baseball team to Columbus...first class. Hell, everyone could buy thier own 767
\/\/\/\/
Shark4
/\/\/\/\
Post Extras:
|
RUSTIFER44
100+ posts
01/05/10 12:10 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Why don't we just get rid of KSU, ISU, Mizzou, and add PSU, UM, OSU. Since we are all just speaking hypotheticly no reason we shouldn't dream big.
South stays the same.
North
NU,Colorado, KU, UM, PSU, OSU
Never hurts to dream.
But as the saying goes... If it's not broken don't fix it
 Beat Alabama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post Extras:
|
orangecat
1000+ posts
01/05/10 12:29 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
#1.I like XOVER's point about the B10 asking Texas to choose which school will go first, us or MO. I think the money difference is so huge, I think we would have to give this serious consideration.
#2. Regarding travel, I think we should negotiate a deal in which most of the non-revenue sports participate in a different conference, or be independent. Football, Basketball, Baseball go to Big10.
Women's Volleyball and Basketball go Big10. I think these are the most visible sports, even though some of these don't provide revenue, they would enhance the reputation of the B10. (example, just look at the recent volleyball success, could have the top two teams in the country in the conference).
All other sports could either go independent or dominate CUSA or WAC or something, that's minor stuff, it could be worked out.
A & M is the big problem here. We would have to help Aggy with their new assignment, because of the politics. Maybe the politicos would be happy with the SEC for Aggy. Maybe we could help Aggy get in the SEC as a way to make things easier on us. Now one question is, would the SEC take Aggy without us? I think so, because Aggy could bring Houston TV sets into the SEC. This could be an opportunity to move the Aggy game to September, where I think it belongs. A rivalry game that hurts your SOS should be early in the season, so you have time to recover SOS wise.
I disagree with Longhorn Lawyer about not having enough scholarship players from Texas to fill out all of the D-1 teams. We're overflowing with D-1 athletes, and as long as our commitment to excellence remains, our recruiting would be easier, because athletes from Texas would understand that they will be on TV every week all the way from Texas to Pennsylvania. We might even cherry pick the best 5 stars from the midwest as well(a kid like Hicks would know they would be seen in their hometown every week) I actually think this would weaken competition from places like OU, because their exposure diminishes compared to ours. Do you want to play on TV 8 times a year or 13? Do you want to be able to be seen in 30% of the nations homes or 10%?
Now the other big question is who would take this ball and run with it? Agree with the website guy, this is a President type of deal, but someone has to do the nuts and bolts. I actually think this could be the greatest legacy that Deloss Dodds could leave us. Question mark, is he up for it? He's 72, I think, boy if he were ten years younger, I could see him running with this. He might do this.
Another benefit of this would be the stadium expansion. If your revenue increases approx. 15 mill a year, that means paying off the stadium quicker and being able to expand the stadium much sooner.
I really don't see much down side to this. As long as we take care of little brother, everybody benefits.
The fans that scream the loudest are sitting in the cheap seats
Post Extras:
|
OrangeChipper
2500+ posts
01/05/10 02:48 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
#1. Why would the sec take aggy? Don't they have 12 teams already? Who would they boot out to make the room? Bueller??
#2, This is all sorta premature. Big X and SEC just signed big deals. We are negotiating ours. Typically in these things the LAST deal to be done is the biggest one. Remember in baseball when EVERY YEAR the guys contract was the BIGGEST EVER? Who's to say that the Big XII's next contract isn't going to be better. Right now the contract is based on 1999 dollars. Aren't we in 2010 now?
If indeed the new big xii contract would present just as glaring of a deficit as presented here... i'd gladly jump ship and leave the rats to fend for themselves. But buyer beware... I'm more worried about OU than I am of A&M.
If OU doesn't have to play us every year.... who else will challenge them for the conference? (EVEN IF THEY DO PLAY US)
 The Best Is Yet To Come!!
Post Extras:
|
BrutustheBuckeye
25+ posts
01/05/10 04:13 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
I definitely feel it would be interesting to see this happen; however, I still and always will feel that the Big Ten will approach Missouri and go to 12 teams. Missouri makes the most logical choice...ie., they boarder both Iowa and Illinois which they have natural rivals with, they have shown interest in talking with the Big Ten, and most importantly, they bring the St. Louis and Kansas City TV markets to the Big Ten - a money thing.
That is my two cents.
Football National Championships: 1942, 1954, 1957,1968, 2002 / Basketball National Championships: 1960 / Go Bucks!!!!
Edited by BrutustheBuckeye (01/05/10 04:16 AM)
Post Extras:
|
centexorange
1000+ posts
01/05/10 07:40 AM
|
|
No... Could you imagine the cost not only to the school but to the loyal fans who would have to put out the extra cost and time to travel.
Post Extras:
|
Horn_in_Toronto
100+ posts
01/05/10 08:17 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
The overall Texas academic rankings are some what misleading. In the highly research oriented areas such as engineering and the natural sciences, Texas ranks consistently in or near the top 10 (a point I take great pride in having BS and MS engineering degrees from UT), comparable to Illinois, Michigan, and in some instances California (depending on which ranking service you read).
In business Texas is a Top 10 school, with accounting being in the top 5. Business school has a better overall ranking that all Big-10 schools other than Michigan and Northwestern.
The law and public affairs schools are top 10 - top 15 too.
What brings Texas's overall ranking down is that in the non-research focussed liberal arts programs are not as highly ranked.
So academically speaking Texas is a better fit in the Big-10 or the Pac-10 than it is in the SEC or even the Big-12 for that matter. In the Big-12 Colorado and Texas A&M are closest to Texas academically. All other schools are really far behind. Heck when I used to work for IBM, the only big-12 schools we seriously recruited from were Texas and Texas A&M. With Texas being in the top tier of schools.
