I think there are three seperations in terms of CFB teams in Texas -

Major players: UT, aTm

Established teams (Historically significant): TTU, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, UH

Start ups: UNT, TxSt, UTSA, UTEP

The SWC used to dominate the state, then the BigXII for the most part. Now that A&M has gone to the SEC, that makes Texas a diverse conference set up. My opinion is that Major conferences will see market potential in the state. If conferences continue to change / grow, I see the state of Texas as a major player (just like Florida) due to recruiting, markets, and the amount of established teams. I have no idea how realignment will happen, but as a native Texan, I wouldnt mind seeing this:

UT, TTU, TCU, BU - remain in BigXII

A&M - SEC loner

UH, SMU - PAC

RICE, UNT - AAC

UTEP, TxSt, UTSA - MWC


This would theoretically make the teams and fans of the teams above happy, IMO. As an SMU fan, I would like to be in an academically elite conference that is equal to our peers. A&M maintains their SEC love affair, the existing composition of B12 schools stay together, AAC takes RICE and UNT - decent replacements, and the remaining start ups unite under the MWC where they have the ability to grow. Just my take on it...

(05-07-2013 09:56 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:  I think there are three seperations in terms of CFB teams in Texas -

Major players: UT, aTm

Established teams (Historically significant): TTU, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, UH

Start ups: UNT, TxSt, UTSA, UTEP

The SWC used to dominate the state, then the BigXII for the most part. Now that A&M has gone to the SEC, that makes Texas a diverse conference set up. My opinion is that Major conferences will see market potential in the state. If conferences continue to change / grow, I see the state of Texas as a major player (just like Florida) due to recruiting, markets, and the amount of established teams. I have no idea how realignment will happen, but as a native Texan, I wouldnt mind seeing this:

UT, TTU, TCU, BU - remain in BigXII

A&M - SEC loner

UH, SMU - PAC

RICE, UNT - AAC

UTEP, TxSt, UTSA - MWC


This would theoretically make the teams and fans of the teams above happy, IMO. As an SMU fan, I would like to be in an academically elite conference that is equal to our peers. A&M maintains their SEC love affair, the existing composition of B12 schools stay together, AAC takes RICE and UNT - decent replacements, and the remaining start ups unite under the MWC where they have the ability to grow. Just my take on it...

lulz

(05-07-2013 10:01 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:56 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:  I think there are three seperations in terms of CFB teams in Texas -

Major players: UT, aTm

Established teams (Historically significant): TTU, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, UH

Start ups: UNT, TxSt, UTSA, UTEP

The SWC used to dominate the state, then the BigXII for the most part. Now that A&M has gone to the SEC, that makes Texas a diverse conference set up. My opinion is that Major conferences will see market potential in the state. If conferences continue to change / grow, I see the state of Texas as a major player (just like Florida) due to recruiting, markets, and the amount of established teams. I have no idea how realignment will happen, but as a native Texan, I wouldnt mind seeing this:

UT, TTU, TCU, BU - remain in BigXII

A&M - SEC loner

UH, SMU - PAC

RICE, UNT - AAC

UTEP, TxSt, UTSA - MWC


This would theoretically make the teams and fans of the teams above happy, IMO. As an SMU fan, I would like to be in an academically elite conference that is equal to our peers. A&M maintains their SEC love affair, the existing composition of B12 schools stay together, AAC takes RICE and UNT - decent replacements, and the remaining start ups unite under the MWC where they have the ability to grow. Just my take on it...

lulz

The picture as a whole, is good. But I am not saying this is GOING to happen. Dont get too worked up Gamecook

As a non-Texan, your hierarchy matches my perception.

Major players: UT, aTm

Established teams (Historically significant): TTU, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, UH

Start ups: UNT, TxSt, UTSA, UTEP


As far as future conference affiliation, I don't see SMU getting to the PAC. The PAC has made it clear in the last round of expansion that there is no appetite for religious affiliation (snubbing nose at BYU, inviting Colorado to block Baylor in original Texoma defection discussions). Houston has an outside chance due to the research grants associated, but ultimately without Texas/Oklahoma as part of the package, I just don't foresee the PAC entering Texas.

If the PAC every moves in Texas, it will be for the University of Texas. I'm sure they would take TT if it got the deal done, but they would not even add TT as a stand alone new add, in my opinion. A Big 12 where Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Kansas have moved to the PAC, B1G, SEC, and/or ACC? Sure, that would be a good time to bring up SMU or Houston, but only after BYU, Memphis, USF, UCF accepted or declined invites. Additionally, it seems assured that TT, Ok. State, and Kansas State would find soft landings if their flagships moved, and remaining in the Big 12 at that point would not be a soft landing. SMU and Houston are redundant markets to Dallas and Houston and don't do the Big 12 much good if they want to remain a conference with national interest.

