Last year, Texas A&M averaged 5.2M viewers per game, good for #2 in the nation. UT averaged 2.4M viewers per game, good for #26 in the nation. UT fans excused the gap based on the Manziel factor. But that was the wake up call. And this year, A&M is still drawing twice as many viewers as UT.

Before Viagra, there used to be an old joke. The difference between fear and panic? Fear is the first time you can't do it twice. Panic is the second time you can't do it once.

UT is in panic re: the A&M TV exposure gap.

Today, UT plays OU on ABC at 11. It's the premiere game for the Big 12 TV contract. It's the premiere TV game on UT's schedule.

Texas A&M plays perennial also-ran Ole Miss tonight on ESPN prime time. Sure Ole Miss is having a nice year, but before the season, at least 15 other SEC games were considered more attractive to TV.

If the A&M game outdraws the UT game today, how much longer do you think UT will tolerate the A&M TV exposure gap and its impact on recruiting?

Do you really think that UT would see adding Cincy, UCF etc. to the Big 12 as a solution to their A&M TV exposure gap?

If the answer to those questions are "Not Long" and "No," how much longer do you see UT sticking with the Big 12?

Today could be the shot heard round Belmont Hall.

I agree.

I think that's a really insightful post and I completely agree.

I don't see Texas going indy. I could see them joining the ACC, B10 or PAC12... but it's a long shot. Why? I'm not so sure that they will be allowed to do so due to the politics at play in Texas.

For the record, I also don't see the B12 adding other teams, with the possible exception of BYU and maybe one other (Memphis, Cinci, UCF or UConn). Out of those schools, I would think that UCF has the best shot. ECU and USF could be considered if the conference decides to go to 14 or more teams.

If Texas starts winning again, which they will do, they will get more viewers.

I think the best moves for texas would be to get any of the sec, pac 12 or big 10 to jump to 18 with 3 pods of 6:

sec 18 with OU, OK state and Texas tech, 3 pods of 6
pac 18 with texas tech, OU, Ok state, KU and Kstate, 3 pods of 6
big 10 with OU, KU, Missouri

Or i like jumping to pac 20 with this combo:

pac 20 with texas tech, OU, Ok state, KU, Kstate, Baylor and BYU

i like the byu and baylor additions, not sure the pac would go for it but if texas created their own eastern division maybe that is enough separation for the stanfords.

I don't really like a pac 16, too much geographic spread or texas joining the acc in an ND type deal.

Do you think the SEC would take Texas? Would Texas agree to be an equal partner in the SEC? I don't think Texas closes the gap as an independent or by joining a conference other than the SEC.

(10-11-2014 10:45 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  I don't see Texas going indy. I could see them joining the ACC, B10 or PAC12... but it's a long shot. Why? I'm not so sure that they will be allowed to do so due to the politics at play in Texas.

For the record, I also don't see the B12 adding other teams, with the possible exception of BYU and maybe one other (Memphis, Cinci, UCF or UConn). Out of those schools, I would think that UCF has the best shot. ECU and USF could be considered if the conference decides to go to 14 or more teams.

If Texas starts winning again, which they will do, they will get more viewers.

Why would the politics matter in terms of them going Indy versus joining any other conference? Going Indy actually allows them to play More Texas teams than joining any other conference. Seems to me the politics in the State would prefer them as an Indy than in any other conference fully.

(10-11-2014 10:49 AM)back2vinyl Wrote:  Do you think the SEC would take Texas? Would Texas agree to be an equal partner in the SEC? I don't think Texas closes the gap as an independent or by joining a conference other than the SEC.

I think the major reason why Texas ratings are dropping so low is performance.

Texas A&M is at a high point while Texas is at a low point. If Texas was performing at a higher level then I do believe the numbers would be closer. Them joining the SEC right now while they are at this troubled time would be terrible. They would only lose more and have worse performances.

They are getting that kind of competition every week in the Big 12.

Their biggest problem is the lack of interest much of the country has in the Big 12.

UT is thought to have a Tech problem. OU is thought to have an Ok State problem. The Big 10 is NOT okay with Tech or Oklahoma St. Unless UT and OU can break away clean, the Big 10 is not an option although it is clearly the 2nd best conference for TV viewers behind the SEC.

The Pac 12 doesn't really solve the TV issue. Among the Top 25 schools last year in viewers per game, the Pac 12's only entry was Stanford. Plus, being the easternost school in a western league is not ideal. Your road games start late for fans, and you lose time when you travel home, hurting your academic recovery time.

LSU, A&M and Arkansas probably would raise a stink if UT and OU wanted to come to the SEC. And frankly, I don't think UT wants to be in a league hugely difficult to win.

Maybe the ACC? With Florida St, Clemson, Miami, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, etc, to go with UT/OU/Tech/Ok St, there could be some interesting match ups for TV. UT could dominate the ACC. And the eastern seaboard has a ton of TV viewers.

"LSU, A&M and Arkansas probably would raise a stink if UT and OU wanted to come to the SEC. And frankly, I don't think UT wants to be in a league hugely difficult to win. "

Poor Texas. Last time I looked they are not winning in the Big XII. Would the CFB nation please unite behind the common cause of helping the Longhorns return to prominence? I guess all the money doesn't really buy happiness...

(10-11-2014 10:18 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  Last year, Texas A&M averaged 5.2M viewers per game, good for #2 in the nation. UT averaged 2.4M viewers per game, good for #26 in the nation. UT fans excused the gap based on the Manziel factor. But that was the wake up call. And this year, A&M is still drawing twice as many viewers as UT.