So yes I can see why moving to the Big-10 might make sense for Texas both financially, and academically.
Post Extras:
|
ViperHorn
1000+ posts
01/05/10 08:23 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
In reply to:
In the Big-12 Colorado and Texas A&M are closest to Texas academically
Colorado, yes; aggy, no (quanity and volume does not equal superior academics).
MC: Willie, do you remember your first performance?
Willie: Hell, I don’t remember the one I just finished!
Post Extras:
|
HornBud
5000+ posts
01/05/10 08:25 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
In reply to:
The only issue that the Big XII currently has is a terrible TV deal. Guess what? That glaring weakness is also a great opportunity. If we negotiate a deal with a major cable provider, we get lots of dollars because we have an awesome brand, great markets, and the precedent for a big payday is there. If we don't that may be even better.
Population is a hindrance. We simply do not have close to the number of tv's as the other conferences.
Couple of things we would miss:
- Home games in Waco and Houston
- With OU and tamu to surely take up 2 of the 4 possible non-con games, we'd miss the opportunity for a variety of marquee matchups....although we aren't exactly taking advantage of that at the moment...
- On the plus side, we'd never ever have to worry about strength of schedule.
- Seeing as how away games would be much harder to attend for even the above average fan's income and time, home game tickets would become more valuable...could be offset some by adding Rice to our regular non-con schedule, or even (egads!) alternating between Rice/Houston, and maybe throw in a TCU here and there.
Before reading the article, I was firmly aghast at the notion....but the man makes some compelling arguments. It also brings up another issue, if there is going to be mass conference realignment, and Texas is the hottest commodity on the planet, is the Big X our best bet?
Post Extras:
|
LonghornsWin
500+ posts
01/05/10 08:55 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
I am convinced that long term the Big XII will not survive due to population and lower income.
If Missouri were to go, it will die very, very quickly which would force Texas's hand to either jump to the Big Televen or PAC 10. The travel to the Big Ten locations is actually easier than the travel to many of the Big 12 spots, especially in the North.
Hell, Texas could ask the Big 10 for three 767's to be thrown into the deal and I think they would be happy to accommodate.
This conference would immediately dominate the football world.
"Coming into the year quarterback was a question mark for us," said defensive tackle Frank Okam of Lake Highlands. "Now it's an exclamation point."
Post Extras:
|
Orangeblood90
1000+ posts
01/05/10 09:11 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
I laugh at the people who keep throwing the idea around of the extra $10-$20 million/year could more than pay for a 767, or like the preceding post saying the Big 10 could throw in 3 767's for Texas. People a 767 is a roughly $120-$170 million dollar airplane that's huge chunk of the enitre Big 10's annual tv contract.
Put the hyperbole aside, planes will not be thrown around in any conference negotiation not even a gulfstream which runs about $30-$45 million. Carry on.
Post Extras:
|
BevoNation
250+ posts
01/05/10 09:16 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
I'm not convinced that this is the best route possible. I'm assuming we would keep OU and Aggy as OOC games because without that I think it would be immensely difficult to get buy-in on this. Assuming we do that, we would have a pretty tough OOC game every year and a moderately mediocre team in addition to the fairly difficult (and improving) Big Televen conference. I just think that makes our OOC schedule a little more bland than it would be otherwise. Plus, I think it makes it quite a bit more difficult than need be.
Maybe if we had divisions similar to the NFL and OOC games didn't count for anything, just bragging rights, we could preserve our rivalries while still being in a tough conference. Just thinking out loud here.
Not to mention that I don't mind being able to make some of the away games every now and then (Waco, College Station and Lubbock). Now, if I had a little deeper pockets it might be fun to see some of that northeastern scenery since it's so pretty and I've got some family out there. But as it stands, I'm not sure I'd be able to go to many away games... which saddens me to an extent.
I'm also not convinced this helps recruiting. Yes, we would get much more visibility into the Big Televen markets and the athletes they have to offer; but from what I've read, Mack's philosophy is to recruit players that want to play for Texas. The kind of kids who either have ties to Texas or grew up on Texas, and I'm guessing that the majority of these types of kids are going to come from this State. (I don't want to spur a debate on Mack's philosophy, so far, what he's done is working.) To me, that suggests that the more exposure we get in the state of Texas the better, so all of those away games in Texas (CS, Lubbock, Waco, etc.) help strengthen Mack's recruiting philosophy and I'm just hard pressed to see how moving to the Big Televen would help that.
Post Extras:
|
Shark4
1000+ posts
01/05/10 09:30 AM
|
|
In reply to:
I laugh at the people who keep throwing the idea around of the extra $10-$20 million/year could more than pay for a 767
OB90, I'm the one who first used the 767 line. It was a joke. I should have used a  but I didn't think it was necessary...oops
\/\/\/\/
Shark4
/\/\/\/\
Post Extras:
|
HuskerNKingwood
10,000+ posts
01/05/10 09:47 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Missouri makes the most logical choice...ie., they boarder both Iowa and Illinois which they have natural rivals with, they have shown interest in talking with the Big Ten, and most importantly, they bring the St. Louis and Kansas City TV markets to the Big Ten - a money thing.
Take this from a Husker fan's perspective, Mizzou would want to do it. They feel they've been screwed in the bowl pecking order two of the last three years and they feel the Big Dozen doesn't give a damn about them one way or the other. Plus I think they'd see it as a chance to improve their academic image within the CIC. The question is would they want to give up the KU game. MU/KU has been a staple for Mizzou fans for years and I'm not so sure they'd want to give up being in the same conference with KU.
MizzouRah on HuskerPedia suggested that NU, KU, MU all move to the Big X at once, making it a 14 team conference. I'm strongly opposed to this because I never want to see NU in the Big X for as long as I live.