By the way, why would schools in Dallas and Houston want to be the eastern edge of a western conference when there are a ton of similar schools to the east? Why not own the Mississippi River Delta? Two conferences of 10 teams would get it done:

SMU, Tulsa, Houston, Rice, Tulane, Southern Miss, La. Tech, Memphis, UAB, another Texas school from the list below

South Alabama, La. Lafayette, Ark. St., La. Monroe, North Texas, UTEP, New Mexico State, Texas State, UTSA, Troy, Missouri St. or Jax St. (both are ready to move up)

This board is great for pipe dreams, so why not do some regional conferences that make sense, right?

(05-07-2013 09:56 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:  I think there are three seperations in terms of CFB teams in Texas -

Major players: UT, aTm

Established teams (Historically significant): TTU, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, UH

Start ups: UNT, TxSt, UTSA, UTEP

The SWC used to dominate the state, then the BigXII for the most part. Now that A&M has gone to the SEC, that makes Texas a diverse conference set up. My opinion is that Major conferences will see market potential in the state. If conferences continue to change / grow, I see the state of Texas as a major player (just like Florida) due to recruiting, markets, and the amount of established teams. I have no idea how realignment will happen, but as a native Texan, I wouldnt mind seeing this:

UT, TTU, TCU, BU - remain in BigXII

A&M - SEC loner

UH, SMU - PAC

RICE, UNT - AAC

UTEP, TxSt, UTSA - MWC


This would theoretically make the teams and fans of the teams above happy, IMO. As an SMU fan, I would like to be in an academically elite conference that is equal to our peers. A&M maintains their SEC love affair, the existing composition of B12 schools stay together, AAC takes RICE and UNT - decent replacements, and the remaining start ups unite under the MWC where they have the ability to grow. Just my take on it...

We have no chance at the PAC12. Also, how can you say the SWC dominated the Big12 for the most part. The SWC ceased to exist when the Big12 was formed.

Is there a category for "insufferable preps who make it into a national scandal when their spoiled kids get locked in a closet?"

(05-07-2013 10:44 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  Is there a category for "insufferable preps who make it into a national scandal when their spoiled kids get locked in a closet?"

And.. this thread is headed to the VAA in 10.... 9..... 8....

Uh oh!

You dared to not list Texas Tech as a Major Player!

Prepare you anus for an 10+ page *****-a-thon when our favorite Raider fan gets out of the shower!

<grabs popcorn>

(05-07-2013 10:17 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  As a non-Texan, your hierarchy matches my perception.

Major players: UT, aTm

Established teams (Historically significant): TTU, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, UH

Start ups: UNT, TxSt, UTSA, UTEP


As far as future conference affiliation, I don't see SMU getting to the PAC. The PAC has made it clear in the last round of expansion that there is no appetite for religious affiliation (snubbing nose at BYU, inviting Colorado to block Baylor in original Texoma defection discussions). Houston has an outside chance due to the research grants associated, but ultimately without Texas/Oklahoma as part of the package, I just don't foresee the PAC entering Texas.

I agree. The PAC will take OU and Texas plus two, or maybe Texas plus one, but without UT, it will never happen.

(05-07-2013 11:43 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Uh oh!

You dared to not list Texas Tech as a Major Player!

Prepare you anus for an 10+ page *****-a-thon when our favorite Raider fan gets out of the shower!

<grabs popcorn>

No need for the popcorn 10th. Tech will be fine.

(05-07-2013 11:52 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 11:43 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Uh oh!

You dared to not list Texas Tech as a Major Player!

Prepare you anus for an 10+ page *****-a-thon when our favorite Raider fan gets out of the shower!

<grabs popcorn>

No need for the popcorn 10th. Tech will be fine.

