What in the world is Texas thinking? Sticking with Big 12 without Nebraska/Missouri and Colorado? Join Pac-10? Start a new conference with USC/UCLA? SEC? Big Ten? How would a Longhorn network work in conjunction to other schools in Big 12 and conference tv package?

If Texas and gang stay in Big 12 where would they look for 2-3 replacement schools? Utah (if not Pac-10)?, BYU? TCU? New Mexico? Memphis? Louisville? Cincinnati? Colorado State? They could set up a potential Texas-Oklahoma championship game every year by putting them in separate divisons (but still with he annual Red River shootout game).

Unless they reformed the old SWAC, in which all of the other teams would probably just cede all money to Texas, I cannot see how Texas can really create their own sports network, and try to keep that much of the money. Ironically the disproportionate revenue sharing is what is undoing the Big XII now, and was the reason Miami left us.

Texas may feel they are entitled to keep most of the revenue, but they will almost have to share if they want to be in a stable conference. Further, I think they have more revenue stability in a midwestern conference where they can market games in all four time zones, as opposed to a western one, even with larger markets, because you can only market the games to the west coast. That is why the PAc Ten makes less money than every other BCS conference (except the Big East) even though tey cover more populated areas than the other conferences.

(05-02-2010 11:33 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Unless they reformed the old SWAC, in which all of the other teams would probably just cede all money to Texas, I cannot see how Texas can really create their own sports network, and try to keep that much of the money. Ironically the disproportionate revenue sharing is what is undoing the Big XII now, and was the reason Miami left us.

Texas may feel they are entitled to keep most of the revenue, but they will almost have to share if they want to be in a stable conference. Further, I think they have more revenue stability in a midwestern conference where they can market games in all four time zones, as opposed to a western one, even with larger markets, because you can only market the games to the west coast. That is why the PAc Ten makes less money than every other BCS conference (except the Big East) even though tey cover more populated areas than the other conferences.

Good points but I still have no idea what they're going to do. Sounds like they aren't going Big Ten, for whatever reasons. I agree with what you said about Pac-10 and they have academic concerns with SEC, not to mention they couldn't win it every year. Big 12 isn't keeping up financially and it will be worse without MIssouri/Nebraska/Colorado no matter who they add.

(05-02-2010 11:58 AM)Iamready Wrote:  Big 12 isn't keeping up financially and it will be worse without MIssouri/Nebraska/Colorado no matter who they add.

Losing Nebraska would hurt, but they can find suitable replacements for Missouri and Colorado, who are for more valuable for their market than national name brand. Plus, with the Big East presumably up in flames, there is now valuable national TV time available that needs to be filled.

(05-02-2010 12:03 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-02-2010 11:58 AM)Iamready Wrote:  Big 12 isn't keeping up financially and it will be worse without MIssouri/Nebraska/Colorado no matter who they add.

Losing Nebraska would hurt, but they can find suitable replacements for Missouri and Colorado, who are for more valuable for their market than national name brand. Plus, with the Big East presumably up in flames, there is now valuable national TV time available that needs to be filled.

UofL could end up on an island in the Big 12 unless UC comes along. Maybe Memphis also and we'll all join forces once again. I'd think BYU to replace Nebraska whether Sunday issue or not. Can't underestimate the value of the Missouri and Colorado markets in a conference that really needs markets outside of Texas.

Interesting thought on available tv time without Big East. There could be a battle between Big 12, ACC and SEC for certain schools.

Losing NU, CU and MU will kill the Big 12 North and kill the Big 12s TV contract.

I can't see the Horns staying in the Big 12. They may be king but the palace treasury is empty. The PAC 10 offers them the best deal, good academics/the west coast ivory tower persona Austin craves so much, little athletic challenge outside of USC in football, and most importantly, a chance to make a mint with a Texas/California alliance.

I think the only real question is who else may go with them. If it's only 12 then probably UT and Colorado, if 14 those two plus Utah and probably TTU (A&M and the PAC 10 may be a hard sale for both parties)

(05-02-2010 01:18 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think the only real question is who else may go with them. If it's only 12 then probably UT and Colorado, if 14 those two plus Utah and probably TTU (A&M and the PAC 10 may be a hard sale for both parties)

I cannot see TTU getting (voluntarily) invited to ANY conference over Texas A&M. aTm sells out their football stadium, has a large fan base, and has good academics (they are an AAU member). Texas Tech is in the armpit of Texas, and is not really an academic school. I don't see it.