HNK-Husker Born, Texas Raised
1970 1971 1994 1995 1997
It's all about the game and how you play it
Post Extras:
|
Wild Bill
2500+ posts
01/05/10 09:57 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Interesting, but no..........
Because of away game travel.....
Good argument, though....
I like keeping the B12 and our rivalries with A&M & the RRS.....
Hook 'Em and beat the hell out of 'bama!
Post Extras:
|
BevoNation
250+ posts
01/05/10 10:01 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
In reply to:
MizzouRah on HuskerPedia suggested that NU, KU, MU all move to the Big X at once, making it a 14 team conference. I'm strongly opposed to this because I never want to see NU in the Big X for as long as I live.
Not to mention that the Big Tefourteen doesn't have the same ring to it as the Big Tewelven.
Post Extras:
|
Dr.Spot
25+ posts
01/05/10 10:06 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
In reply to:
I have always heard that the negative of the B10 is that many schools do not field a baseball team
The only Big Ten school not to field a baseball team is Wisconsin. The Big 12 has 2 Iowa State & Colorado. Both schools have 10 teams that play baseball.
The Big 10 network also shows the ENTIRE Big Ten baseball tournament. The Big 10 network also picks 1 or 2 series for the weekend & shows the Friday, Sat, & Sunday games.
I have not seen that kind of coverage since HSN had the SWC.
Post Extras:
|
coolhorn
2500+ posts
01/05/10 10:13 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Here's the deal from a UT viewpoint. Forget the "good guy" "bad guy" analogy, but UT needs to be proactive in finding a new conference affiliation, and promptly.
The Big XII has only a slightly better shelf life than a carton of milk. If Mizzou, or Colorado leaves, the conference loses relevancy in its' tv markets, and there is NO viable replacement for either the Denver or St. Louis markets close enough for Big XII consideration. One of those two schools almost certainly will be gone in five years or so.
The Big 10 has had a serious interest in adding UT for several years. So has the PAC 10. UT brings a lot to the table for either of those conferences, so if, through back channel conversation, we let them know that we're interested in leaving the Big XII, UT will instantly become target number one.
UT cannot be concerned with what our departure would do to the Big XII. UT also gains nothing by playing the waiting game in this. UT has little in common with the rest of the Big XII, and is generally resented by most of the rest of the conference anyway. I see little or no reason to stay in the Big XII.
Someone is going to bring up the economics of having to travel further for conference games, but that's basically a non-issue because of modern air travel. It's not particularly harder, or more costly, to get to the west coast, or the midwest, than it is to get to some of the outposts in the Big XII.
The only two real rivalries we have in the Big XII, aggy and okie, could be maintained as OOC games. Let the rest of the Big XII fend for themselves.
We're in a unique and desireable position right now, having two stable and profitable conferences extremely interested in UT. About the only way we mess this up is by doing nothing, waiting too long, to consider options other than the Big XII.
"I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead." (The gospel according to Jimmy Buffett)
Post Extras:
|
dthree36
100+ posts
01/05/10 10:28 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Well, if this were to happen, it would be all about the money. that would be one hell of a season to travel clear across the northern part of the country to play a game. Not to mention attending a game for the average fan.
Post Extras:
|
Dr.Spot
25+ posts
01/05/10 10:51 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
In reply to:
No... Could you imagine the cost not only to the school but to the loyal fans who would have to put out the extra cost and time to travel
Louisiana Tech can pay for its 16 varsity sports to fly to Boise, Fresno, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, San Jose, Utah.
Why can't Texas pay for its 18 varsity sports to fly to Chicago, Indy, Detroit, Minny, Philly, Columbus?
If we joined the Big Ten we would be at the bottom of the league for varsity sports. Ohio State 39, Michigan 24, Iowa, 24,Indiana 24,Wisconsin 23, Minny 23, Michigan State 23, Illini 21, Penn State 21, Northwestern 19, TEXAS 18,Purdue 18.
With the extra Big Ten tv network money would be a great opp to add a couple new sports. Mens soccer, wrestling, volleyball & womens gymnastics, lacrosse are some I would like to see for our future Longhorns.
Post Extras:
|
MTF
1000+ posts
01/05/10 10:59 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Join the Big 10, dump aggy, and make OU a yearly out-of-conference game. Add a few yearly OOC patsies. Done.
Post Extras:
|
OrangeChipper
2500+ posts
01/05/10 11:03 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
OU every year.
Home and home with former Big XII south foes... rotate between Tech/Aggy/Baylor/Okie LIte.
Home game against Rice/TCU/North Texas/SMU every year
Home game against Patsy State every year.
The Best Is Yet To Come!!
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ posts
01/05/10 11:15 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Travel IMO is an overrated issue here. Which is easier - jump on a plane and get to Ames Iowa or Manhatten Kansas, or jump on a plane to Columbus Ohio or Wherevertheyplay, Minnesota? Maybe an extra hour or so in the air and that's all.
Weather is overrated. We've won in Nebraska, Kansas and Iowa in the snow, wind and rain. We'd just have to do it a couple more times under this schedule.
Fan travel is overrated. Sorry guys, but if the money's there, UT would make the deal and the fans will just have to adjust to it.
To me, here are the issues:
TV markets: our deal sucks and we all know it. We can either go to the Big 10 and jump into a great deal, or we can work with the Pac 10 on a new super-conference arrangement and create a TV deal that would blow everyone out of the water.
Trends toward bigger conferences: this is not going away. The big conferences are going to expand, and of the BCS conferences the Big XII and Big East will be the ones targeted. Nobody's leaving the Big 10, Pac 10, SEC or ACC. The only option for those two conferences is to raid the Mountain West, WAC and CUSA - and those schools are in smaller conferences for a reason - their ability to compete on the field is irrelevant. It's whether people care about watching them on TV.