Boy the weather here is nice today....lalalalalalalalal

(05-07-2013 10:42 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:56 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:  I think there are three seperations in terms of CFB teams in Texas -

Major players: UT, aTm

Established teams (Historically significant): TTU, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, UH

Start ups: UNT, TxSt, UTSA, UTEP

The SWC used to dominate the state, then the BigXII for the most part. Now that A&M has gone to the SEC, that makes Texas a diverse conference set up. My opinion is that Major conferences will see market potential in the state. If conferences continue to change / grow, I see the state of Texas as a major player (just like Florida) due to recruiting, markets, and the amount of established teams. I have no idea how realignment will happen, but as a native Texan, I wouldnt mind seeing this:

UT, TTU, TCU, BU - remain in BigXII

A&M - SEC loner

UH, SMU - PAC

RICE, UNT - AAC

UTEP, TxSt, UTSA - MWC


This would theoretically make the teams and fans of the teams above happy, IMO. As an SMU fan, I would like to be in an academically elite conference that is equal to our peers. A&M maintains their SEC love affair, the existing composition of B12 schools stay together, AAC takes RICE and UNT - decent replacements, and the remaining start ups unite under the MWC where they have the ability to grow. Just my take on it...

We have no chance at the PAC12. Also, how can you say the SWC dominated the Big12 for the most part. The SWC ceased to exist when the Big12 was formed.

I think you are misunderstanding his OP. He is not saying the SWC dominated the Big12. He is saying the SWC dominated the state, then later the Big-12 dominates the state.

As for SMU or Houston going to the Pac12--we have to see how things play out. Texas has flirted with the Pac12 since the early 1990s. They have always chosen to go east. The reality is there are more eyeballs in the east. Texas knows that. I doubt Texas ever joins the Pac12. Once that becomes apparent, the Pac12 will still need access to Texas cable boxes for their Pac12 network. SMU and Houston could be a workable pair of the goal is to access the second most populated state in the nation. Those two schools make sense if the Big12 stays stable and the GOR blocks access to any Big12 Texas schools. That said, neither are first choices for the Pac12, so they are in no rush and will play a waiting game hoping for thier first choice to agree to join.

(05-07-2013 10:42 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:56 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:  I think there are three seperations in terms of CFB teams in Texas -

Major players: UT, aTm

Established teams (Historically significant): TTU, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, UH

Start ups: UNT, TxSt, UTSA, UTEP

The SWC used to dominate the state, then the BigXII for the most part. Now that A&M has gone to the SEC, that makes Texas a diverse conference set up. My opinion is that Major conferences will see market potential in the state. If conferences continue to change / grow, I see the state of Texas as a major player (just like Florida) due to recruiting, markets, and the amount of established teams. I have no idea how realignment will happen, but as a native Texan, I wouldnt mind seeing this:

UT, TTU, TCU, BU - remain in BigXII

A&M - SEC loner

UH, SMU - PAC

RICE, UNT - AAC

UTEP, TxSt, UTSA - MWC


This would theoretically make the teams and fans of the teams above happy, IMO. As an SMU fan, I would like to be in an academically elite conference that is equal to our peers. A&M maintains their SEC love affair, the existing composition of B12 schools stay together, AAC takes RICE and UNT - decent replacements, and the remaining start ups unite under the MWC where they have the ability to grow. Just my take on it...

We have no chance at the PAC12. Also, how can you say the SWC dominated the Big12 for the most part. The SWC ceased to exist when the Big12 was formed.

Glad you can read.

(05-07-2013 12:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 10:42 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:56 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:  I think there are three seperations in terms of CFB teams in Texas -

Major players: UT, aTm

Established teams (Historically significant): TTU, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, UH

Start ups: UNT, TxSt, UTSA, UTEP

The SWC used to dominate the state, then the BigXII for the most part. Now that A&M has gone to the SEC, that makes Texas a diverse conference set up. My opinion is that Major conferences will see market potential in the state. If conferences continue to change / grow, I see the state of Texas as a major player (just like Florida) due to recruiting, markets, and the amount of established teams. I have no idea how realignment will happen, but as a native Texan, I wouldnt mind seeing this:

UT, TTU, TCU, BU - remain in BigXII

A&M - SEC loner

UH, SMU - PAC

RICE, UNT - AAC

UTEP, TxSt, UTSA - MWC


This would theoretically make the teams and fans of the teams above happy, IMO. As an SMU fan, I would like to be in an academically elite conference that is equal to our peers. A&M maintains their SEC love affair, the existing composition of B12 schools stay together, AAC takes RICE and UNT - decent replacements, and the remaining start ups unite under the MWC where they have the ability to grow. Just my take on it...

We have no chance at the PAC12. Also, how can you say the SWC dominated the Big12 for the most part. The SWC ceased to exist when the Big12 was formed.

I think you are misunderstanding his OP. He is not saying the SWC dominated the Big12. He is saying the SWC dominated the state, then later the Big-12 dominates the state.