(05-02-2010 01:28 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-02-2010 01:18 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think the only real question is who else may go with them. If it's only 12 then probably UT and Colorado, if 14 those two plus Utah and probably TTU (A&M and the PAC 10 may be a hard sale for both parties)

I cannot see TTU getting (voluntarily) invited to ANY conference over Texas A&M. aTm sells out their football stadium, has a large fan base, and has good academics (they are an AAU member). Texas Tech is in the armpit of Texas, and is not really an academic school. I don't see it.

Texas, USC and UCLA may just start their own conference and invite who they want - A&M, Texas Tech, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State - they could just pick and choose.

(05-02-2010 06:15 PM)Iamready Wrote:  Texas, USC and UCLA may just start their own conference and invite who they want - A&M, Texas Tech, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State - they could just pick and choose.

USC and UCLA are not likely to leave California nor Stanford behind. Nor Oregon or Washington (money), and those schools will not leave their in state counterparts behind either. I also don't think they will start a "new conference," and allow Texas to dictate terms the way they did when they joined the Big XII. The best way to accomplish those goals is to just make UT join your conference. From a financial perspective, the PAc 10 has no dead weight. No need to start a new conference.

That said, I still don't see Texas Tech involved unless Texas is forced to take them.

(05-02-2010 11:26 AM)Iamready Wrote:  If Texas and gang stay in Big 12 where would they look for 2-3 replacement schools?

West Virginia and Louisville. If a 3rd team is eventually needed then maybe Cincinnati. I don't think the Big 12 will look to replace programs with schools from non-BCS conferences. The possible exception could be TCU and to a lesser degree Memphis.

(05-02-2010 06:22 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-02-2010 06:15 PM)Iamready Wrote:  Texas, USC and UCLA may just start their own conference and invite who they want - A&M, Texas Tech, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State - they could just pick and choose.

USC and UCLA are not likely to leave California nor Stanford behind. Nor Oregon or Washington (money), and those schools will not leave their in state counterparts behind either. I also don't think they will start a "new conference," and allow Texas to dictate terms the way they did when they joined the Big XII. The best way to accomplish those goals is to just make UT join your conference. From a financial perspective, the PAc 10 has no dead weight. No need to start a new conference.

That said, I still don't see Texas Tech involved unless Texas is forced to take them.

Exactly- on all accounts.

I just don't see the SEC making a play for Texas/A&M/OU/OKState or any of them individually. THat would load up the SEC to much for getting to BCS. The big daddies like UF/LSU/Alabama/UTenn would not vote them in because of risking a lessor chance at winning on the highest level.

SEC will go after ACC or Big East teams IMO.

(05-02-2010 07:13 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  I just don't see the SEC making a play for Texas/A&M/OU/OKState or any of them individually. THat would load up the SEC to much for getting to BCS. The big daddies like UF/LSU/Alabama/UTenn would not vote them in because of risking a lessor chance at winning on the highest level.

SEC will go after ACC or Big East teams IMO.

Here is the thing with the SEC, most schools are within RV traveling distance and that is a big deal for SEC fans. Texas is quite a hump for these RV fans even though most of them acknowledge that Texas would be a huge get for the SEC.

IMO, the only way the SEC makes a huge splash nationally and financially is by adding Texas or an Oklahoma. I would take into consideration if ESPN tells the SEC that adding schools like FSU, Miami, Ga Tech and Clemson would definitely increase their current TV deal then I would agree with your suggestion.

(05-02-2010 11:26 AM)Iamready Wrote:  What in the world is Texas thinking? Sticking with Big 12 without Nebraska/Missouri and Colorado? Join Pac-10? Start a new conference with USC/UCLA? SEC? Big Ten? How would a Longhorn network work in conjunction to other schools in Big 12 and conference tv package?

If Texas and gang stay in Big 12 where would they look for 2-3 replacement schools? Utah (if not Pac-10)?, BYU? TCU? New Mexico? Memphis? Louisville? Cincinnati? Colorado State? They could set up a potential Texas-Oklahoma championship game every year by putting them in separate divisons (but still with he annual Red River shootout game).

My thought are that Texas stays in the Big 12. They allready have an incredible revenue machine with the unbalanced payout from the conference. There is very little support among the students and alum to jump conferences. Frankly, the Big 12 would be better off without Texas (perhaps not as rich, but better). The Whorns have a way of allienating the Big 12 North. They are like a spoiled child that always gets his way.

I think Texas may have already capitulated to Nebraska and Missouri in an effort to keep the Big XII together.