Something needs to happen. The problem with the Big 10 is that I think Texas going to a league without any other Texas schools is a disadvantage. It hurts recruiting a little that we're not playing as many games in state, and frankly it just makes life more difficult. We're better served in the long run setting a deal where the Pac 10 expands and takes Texas, A&M and Tech, and maybe raids TCU from the Mountain West to form a north and south division. The Big 10 won't do that, they'd rather expand east I think, so if we go to the Big 10 we probably go alone.
I vote we get the Pac 10 on the phone Friday morning and start talking about it. The Big 10 thing is a good idea, but I don't think it's our best option long-term.
"Bye weeks are for losers! Bronco Nagursky didn't get no bye weeks! And now he's dead!! ... OK, maybe they're a good thing."
- Moe Szyzlac
Post Extras:
|
MTF
1000+ posts
01/05/10 11:23 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
What is the max size that a conference can realistically get? Would the Pac 10 have to kick out a couple of schools to combine forces with the Texas schools?
Post Extras:
|
Das Mook
250+ posts
01/05/10 11:26 AM
|
|
If / when the conference realignments start happening, how would you like to be in OU's position? They do have a great brand but with little TV sets in the state and their less-than-stellar reputation for playing by the rules, it will be interesting to see where they end up.
They would fit with Aggy in the SEC, but would the SEC expand by 2 teams? I doubt it.
Post Extras:
|
HuskerNKingwood
10,000+ posts
01/05/10 11:28 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: MTF] |
| |
In reply to:
What is the max size that a conference can realistically get? Would the Pac 10 have to kick out a couple of schools to combine forces with the Texas schools?
I can see the Pac-10 kicking out Arizona and Arizona State. Neither school has been in the Pac-10 very long, in fact Arizona has only been in the Pac-10 since 1978 and is the ONLY Pac-10 school to have NEVER been to the Rose Bowl.
if they were to raid the TX schools those are the two they'd probably kick out.
HNK-Husker Born, Texas Raised
1970 1971 1994 1995 1997
It's all about the game and how you play it
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ posts
01/05/10 11:34 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
I think you could get as big as 16 teams and be workable - frankly you could probably go 18 if you wanted to.
North Division:
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
Cal-Berkley
USC
UCLA
South Division
Arizona
Arizona State
Texas
TCU
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Baylor
?????
OU goes back to a non-conference matchup, still have three more non-conference slots to fill. Pac 10 picks up a championship game that doesn't have to endure those painful re-matches!
How great would that be to have Texas in the south, USC in the north building up toward that inevitable championship matchup. (Well, not inevitable, at least not this year... )
"Bye weeks are for losers! Bronco Nagursky didn't get no bye weeks! And now he's dead!! ... OK, maybe they're a good thing."
- Moe Szyzlac
Post Extras:
|
LonghornsWin
500+ posts
01/05/10 11:48 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Please re-read coolhorn's summary.
The travel issues are non-issues for the reasons stated. I was exaggerating about the 767, but only partly. With the extra money we could buy smaller aircraft to take our squads to the northern areas and they do not have to be new. (Also, you can buy into a cost sharing company). Guys, you are being a bit narrow-sighted in this IMO.
This is a very real economic issue. I do not want to see Texas on the inside looking out. Better to be pro-active now.
I agree that OU could be in a bad position as this rolls forward. Not sure that is a bad thing.
"Coming into the year quarterback was a question mark for us," said defensive tackle Frank Okam of Lake Highlands. "Now it's an exclamation point."
Post Extras:
|
Rex Kramer
2500+ posts
01/05/10 11:53 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
I like the above scenario, but I'd call them east & west divisions.
We fit more culturally with the Pac-10 than the Big 10. Travel costs are completely inconsequential, and geography (kinda goes hand in hand with travel costs) are of secondary import. I don't know why fans don't see that. The above poster who highlights La Tech's travel schedule is right on.
Post Extras:
|
WashU-Horn
500+ posts
01/05/10 12:03 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
TCU = [censored]. [censored] doesn't belong in any major conference. Aside from an average football program with [censored] facilities, what exactly does TCU offer? Nothing. Places like SMU and TCU will always have severe limitations. They need a name and an image change along with a serious $$$ commitment across the board.
Post Extras:
|
OrangeChipper
2500+ posts
01/05/10 12:07 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Pac-10 yuck. No one has addressed this... but what the heck happens to Tech/Nebraska/OU if Texas goes to the pac-10 or the Big x?
Do they go back to the big 8? Do they try and get Utah/BYU and try to keep the BIG XII going? What happens to the other dominoes that will surely start falling?
The Best Is Yet To Come!!
Post Extras:
|
MTF
1000+ posts
01/05/10 12:10 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
What about:
West Division:
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
Cal-Berkley
USC
UCLA
East Division
Kansas
Nebraska
Missouri
OU
OSU
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Too tough?
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ posts
01/05/10 12:13 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
BTW I cannot overstress how much I like a large conference where the two divisions do not play each other until the championship. It settles schedule inequities within the divisions, it removes the prospect of a rematch - which frankly to me has always been a stupid thing. You beat a team once already, why do you have to beat them again to win a championship, and if you lose, the team that split with you goes to the BCS? I hate that situation.
"Bye weeks are for losers! Bronco Nagursky didn't get no bye weeks! And now he's dead!! ... OK, maybe they're a good thing."
- Moe Szyzlac
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ posts
01/05/10 12:16 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
MTF maybe a little too tough - definitely an inbalance I think. But in addition, I just don't see the Pac 10 booting anyone anyone to make room. If it happens it would be the current 10 plus whoever.