As for SMU or Houston going to the Pac12--we have to see how things play out. Texas has flirted with the Pac12 since the early 1990s. They have always chosen to go east. The reality is there are more eyeballs in the east. Texas knows that. I doubt Texas ever joins the Pac12. Once that becomes apparent, the Pac12 will still need access to Texas cable boxes for their Pac12 network. SMU and Houston could be a workable pair of the goal is to access the second most populated state in the nation. Those two schools make sense if the Big12 stays stable and the GOR blocks access to any Big12 Texas schools. That said, neither are first choices for the Pac12, so they are in no rush and will play a waiting game hoping for thier first choice to agree to join.

That is exactly what I am saying. You hit everything I was thinking. PAC network needs more households. If the GOR proves as stable as people think, then Texas / OU wont be moving anywhere. Does the PAC increase their membership from states with 2million total populations? No... I think the PAC would choose the best way to expand into big markets with alot of potential. It's not about the actual school as it is the big picture. A Texas footprint is appealing enough for the PAC to consider SMU / UH. And the entire religous aspect of SMU... I think you are seeing an academically inclined conference react to anti-progressive BYU doctrine. Dallas and Houston metropolitan areas are twice as much as all other PAC options combined. SMU, UH are on their list. And it matters alot on how the strong the Big12 stays, and stay together. Those who think I am off base, save your comments. The specific factors that go into a decision like this are impossible for us to estimate. The over-arching point of my comments are to say teams in Texas will be viewed favorably by conferences for the reasons I originally stated.

If the BIG plans on going to 16,18, or 20... that will have profound effects on every single university. We can only speculate if this will happen, and what it means to our schools. I personally think SMU and Houston will be schools sought after.

(05-07-2013 12:43 PM)SMUfrat Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 12:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 10:42 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:56 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:  I think there are three seperations in terms of CFB teams in Texas -

Major players: UT, aTm

Established teams (Historically significant): TTU, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, UH

Start ups: UNT, TxSt, UTSA, UTEP

The SWC used to dominate the state, then the BigXII for the most part. Now that A&M has gone to the SEC, that makes Texas a diverse conference set up. My opinion is that Major conferences will see market potential in the state. If conferences continue to change / grow, I see the state of Texas as a major player (just like Florida) due to recruiting, markets, and the amount of established teams. I have no idea how realignment will happen, but as a native Texan, I wouldnt mind seeing this:

UT, TTU, TCU, BU - remain in BigXII

A&M - SEC loner

UH, SMU - PAC

RICE, UNT - AAC

UTEP, TxSt, UTSA - MWC


This would theoretically make the teams and fans of the teams above happy, IMO. As an SMU fan, I would like to be in an academically elite conference that is equal to our peers. A&M maintains their SEC love affair, the existing composition of B12 schools stay together, AAC takes RICE and UNT - decent replacements, and the remaining start ups unite under the MWC where they have the ability to grow. Just my take on it...

We have no chance at the PAC12. Also, how can you say the SWC dominated the Big12 for the most part. The SWC ceased to exist when the Big12 was formed.

I think you are misunderstanding his OP. He is not saying the SWC dominated the Big12. He is saying the SWC dominated the state, then later the Big-12 dominates the state.

As for SMU or Houston going to the Pac12--we have to see how things play out. Texas has flirted with the Pac12 since the early 1990s. They have always chosen to go east. The reality is there are more eyeballs in the east. Texas knows that. I doubt Texas ever joins the Pac12. Once that becomes apparent, the Pac12 will still need access to Texas cable boxes for their Pac12 network. SMU and Houston could be a workable pair of the goal is to access the second most populated state in the nation. Those two schools make sense if the Big12 stays stable and the GOR blocks access to any Big12 Texas schools. That said, neither are first choices for the Pac12, so they are in no rush and will play a waiting game hoping for thier first choice to agree to join.

That is exactly what I am saying. You hit everything I was thinking. PAC network needs more households. If the GOR proves as stable as people think, then Texas / OU wont be moving anywhere. Does the PAC increase their membership from states with 2million total populations? No... I think the PAC would choose the best way to expand into big markets with alot of potential. It's not about the actual school as it is the big picture. A Texas footprint is appealing enough for the PAC to consider SMU / UH. And the entire religous aspect of SMU... I think you are seeing an academically inclined conference react to anti-progressive BYU doctrine. Dallas and Houston metropolitan areas are twice as much as all other PAC options combined. SMU, UH are on their list. And it matters alot on how the strong the Big12 stays, and stay together. Those who think I am off base, save your comments. The specific factors that go into a decision like this are impossible for us to estimate. The over-arching point of my comments are to say teams in Texas will be viewed favorably by conferences for the reasons I originally stated. If the BIG plans on going to 16,18, or 20... that will have profound effects on every single university.