It is extremely unlikely that UT ever goes to the SEC. To many ideological differences. A&M, yes, UT no.

That leaves 3 possibilities. Stay in the Big 12, Go to the Big 10 or go to the Pac-10.

Lets start with the last one. UT goes to the Pac-10 they have to take either OU or TT or on an outside chance A&M with them. Only way it could really work regionally. Form a Southern Division with USC,UT,TT,UCLA, Ariz and ASU. This would be a nice academic haven for UT and one hell of a well rounded sports conference with appeal in baseball, basketball and football as well as very good collection of women's sports. The biggest hurdle would be Stanford over the admission of TT or OU.

The Big 10 keeps getting dismissed for Texas, but it might not be entirely true. There are still some major attractions between the two. The problem is that UT is unwilling to be the one to break up the existing Big 12. I think a lot of times people are not giving this enough long term thinking. As great as some of the Big East schools would be great to have now, they are not taking into account the shift in population density. People are leaving the rust belt and to some extent the East and West coast and moving to the South East and Southern parts of the US. The Big 10 is going to have to act proactively to ensure the overall financial viability of the Big 10 network. Encapsulating a dying market is not in the best longterm interest of the Big 10. That is one of the reasons I have a hard time accepting a lot of the Nebraska rumors.

Last off would be saving the Big 12. Outside of UT and OU leaving, the Big 12 is salvageable. 50% of their TV footprint is in Texas. Adding other markets east and west of Texas will probably be more productive longterm than having the N/S alignment they are currently in. losing Neb and Mizzu would allow the Big 12 to concentrate on two other members and shift OU and OSU to the North and finally balance the conference. Half the problem with the current aliment is that the North is tremendously weaker than the North with very few schools having the budget or facilities to actively compete with the South.

UT will land on its feet. The real question I have is what happens to Nebraska if the Big 10 looks elsewhere and UT goes to the PAC-10? For the Big-10 to look elsewhere effectively kills the Big East. After that, there would be no real geographical match.

(05-04-2010 09:42 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  As great as some of the Big East schools would be great to have now, they are not taking into account the shift in population density. People are leaving the rust belt and to some extent the East and West coast and moving to the South East and Southern parts of the US. The Big 10 is going to have to act proactively to ensure the overall financial viability of the Big 10 network. Encapsulating a dying market is not in the best longterm interest of the Big 10. That is one of the reasons I have a hard time accepting a lot of the Nebraska rumors.

Actually the coasts are not experiencing an outward shift. The northeastern states are all growing for example maybe not in the same percentages as the southern states but in similar raw numbers in many cases. Not all of the midwest is in decline either. Wisconsin, Illinois and Minnesota are all adding people at a good clip. As someone with an urban studies background, the shift to the Sun Belt is exaggerated to some extent. Plus this recession and the recent oil price shocks (which are going to resume this summer) has really driven a desire for higher density development, walkability/bicycle facilities and vibrant mass transit. The Sun Belt has a very long way to go in those things. Yes Michigan is in trouble and parts of Ohio are in trouble for population declines.

Texas will be fine in whatever conference it is, including a stripped down Big 12. Even if it doesn't bring in the TV revenue the Big 10 teams will, it has plenty of revenue sources and its recuiting resources and dominance of those resources is unparalleled.

If I'm Texas, I stay where I at. I'll take the power/control I have over any proported increase in TV revenues that probably won't mean a thing competitively.

(05-04-2010 10:34 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Texas will be fine in whatever conference it is, including a stripped down Big 12. Even if it doesn't bring in the TV revenue the Big 10 teams will, it has plenty of revenue sources and its recuiting resources and dominance of those resources is unparalleled.

If I'm Texas, I stay where I at. I'll take the power/control I have over any proported increase in TV revenues that probably won't mean a thing competitively.

This is the stance I'm evolving to, also. My bet is on Texas staying put and being allowed to develop the LongHorn Channel, not really a network, but more a place to telecast its minor sports and occasional FB and BB games, according to one Texas article I read recently.

(05-04-2010 11:19 AM)TripleA Wrote:  This is the stance I'm evolving to, also. My bet is on Texas staying put and being allowed to develop the LongHorn Channel, not really a network, but more a place to telecast its minor sports and occasional FB and BB games, according to one Texas article I read recently.

It would be interesting to see if the Big XII allows that and simultaneously pushes for more equitable revenue sharing of its TV contracts. The unfair nature of the revenue sharing, coupled with the appeal of programs like Texas and Oklahoma have created a lot of tension with the Big XII North teams.