As for TCU... well who else do you want to add? OU and OSU? Maybe, I don't know that they seem a good fit for the Pac 10, but maybe they are. Raid the Mountain West? Add Houston? SMU? Rice? To fill out the second division, you have to add someone, and unless you're going to put in a Nebraska or someone like that, TCU adds as much as anyone would.
"Bye weeks are for losers! Bronco Nagursky didn't get no bye weeks! And now he's dead!! ... OK, maybe they're a good thing."
- Moe Szyzlac
Post Extras:
|
HornBud
5000+ posts
01/05/10 12:17 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
In reply to:
I laugh at the people who keep throwing the idea around of the extra $10-$20 million/year could more than pay for a 767
Look at it over the next 15 - 20 years.....it starts to make sense. Assuming no increase in the tv contracts (which is outlandish to say the least considering the overall market that would be created), an extra 10mil/year over 15 years is 150mil.
Either way, it's not like we fly Hook'em Air as it is, and I don't see it happening in the future.
Post Extras:
|
HuskerNKingwood
10,000+ posts
01/05/10 12:23 PM
|
|
In reply to:
BTW I cannot overstress how much I like a large conference where the two divisions do not play each other until the championship. It settles schedule inequities within the divisions, it removes the prospect of a rematch - which frankly to me has always been a stupid thing. You beat a team once already, why do you have to beat them again to win a championship, and if you lose, the team that split with you goes to the BCS? I hate that situation.
That's actually not a bad thought.
I will say if Nebraska were to leave for the Big X at some point (and I don't think it will ever happen) the ONE good thing about it is we could play OU again every year out of conference. I've wanted that game back for awhile and would love to see it happen at some point
HNK-Husker Born, Texas Raised
1970 1971 1994 1995 1997
It's all about the game and how you play it
Post Extras:
|
accuratehorn
5000+ posts
01/05/10 12:32 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Aye.
Fan travel will become less the norm, since big schools limit the number of tickets for visitors, so the other schools apply the same limits.
That won't be a consideration when the breakup occurs, however, just $$$$$. TV sets, compatibility and acceptablitiy for the university presidents and politicians of the state involved will rule the choice.
I was all for the Pac X or Big X to begin with. I know I would see less games away, but one out of town trip per year would be to a better city than any of the ones we now visit. You ever ask your wife if she wants to go to Manhattan non-New York, but Kansas? Better be wearing a flak jacket.
Really, the Big XII has always had an uneasy alliance feel to it, and it may well fall apart in a few years. UT needs to be on good terms with potential suitors for our conference affiliation at that time.
I think it would be cool to play Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State on a regular basis. Times change, and this is a big money business. UT may move on to get more dollars elsewhere. Other conferences would love to get the Horns to join.
Knowledge is good
Post Extras:
|
SitraAchra
100+ posts
01/05/10 12:34 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
What about the standpoint of recruiting?
Would Texas have more to gain from getting a strong foothold in the Ohio/Midwest area, and maintain our dominance in Texas?
Or would we be opening the floodgates for the Big 10 schools to cherrypick some of our recruits?
I would think that Texas is and will always be the brand name for Texas HS kids and we would only gain further recruiting strongholds in Ohio if we joined the Big 10.
EDIT: Looks like Orangecat and BevoNation addressed some recruiting stuff earlier.
Edited by SitraAchra (01/05/10 12:46 PM)
Post Extras:
|
LazyEngineer
2500+ posts
01/05/10 12:54 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
From a fan's perspective, the best thing for the conference would be to remove the weakest 2 teams and go to a 10 member conference. I would prefer to get rid of Iowa State and probably K-State. Then you would have 10 teams that could play each other every year in football. I would love to get to play Colorado, Nebraska, and Mizzou EVERY year.
Post Extras:
|
HuskerNKingwood
10,000+ posts
01/05/10 01:00 PM
|
|
In reply to:
I would love to get to play Colorado, Nebraska, and Mizzou EVERY year.
And we'd have the yearly OU game back. Everybody wins.
HNK-Husker Born, Texas Raised
1970 1971 1994 1995 1997
It's all about the game and how you play it
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ posts
01/05/10 01:25 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
To reitterate, there is no way a conference will ever drop anyone. Even if they wanted to, could you imagine the legal battle? The Big XII would get sued from here to Mars if they tried to drop anyone.
"Bye weeks are for losers! Bronco Nagursky didn't get no bye weeks! And now he's dead!! ... OK, maybe they're a good thing."
- Moe Szyzlac
Post Extras:
|
coolhorn
2500+ posts
01/05/10 01:41 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
A few more thoughts on moving to another conference...
Twelve is the maximum number of teams without diluting the product and splitting up the money too much. Neither the PAC 10 nor the Big 10 will increase to more than 12 teams. If UT were to join the Big 10, we'll go alone. No way aggy tags along into the Big 10.
If we head out west, UT and Colorado will join the PAC 10 as a double entry. That deal could get done next week if both schools agree to make the jump.
Regarding UT being concerned with what happens with okie, Tech, and the rest of the Big XII...why? Since when do any of these schools side with UT on anything? There is a huge resentment of UT on the part of just about the rest of the Big XII...they think they'd be so much better off without us?...I'm for letting them find out for themselves if that's true.
Regarding the comment about "doing it for the money"...
It's always about the money. UT didn't get to our current position because of our school colors, or how nice a man Mack Brown is, or because everybody wants a road trip to Austin. (Well, maybe that last one's true!) UT is a perfect example of the golden rule...those who have the gold, rule. UT's the largest and wealthiest school in the Big XII, strong academically and athletically, and lacks nothing in facilities or reputation. The Big 10 would be foolish not to target us for expansion, and so would the PAC 10. The leadership of both of those conferences is NOT foolish.
