http://thebiglead.com/2016/05/12/texas-s...e-big-ten/

What say you?

I'm really good without expanding but if it will get the expansion done once and for all I can live with it.

(05-12-2016 05:05 PM)Strut Wrote:  http://thebiglead.com/2016/05/12/texas-s...e-big-ten/

What say you?

I'm really good without expanding but if it will get the expansion done once and for all I can live with it.

Texas is a cancer.

in the next couple decades we'll probably see both OU and UT in the B1G. It'll start with OU which will destabilize and devalue the B12... Texas will then know the best thing to do for themselves is to be in a conference with Oklahoma and Nebraska, and the B1G money will make up for the LHN contract longterm.

(05-13-2016 12:37 AM)AntiG Wrote:  in the next couple decades we'll probably see both OU and UT in the B1G. It'll start with OU which will destabilize and devalue the B12... Texas will then know the best thing to do for themselves is to be in a conference with Oklahoma and Nebraska, and the B1G money will make up for the LHN contract longterm.

Texas would need a change of mindset first, though. The Big 10 is either a conference of equals, or a conference of equals with tOSU and UM being "most equal" :-). Texas is in control of the Big XII.

Yes, Yes they should. And bring Oklahoma with please.

I want no part of Texas in a conference. They are a clubhouse cancer. Oklahoma is fine by me OTOH.

I hear what's being said but how is Texas any different than Notre Dame? How is LHN different than ND having NBC deal? To me they are able to cut sweet heart deals by bringing something to the table most others don't and why give up if you don't have compelling reason to do so.

It seems that there has been thoughts that ND might be okay but not Texas, but why? To me they are both historically strong programs that have been used to special treatment, and get it. Now again, I look at them the same and if for some reason they were interested in what B1G or any other conference offers they'd have to play by those rules--I think they get that and would do so.

The LHN isn't an issue for the B1G. They can let Texas keep, buyout ESPN and let Texas go to the open market according to the guidelines laid out in the contract, negotiation a merger with BTN, or have FOX take over that headache from ESPN.

I wouldn't mind Texas in the B1G. Texas wouldn't be the top dog in the B1G for anything....not R&D expenses, not academic prestige, not football success, and much more. Their ego would be neutered in the B1G.

(05-13-2016 12:37 AM)AntiG Wrote:  in the next couple decades we'll probably see both OU and UT in the B1G. It'll start with OU which will destabilize and devalue the B12... Texas will then know the best thing to do for themselves is to be in a conference with Oklahoma and Nebraska, and the B1G money will make up for the LHN contract longterm.

I don't think it will happen. We tend to think of things from a midwestern perspective. First of all Nebraska isn't that big of a game to them and that is not meant to be negative to Nebraska. Regional games from OU and other schools from Texas are. Playing a lot of games against Texas schools for Texas recruiting.

I'm afraid Texas would be disadvantaged recruiting wise against Texas A&M with them being in a "southern" conference, whereas Texas in the B1G would be considered a northern or yankee conference.

I think if the Big 12 is dissolved through a movement to PAC 12 which I don't think they want anymore, again they wouldn't like A&M being in a southern league playing EST games where there is more press and Texas playing in a PST league with less press. I think it would take at least a pod of 6 and bringing 2-3 Texas teams at least. I would think they would make the PAC 12 merge and dump a couple of their lesser valued teams also.

I think its most likely either they finally get ACC teams after the B1G & SEC take 4-6 teams or there is some type of merger where Texas wants to take an equal number of teams from their region or old Big 12 to the ACC.

Finally, I think Texas realizes in the final outcome of expansion they will lose some political power, whether a reconstituted Big 12 or another league. But they don't want their region under represented whichever scenario it is, which makes it very hard for that to be the B1G.

My prediction is that the B12 will eventually expand. It will bring in some combination of BYU and several AAC/MWC schools. When that happens, UT will pull a Notre Dame. It will decide that it is too good to be in a conference made up mostly of second level schools. It will then go to the ACC for all sports BUT football, where it will work out a deal similar to ND l to be independent but play 5 ACC teams each year. In that way UT gets to keep its separate LHN. This move mark the end of the B12 as a P5 conference. The BIG will invite KU and Ok to join. The SEC may take two other B12 schools, just because the opportunity to strike is there.

I'm okay with Texas if it's part of a much larger expansion. If we can jump up to 18 or 20 with some big dogs in the Big XII and ACC. An expansion with FB heavy weights Texas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame and BBall heavy weights Kansas and UNC with UVA tagging along would be optimal to me. The biggest brands with the biggest markets all in the footprint.

NYC, Philly, Chicago, DC, Dallas=$$$ no matter what format college athletics revenue streams heads towards.

It's not likely but more likely than many of the other things thrown around on the expansion board.

I wouldn't want Texas as an island, but if we built a bridge to them I would be okay with it.

You dont want texas in your conference, trust me...