Before Viagra, there used to be an old joke. The difference between fear and panic? Fear is the first time you can't do it twice. Panic is the second time you can't do it once.

UT is in panic re: the A&M TV exposure gap.

Today, UT plays OU on CBS at 11. It's the premiere game for the Big 12 TV contract. It's the premiere TV game on UT's schedule.

Texas A&M plays perennial also-ran Ole Miss tonight on ESPN prime time. Sure Ole Miss is having a nice year, but before the season, at least 15 other SEC games were considered more attractive to TV.

If the A&M game outdraws the UT game today, how much longer do you think UT will tolerate the A&M TV exposure gap and its impact on recruiting?

Do you really think that UT would see adding Cincy, UCF etc. to the Big 12 as a solution to their A&M TV exposure gap?

If the answer to those questions are "Not Long" and "No," how much longer do you see UT sticking with the Big 12?

Today could be the shot heard round Belmont Hall.

Are you saying that the Big 12 is weak because UT is weak, and the solution for UT is to look for another conference? Wouldn't it make more sense for UT to fix its own problems, which would also strengthen the Big 12?

The Big XII issue is losing a Colorado, Missouri, Texas A&M and Nebraska. Long term that is very hard to overcome....

We'll take Texas's other sports if they go indy in football.

UT viewership vs A&M viewership has more to do with conference, in my opinion, then it does with performance. Performance is definitely an issue. We are seeing an improved Texas team right now against Oklahoma. Oklahoma can barely move the ball while Texas is moving the ball rather easily. Once Texas fixes the mistakes they are making, they could end up blowing out Oklahoma.

Will that matter though? Will success in their biggest game of the year get them equivalent ratings to what Texas A&M is going to get in their game against Ole Miss? I don't think so and THAT is the problem. They wont be able to get equivalent ratings against their biggest rival in comparison to what A&M will get against Ole Miss.

The real problem is their conference affiliation and that isn't likely to change.

(10-11-2014 12:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  UT viewership vs A&M viewership has more to do with conference, in my opinion, then it does with performance. Performance is definitely an issue. We are seeing an improved Texas team right now against Oklahoma. Oklahoma can barely move the ball while Texas is moving the ball rather easily. Once Texas fixes the mistakes they are making, they could end up blowing out Oklahoma.

Will that matter though? Will success in their biggest game of the year get them equivalent ratings to what Texas A&M is going to get in their game against Ole Miss? I don't think so and THAT is the problem. They wont be able to get equivalent ratings against their biggest rival in comparison to what A&M will get against Ole Miss.

The real problem is their conference affiliation and that isn't likely to change.

Losing the Oklahoma-Nebraska, Missouri-Kansas, Nebraska-Colorado and Texas-Texas A&M matchups are not easy to overcome...

Texas is the Big12. They are the driving force, even though they suck.

If Texas doesn't turn it around and get themselves in a viewership, financial, and playing position they like then they will leverage their brand and find a new spot for themselves. That's bad news for the Big12.

There is no Big12 without Texas.

While I don't think independence is really an option for Texas unless it's a Notre Dame type deal attached to another conference like the B10. True independence is not a good option for anyone, heck ask ND. Even they saw the writing on the wall. I do think you have a very valid point but instead of going independent I think they solicit another conference like Pac 12 or B10, but who knows what they say about the Longhorn Network. I think they get denied bc of it.

(10-11-2014 01:15 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  While I don't think independence is really an option for Texas unless it's a Notre Dame type deal attached to another conference like the B10. True independence is not a good option for anyone, heck ask ND. Even they saw the writing on the wall. I do think you have a very valid point but instead of going independent I think they solicit another conference like Pac 12 or B10, but who knows what they say about the Longhorn Network. I think they get denied bc of it.

I think no matter what happens the end result will be Texas being humbled.

Personally, I cringe every time somebody mentions Texas and the SEC because Texas is conference poison.

(10-11-2014 01:15 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  While I don't think independence is really an option for Texas unless it's a Notre Dame type deal attached to another conference like the B10. True independence is not a good option for anyone, heck ask ND. Even they saw the writing on the wall. I do think you have a very valid point but instead of going independent I think they solicit another conference like Pac 12 or B10, but who knows what they say about the Longhorn Network. I think they get denied bc of it.

Well, they already talked to the ACC. The ACC is the only Major Conference to show any willingness to have a partial member. If it is partial membership Independence then I think right now the only real option we can look at is the ACC.

Luckily for Texas, right now there are two other up and coming programs in the State of Texas for them to bring along. In fact they are playing a rivalry game today that will likely have better ratings than the Texas vs Oklahoma game.

I don't see how Independence for Notre Dame has been proven to be a bad deal for them. They have a good shot at getting into the National Playoff this year. Just having that opportunity is enough for them and likely enough for Texas. Programs like Texas and Notre Dame don't need decisive Championship game wins. If they have the records as Independents, the Committee will tap them for the Playoff.

I believe UT's viewership issues are directly related to their product on the field. If coach strong can turn the football program around people will watch. As too the idea of the Longhorns jumping ship to another conference, my personal thought is that the ACC or PAC12 are the only destinations that would work. I'm not sure the B1G is a very attractive dance partner to the UT alums or the other teams that would have to go with them in order for it to work. There is no way that A&M would roll over and vote UT in, I think if the SEC was hell bent on adding another Texas school (I don't think they are) they would have a much easier time adding a Baylor or Texas Tech. Either way I do not believe that the BIG12 will be dissolving anytime soon, that idea is best left alone for the next 10 years until the P5 ( not counting the B1G obviously who will be getting a new tv contract in 2016) TV contracts start getting re-negotiated.