If the Horns take advantage of our positioning, and move to either the PAC 10 or Big 10, UT will be set for the foreseeable future. Both of those conferences are much more stable, and profitable...and also, neither conference seems to be into the petty rivalries that plague the Big XII. It's a win-win situation for UT and either the Big 10 or PAC 10. It's also a priority for UT to actively pursue a move to either conference asap. We only lose if we wait.
One last thought...UT might run into some opposition from our aggy-inclined governor if we seriously target a move, but when push comes to shove, if UT wants to make the move to either conference, there is enough support in the legislature to keep governor good hair from blocking the move...no one's ever confused him with Bob Bullock.
Whether UT acts soon or not, the Big XII is going to lose one or more teams in the next half decade or so. To those who don't want us to pursue a move, there are only two options. We can be affiliated with a much more stable and profitable Big 10 or PAC 10...or, we can be the biggest and wealthiest school in a watered-down and relatively insignificant Big XII. There's no door number three. THAT's why changing our conference affiliation needs to be priority number one.
"I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead." (The gospel according to Jimmy Buffett)
Edited by coolhorn (01/05/10 01:50 PM)
Post Extras:
|
texas_ex2000
1000+ posts
01/05/10 01:58 PM
|
|
In reply to:
What brings Texas's overall ranking down is that in the non-research focussed liberal arts programs are not as highly ranked.
Riiiiight..."Texas's" lowly non-research "focussed" liberal arts programs like English/MFA, Latin American Studies, Psychology, and freaking Plan II. Yeah, these crappy non-research "focussed" liberal arts programs really hurt our reputation.
Post Extras:
|
UTFAN4EVER
1000+ posts
01/05/10 02:18 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Nothing like November games in Ohio! 
What do each of these have in common? A baby, a Hoover vacuum, disco music, Detroit Lions, OU?
Post Extras:
|
Dr.Spot
25+ posts
01/05/10 02:47 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
In reply to:
Nothing like November games in Ohio!
We beat Nebraska in snow a couple years ago & that was a awesome setting. They can bring the November snow & we will bring the September heat!
Post Extras:
|
Vote For Pedro
500+ posts
01/05/10 02:51 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
In reply to:
Twelve is the maximum number of teams without diluting the product and splitting up the money too much.
coolhorn is one of the posters on here who seems to get it in all aspects as far as all of this conference realignment talk goes. As per his quote above, the discussion of 14, 16, and 18 team superconferences looks great on paper but it simply is not going to happen. Too many schools with overlapping media markets having to share more of the financial pie with other schools. 12 has proven to be the ideal number. Just enough to have divisions and a championship game without having too many hands reaching for money and also without scheduling difficulties.
I don't understand having two huge divisions and then saying that you don't play anyone from the other division unless they get to a championship game. Why have them in the same conference? What's the point?
Post Extras:
|
Texas Wahoo
1000+ posts
01/05/10 02:55 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
In reply to:
To reitterate, there is no way a conference will ever drop anyone. Even if they wanted to, could you imagine the legal battle? The Big XII would get sued from here to Mars if they tried to drop anyone.
Temple would like a word with you...
Post Extras:
|
Wild Bill
2500+ posts
01/05/10 03:20 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
If it comes down to 'nut cuttin' time', and we need to make a move or be left behind, I think we fit in better with the PAC 10 than the Big 10/11. The only downside would be those late start times that keep half the country from watching the games.
Post Extras:
|
Vote For Pedro
500+ posts
01/05/10 03:23 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
In reply to:
Temple would like a word with you...
I may be wrong but I seem to recall that Temple was dropped from the Big East because they were consistently not meeting certain minimum criteria in terms of attendance, facilities upgrades, and fielding teams in enough sports, and maybe some other things.
While your point is well taken that it is possible to drop a team from a conference, I think it would have to be in a situation where they did not meet minimum league criteria in certain areas over a period of time, and with warning that they were in danger of being dropped, before they could be kicked out. I don't think it's something that could happen quickly enough to clear someone out in order to add another team.
Post Extras:
|
john_h
500+ posts
01/05/10 03:34 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
on a lighter note, if we left aggy behind, "texas fight" would take on a whole new meaning....
Texas Fight, Texas Fight
And it's goodby to A&M!
aggy would be even more pissed than ever! for that reason alone, i like entertaining this idea
Post Extras:
|
Shark4
1000+ posts
01/05/10 03:49 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Wild Bill] |
| |
In reply to:
If it comes down to 'nut cuttin' time', and we need to make a move or be left behind, I think we fit in better with the PAC 10 than the Big 10/11. The only downside would be those late start times that keep half the country from watching the games.
Yeah, late start times...and tens of millions of $$/yr. The Pac 10 TV package sucks and will stay that way simply because there are not the TV homes of the East and Midwest.
\/\/\/\/
Shark4
/\/\/\/\
Post Extras:
|
Shark4
1000+ posts
01/05/10 03:51 PM
|
|
In reply to:
Nothing like November games in Ohio!
I guarantee that Mack would come up with a hell of a running game.
\/\/\/\/
Shark4
/\/\/\/\
Post Extras:
|
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ posts
01/05/10 03:54 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
In reply to:
I don't understand having two huge divisions and then saying that you don't play anyone from the other division unless they get to a championship game. Why have them in the same conference? What's the point?
You don't form a conference for the purpose of scheduling. You do it to pool resources in the most effective way possible and to draw otherwise disinterested parties to the television set.
As to the diminishing returns argument, I would imagine that a super conference could demand substantially more money and thus raise the ceiling on how much each school would get. Maybe not, haven't put the numbers to it.
As for not playing teams from the other division. It would in itself raise interest in the conference championship game. In almost every case, the Big XII title game has been a colossal waste of time serving only to provide the top team to stumble against a team they already beat. The most compelling thing about this year's game was that the two teams hadn't met and there was an element of newness about the game.