Based on the LHN asking for .45 per subscriber and TCU's lack of success getting the Mtn carried when it was a MWC member I seriously question the ability of anyone in TX (including us) other than Bevo or Aggy delivering any media market at the carriage rates the PAC needs to make expansion profitable. I think they stay at 12.

(05-07-2013 12:48 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 12:43 PM)SMUfrat Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 12:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 10:42 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:56 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:  I think there are three seperations in terms of CFB teams in Texas -

Major players: UT, aTm

Established teams (Historically significant): TTU, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, UH

Start ups: UNT, TxSt, UTSA, UTEP

The SWC used to dominate the state, then the BigXII for the most part. Now that A&M has gone to the SEC, that makes Texas a diverse conference set up. My opinion is that Major conferences will see market potential in the state. If conferences continue to change / grow, I see the state of Texas as a major player (just like Florida) due to recruiting, markets, and the amount of established teams. I have no idea how realignment will happen, but as a native Texan, I wouldnt mind seeing this:

UT, TTU, TCU, BU - remain in BigXII

A&M - SEC loner

UH, SMU - PAC

RICE, UNT - AAC

UTEP, TxSt, UTSA - MWC


This would theoretically make the teams and fans of the teams above happy, IMO. As an SMU fan, I would like to be in an academically elite conference that is equal to our peers. A&M maintains their SEC love affair, the existing composition of B12 schools stay together, AAC takes RICE and UNT - decent replacements, and the remaining start ups unite under the MWC where they have the ability to grow. Just my take on it...

We have no chance at the PAC12. Also, how can you say the SWC dominated the Big12 for the most part. The SWC ceased to exist when the Big12 was formed.

I think you are misunderstanding his OP. He is not saying the SWC dominated the Big12. He is saying the SWC dominated the state, then later the Big-12 dominates the state.

As for SMU or Houston going to the Pac12--we have to see how things play out. Texas has flirted with the Pac12 since the early 1990s. They have always chosen to go east. The reality is there are more eyeballs in the east. Texas knows that. I doubt Texas ever joins the Pac12. Once that becomes apparent, the Pac12 will still need access to Texas cable boxes for their Pac12 network. SMU and Houston could be a workable pair of the goal is to access the second most populated state in the nation. Those two schools make sense if the Big12 stays stable and the GOR blocks access to any Big12 Texas schools. That said, neither are first choices for the Pac12, so they are in no rush and will play a waiting game hoping for thier first choice to agree to join.

That is exactly what I am saying. You hit everything I was thinking. PAC network needs more households. If the GOR proves as stable as people think, then Texas / OU wont be moving anywhere. Does the PAC increase their membership from states with 2million total populations? No... I think the PAC would choose the best way to expand into big markets with alot of potential. It's not about the actual school as it is the big picture. A Texas footprint is appealing enough for the PAC to consider SMU / UH. And the entire religous aspect of SMU... I think you are seeing an academically inclined conference react to anti-progressive BYU doctrine. Dallas and Houston metropolitan areas are twice as much as all other PAC options combined. SMU, UH are on their list. And it matters alot on how the strong the Big12 stays, and stay together. Those who think I am off base, save your comments. The specific factors that go into a decision like this are impossible for us to estimate. The over-arching point of my comments are to say teams in Texas will be viewed favorably by conferences for the reasons I originally stated. If the BIG plans on going to 16,18, or 20... that will have profound effects on every single university.

Based on the LHN asking for .45 per subscriber and TCU's lack of success getting the Mtn carried when it was a MWC member I seriously question the ability of anyone in TX (including us) other than Bevo or Aggy delivering any media market at the carriage rates the PAC needs to make expansion profitable. I think they stay at 12.

The PAC 12 cooked themselves two years ago regarding Texhoma expansion. They have to stay at twelve now. Product is no longer available on the store shelf... that said, I can't imagine what benefits would come to the PAC 12 from getting bigger now.

(05-07-2013 12:53 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 12:48 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 12:43 PM)SMUfrat Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 12:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 10:42 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  We have no chance at the PAC12. Also, how can you say the SWC dominated the Big12 for the most part. The SWC ceased to exist when the Big12 was formed.