The last two Texas-Colorado match-ups come to mind in this case. One made the conference look horrible, the other... well the other made the conference look horrible for a different reason.
"Bye weeks are for losers! Bronco Nagursky didn't get no bye weeks! And now he's dead!! ... OK, maybe they're a good thing."
- Moe Szyzlac
Post Extras:
|
Vote For Pedro
500+ posts
01/05/10 04:29 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
In reply to:
You don't form a conference for the purpose of scheduling. You do it to pool resources in the most effective way possible and to draw otherwise disinterested parties to the television set.
As to the diminishing returns argument, I would imagine that a super conference could demand substantially more money and thus raise the ceiling on how much each school would get. Maybe not, haven't put the numbers to it.
The problem is all the examples I see for 14 and 16 team superconferences start adding extra teams that overlap media markets and thus start putting you in a situation of having more conference mouths to feed but not a proportional amount of revenue being brought in by those extra teams. Case in point the example above have Texas, A&M and Tech. Certainly by the time you get to Tech they are going to be taking a lot more than they are bringing in financially when Texas and A&M pretty well have Texas covered. Same with OSU overlapping OU. Kansas may have a great basketball team but they don't bring enough TVs.
And what did you gain by adding teams like Tech, OSU, and Kansas in order to bump up the number of teams? You gained having marquee programs like Texas and USC that would play each other two times during the regular season every 16 years (one home, one away). That's right, USC would come to Austin once every 16 years. And that's assuming you play the other division at all and some suggestions were that you don't play them. So the TV networks are going to look at that and say UT and USC may be in the same conference but I'll virtually never get that matchup and will instead be getting more of Texas vs. Tech which we already give them or USC vs. WASU which they already get. Not a big incentive for the networks to shell out big money.
Post Extras:
|
Statalyzer
25,000+ posts
01/05/10 04:42 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
In reply to:
To fill out the second division, you have to add someone, and unless you're going to put in a Nebraska or someone like that, TCU adds as much as anyone would.
TCU adds less than BYU, Utah, or even New Mexico would.
"You were once a professor of psychiatry specializing in helping paranoid and homicidal lunatics suffering from delusions of grandeur."
"Yes, but now I work for the United Nations."
"So your work has not changed?"
Post Extras:
|
WashU-Horn
500+ posts
01/05/10 04:51 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Again, TCU effing sucks and adds NOTHING. My high school adds more than TCU. TCU and SMU are worthless. This cannot be exagerated. Lets go over it again. TCU and SMU... ARE... WORTHLESS. I am sorry if you happen to have a degree from these poopholes but that doesn't alter the fact that they are...? You guessed it, WORTHLESS!
Post Extras:
|
Bob in Houston
5000+ posts
01/05/10 05:14 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
In reply to:
If we head out west, UT and Colorado will join the PAC 10 as a double entry.
I think the odds are better that if Texas goes west, A&M goes with them. Easier travel for the rest of the league.
Post Extras:
|
coolhorn
2500+ posts
01/05/10 06:55 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
I wouldn't disagree Bob, but the PAC isn't crazy about adding aggy, and last I heard, ag officials are still real interested in SEC membership. Colorado, on the other hand, was going to the PAC with us fifteen years ago, is a good fit with the PAC locationwise, and has long-standing recruiting ties with the west coast. I think if we head west, the Buffs will be the ones headed that way with us. I could see a PAC division of us, Colorado, USC, UCLA, and the Arizona schools...NOT a bad division!
"I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead." (The gospel according to Jimmy Buffett)
Edited by coolhorn (01/05/10 06:57 PM)
Post Extras:
|
Vote For Pedro
500+ posts
01/05/10 07:24 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
In reply to:
I wouldn't disagree Bob, but the PAC isn't crazy about adding aggy, and last I heard, ag officials are still real interested in SEC membership. Colorado, on the other hand, was going to the PAC with us fifteen years ago, is a good fit with the PAC locationwise, and has long-standing recruiting ties with the west coast. I think if we head west, the Buffs will be the ones headed that way with us. I could see a PAC division of us, Colorado, USC, UCLA, and the Arizona schools...NOT a bad division!
coolhorn - I think you're pretty much dead on, but your last point is one I've struggled to get a feeling for. The divisional alignment of a PAC-10 with those members would make sense from a geographic standpoint, but would be WAY unbalanced competitively. I know those kind of things can go in cycles and might not always be so unbalanced, but you'd have to think most of the time it would be. What I wouldn't want to see is another situation with USC like we've had in the Big 12 the last few years where us and OU have played a NC elimination game before even getting to the CCG and then having a subpar opponent from the other division.
Maybe a divisional alignment that's not entirely geographic would make sense like the ACC. Perhaps instead of USC and UCLA in our division we'd have Cal and Stanford.
This is really the only aspect of going to the PAC-10 that concerns me, but in general it seems you and I have pretty similar views on this whole business.
Post Extras:
|
LonghornsWin
500+ posts
01/05/10 09:11 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
If we went Pac Ten, I would expect a East West division with USC and UCLA in the West, Texas, ASU, AU, Colorado, and two more in the East.
I still prefer the Big Televen due to time zones and history.
"Coming into the year quarterback was a question mark for us," said defensive tackle Frank Okam of Lake Highlands. "Now it's an exclamation point."
Post Extras:
|
4th&5
2500+ posts
01/05/10 09:50 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Not just nay, but HELL NAY!
"When you lose the ball in the sun, try and catch the sun."
---Lynn Swann - commenting on Quan's TD vs. Ok St. in 2008
Post Extras:
|
MaduroUTMB
5000+ posts
01/05/10 10:39 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
The academics argument seems outrightly silly to me. The Big X has Michigan, Northwestern, Penn St. and tOSU. We have UT, Colorado, A&M, Mizzou, Baylor and NU. The academic talent in the Big XII is more spread out, but it's a quality conference. We stand up well to everyone but the Ivy League. At the same time, UT won the academics battle when the Big XII was founded, which meant that Nebraska never got to admit the legally retarded to play football.
The viewship angle is strong on its surface, but it doesn't hold up well under scrutiny. UT has either a large national following or a small regional presence. If you look at only the immediate geographical area, UT doesn't provide much to a conference looking for an addition. However, we can see how that is foolish because the TV draw for UT athletics is currently much stronger than that. If we take a national view of a university's television draw, we must consider conferences in the same light. From that angle the Big XII is quite strong because it fields national contenders at a rate matched only by the SEC and previously by the ACC. If geography were the mainstay of television draw, the Ivy League and the Big East would duke it out every year for the largest TV contract, but I'm not holding my breath.
January 7th, 2010. No Mercy.
Post Extras:
|
jdelatorre
250+ posts
01/06/10 01:33 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Prodigal I am glad to see someone else mention the idea of large conferences where the divisions don't play until the CCG. Realistically you could combine to conferences that operate with some independence except for the divisional alignment for football. Round robin play within the division will give you a division championship that means something. The CCG would be a basically a first round playoff game. Even a 20 team conference would not be unreasonable ( if the money was really there) and if this model was used for other conferences the season would still be meaningful and plus one woul give you a real NCG.
Post Extras:
|
TaylorTRoom
2500+ posts
01/06/10 05:28 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
For those who say that geographic issues would prevent Texas from joining a better conference, ask yourself this...did TCU hesitate to leave C-USA for the MW? And if the Big East asked TCU to join (as an extreme example of geographic stretch), would they think twice before saying yes?
Geography issues are over-rated in this discussion.
Post Extras:
|
buckhorn97
< 25 posts
01/06/10 06:52 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
No way. I've been a religious Horn fan living in the Midwest (Columbus, OH) now for 10 years. I am very accustomed to Big 11 football and the culture. Texas would in no way shape or form fit in, nor should want to. The fan base is completely different in every way. It's a bad idea and I hope to god it never happens.
Post Extras:
|
coolhorn
2500+ posts
01/06/10 07:44 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
If it makes you feel any better Buck, I place the odds at two to one that we move west, rather than upper midwest. That's been a work in progress much longer. That being said, if the Big 10 wants to talk to us, I'm pretty sure Dodds will buy the coffee.
One more time, to the arguments that UT should stay put in the Big XII...
The Big XII is going to lose one or more members in the next five years or so. It's going to lose significant tv markets from an already shaky tv market situation, and there's nothing out there to replace the lost market(s). If UT chooses to wait it out, instead of making a move, we will find ourselves in approximately the same situation we were in with a decaying SWC. UT's an attractive expansion target for two stable and profitable conferences, and needs to take advantage of that.
"I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead." (The gospel according to Jimmy Buffett)
Edited by coolhorn (01/06/10 07:50 AM)
Post Extras:
|
hornsworkz
1000+ posts
01/06/10 09:12 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
We're Texas
Post Extras:
|
WashU-Horn
500+ posts
01/06/10 09:58 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Does the Texas legislature have to approve any conference switch by us?
Post Extras:
|
Eichmare
100+ posts
01/06/10 10:50 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
And can we finally kick aggie off the gravy train? Please, please? It's time for their delusion to die. Pull the leach off and throw it back in the pond.
Post Extras:
|
coolhorn
2500+ posts
01/07/10 08:14 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
Technically, the leg does not have to approve for UT to change conferences. I suppose the threat of holding back on the PUF funding could be dusted off, but the landscape is different now, compared to fifteen years ago. Bob Bullock's left the building. We are NOT joined at the hip with agricultural, but I think it would be in UT's interest to continue to play them, non-conference.
Bottom line...there might be some squaking if UT decides to change neighborhoods, but in the end, I think we'd be able to make the change without losing any funding.
"I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead." (The gospel according to Jimmy Buffett)
Post Extras:
|
Bob in Houston
5000+ posts
01/07/10 11:43 AM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
I agree with coolhorn on the funding.
Post Extras:
|
orangecat
1000+ posts
01/07/10 12:02 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
if what coolhorn is saying is true, I say go ahead and make the change, because I don't think the dollars are gonna come close in a new TV deal with the Big 12.
The fans that scream the loudest are sitting in the cheap seats
Post Extras:
|
BevoNation
250+ posts
01/08/10 12:17 PM
|
|
Re: B10 Expansion. Horn fans need to read this...
[re: Shark4] |
| |
All of a sudden this doesn't sound like such a bad idea... The complete and total lack of solidarity gets old. Having spent some time in B10 country (Purdue fans) they seem to be good at unifying their conference (obviously the exception of bitter rivals).
Post Extras:
|
Shark4
1000+ posts
01/08/10 03:23 PM
|
|
In reply to:
All of a sudden this doesn't sound like such a bad idea... The complete and total lack of solidarity gets old. Having spent some time in B10 country (Purdue fans) they seem to be good at unifying their conference (obviously the exception of bitter rivals).
Even in the case of bitter rivals, say Ohio State and scUM, the conference history means a lot. The Big Ten is 100 yrs. old. Yes, there are old hatreds but there is mutual respect, no matter how grudging. As a Buckeye, I love seeing scUM in the shitter and beating up on them every year. However, I freely admit that the Big Ten needs the real Michigan. The rivalry needs for them to be competetive. As it now stands I think the Bucks should only take, say, 15 more wins over the scUMmers before they come back
\/\/\/\/
Shark4
/\/\/\/\
Post Extras:
|
Shop the Co-op |
Email A Friend |
Contact Us
Pages in this thread: 
Rate thread
Print Thread