I think you are misunderstanding his OP. He is not saying the SWC dominated the Big12. He is saying the SWC dominated the state, then later the Big-12 dominates the state.

As for SMU or Houston going to the Pac12--we have to see how things play out. Texas has flirted with the Pac12 since the early 1990s. They have always chosen to go east. The reality is there are more eyeballs in the east. Texas knows that. I doubt Texas ever joins the Pac12. Once that becomes apparent, the Pac12 will still need access to Texas cable boxes for their Pac12 network. SMU and Houston could be a workable pair of the goal is to access the second most populated state in the nation. Those two schools make sense if the Big12 stays stable and the GOR blocks access to any Big12 Texas schools. That said, neither are first choices for the Pac12, so they are in no rush and will play a waiting game hoping for thier first choice to agree to join.

That is exactly what I am saying. You hit everything I was thinking. PAC network needs more households. If the GOR proves as stable as people think, then Texas / OU wont be moving anywhere. Does the PAC increase their membership from states with 2million total populations? No... I think the PAC would choose the best way to expand into big markets with alot of potential. It's not about the actual school as it is the big picture. A Texas footprint is appealing enough for the PAC to consider SMU / UH. And the entire religous aspect of SMU... I think you are seeing an academically inclined conference react to anti-progressive BYU doctrine. Dallas and Houston metropolitan areas are twice as much as all other PAC options combined. SMU, UH are on their list. And it matters alot on how the strong the Big12 stays, and stay together. Those who think I am off base, save your comments. The specific factors that go into a decision like this are impossible for us to estimate. The over-arching point of my comments are to say teams in Texas will be viewed favorably by conferences for the reasons I originally stated. If the BIG plans on going to 16,18, or 20... that will have profound effects on every single university.

Based on the LHN asking for .45 per subscriber and TCU's lack of success getting the Mtn carried when it was a MWC member I seriously question the ability of anyone in TX (including us) other than Bevo or Aggy delivering any media market at the carriage rates the PAC needs to make expansion profitable. I think they stay at 12.

The PAC 12 cooked themselves two years ago regarding Texhoma expansion. They have to stay at twelve now. Product is no longer available on the store shelf... that said, I can't imagine what benefits would come to the PAC 12 from getting bigger.

The difference is conference composition. It took the BIG some time before their network was successful. And I believe the synergies between the PAC and the state of Texas are the best future the PAC has if they expand. It's their call if they grow.

Houston is the #184 ranked academic school, which is about 50 spots lower than even the PAC's bottom feeders. They also bring in about 30-35 mil a year in revenue. Washington State brings in 48 mil. Houston is a heck of a long way away from any existing PAC member. Just about every strike against PAC membership I can think of, Houston has it. Become a top 100 school and increase revenue by 50%, then the topic can be revisited.

If the PAC absolutely had to expand for some reason and could not get Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas, their best move could be to drop the religious school issue and take BYU, Baylor, and TCU. All are top 100 schools, net from 50-70 mil a year, and get a foot into Texas and add a brand of national relevance in BYU (similar argument to why the B1G would add Notre Dame even though they have two schools in Indiana already. Overlapping markets don't matter for big time private schools). Even then, SMU and Houston are not in the discussion for PAC expansion. I think they are more likely to poach MWC schools first, which I don't think is every happening, either.

(05-07-2013 01:10 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Houston is the #184 ranked academic school, which is about 50 spots lower than even the PAC's bottom feeders. They also bring in about 30-35 mil a year in revenue. Washington State brings in 48 mil. Houston is a heck of a long way away from any existing PAC member. Just about every strike against PAC membership I can think of, Houston has it. Become a top 100 school and increase revenue by 50%, then the topic can be revisited.

If the PAC absolutely had to expand for some reason and could not get Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas, their best move could be to drop the religious school issue and take BYU, Baylor, and TCU. All are top 100 schools, net from 50-70 mil a year, and get a foot into Texas and add a brand of national relevance in BYU (similar argument to why the B1G would add Notre Dame even though they have two schools in Indiana already. Overlapping markets don't matter for big time private schools). Even then, SMU and Houston are not in the discussion for PAC expansion. I think they are more likely to poach MWC schools first, which I don't think is every happening, either.

Houston draws a bit over 27,000 fans in a huge city. UTEP outdraws them. Rice is down around 20,000, right along with SMU. I will agree with you that if you were looking to grow a new school in the PAC 12, TCU would serve as an example. Big XII membership last equaled like a mid-30 % increase in home attendance at around 45-46,000, which is the national CFB average now.