(07-02-2016 09:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 01:52 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Academically and financially, Texas is a great Big Ten fit. But athletically, it would be a bad, bad move. The only--and I mean ONLY--way this could ever fly athletically would be a STRONG bridge down to Texas from Big Ten land. If Mizzou, Kansas, and Oklahoma would join UT in the Big Ten (giving three pods of 6 teams, so that Texas could have four old Big 12 pals and Illinois in its pod), then it might fly. Plus, the amount of money that those 18 teams would garner would be a game-changer.

I still think the best all-around move for Texas in the long-run would be a 16 team ACC with Notre Dame as a full member. Force the ACC to stay at 8 conference games...which would allow UT to schedule other Texas teams for 3 of 4 non-conf games. Let Texas and ND keep their Tier 3 TV rights.

Texas academically is a lot like the Big 10 schools, all enormous state research universities. But geographically and athletically it doesn't fit. Big 10 schools tend to have more sports and are weaker in the spring sports where Texas is strong. Texas doesn't have wrestling, hockey or lacrosse which are big in the B1G.

I don't see a Texas president who ever decided to "fly the women's softball team all over the Midwest." (quote from former President Powers).

On average, the Big 10 is closer than the ACC or Pac 12, but if Texas joined the Pac 12, they could bring more neighbors with the result that travel would be less.

I think the Big 12, Pac 12 or a superconference are the future for Texas, not the B1G, not the SEC and definitely not the ACC, which doesn't really match in any way.

I pretty much agree with you, however if Texas has Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri go with them to the Big10 it is a new ball game. That is a good fit just about any way you look at it. The softball team will not have to fly all over the Midwest.

A six team pod of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Iowa ....or a nine team division of those six schools plus Minnesota, Illinois and Northwestern would be hard to improve up on.

I also think the PAC with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Tech, Kansas and Kansas State would also work, but IMO the Big10 option would be better.

I definitely agree that Texas is not going to the SEC nor the ACC. Posters that keep saying Texas will go to the ACC as a full member or go indy in football with a Notre Dame type deal and the other sports to the ACC are way off base IMO. That would really be flying the softball team to the extreme.

(07-02-2016 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  They would make less money in the Big Ten. The Big Ten conf distribution (at 16 members -- which includes BTN) will be probably ~$10M/year higher than the Big 12 (at 10 members -- which doesn't include secondary rights deals), while losing $15M/year off the top from LHN. That's a loss.

Um ... duh, the home team owns the rights to the games. The argument has nothing to do with Texas road games. Texas wants all Texas home events, that aren't taken as part of a primary rights agreement, to be on LHN. Plain and simple.

You're wrong and you know you're wrong, about LHN. Big Ten would force Texas to give secondary rights to BTN and take only an equal share, the same as schools like Minnesota, Northwestern and Purdue. Texas can't accept that. And that's just fine, we don't want or need it anyway.


Obviously you've been defeated, but you'll never admit it.

You are free to think whatever you want. I'm not wrong. Math is simple. Payout will be roughly $50M per school with the new TV contract and take away the BTN for Texas and then add in the LHN money. Comes out ahead for Texas.

LHN is no issue.

(07-02-2016 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  They would make less money in the Big Ten. The Big Ten conf distribution (at 16 members -- which includes BTN) will be probably ~$10M/year higher than the Big 12 (at 10 members -- which doesn't include secondary rights deals), while losing $15M/year off the top from LHN. That's a loss.

Um ... duh, the home team owns the rights to the games. The argument has nothing to do with Texas road games. Texas wants all Texas home events, that aren't taken as part of a primary rights agreement, to be on LHN. Plain and simple.

You're wrong and you know you're wrong, about LHN. Big Ten would force Texas to give secondary rights to BTN and take only an equal share, the same as schools like Minnesota, Northwestern and Purdue. Texas can't accept that. And that's just fine, we don't want or need it anyway.


Obviously you've been defeated, but you'll never admit it.

He wants Texas in the Big ten for the simple fact that he thinks it would help Nebraska. (Recruits from Texas) He is right, it would help Nebraska. He's wrong that Texas will go to the big ten. You Nebraska fans knew going into the big ten that you'd take a hit in recruiting. Maybe you guys thought that it wouldn't be as bad? You guys all knew that the Nebraska/Texas divorce was final. There will be no remarriage...move on and schedule Houston, Rice, & SMU OOC for access to Texas. Schedule a big game at Jerry World vs Arky. Those are realistic suggestions.
Cheers!

(07-02-2016 12:02 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  They would make less money in the Big Ten. The Big Ten conf distribution (at 16 members -- which includes BTN) will be probably ~$10M/year higher than the Big 12 (at 10 members -- which doesn't include secondary rights deals), while losing $15M/year off the top from LHN. That's a loss.

Um ... duh, the home team owns the rights to the games. The argument has nothing to do with Texas road games. Texas wants all Texas home events, that aren't taken as part of a primary rights agreement, to be on LHN. Plain and simple.

You're wrong and you know you're wrong, about LHN. Big Ten would force Texas to give secondary rights to BTN and take only an equal share, the same as schools like Minnesota, Northwestern and Purdue. Texas can't accept that. And that's just fine, we don't want or need it anyway.


Obviously you've been defeated, but you'll never admit it.

He wants Texas in the Big ten for the simple fact that he thinks it would help Nebraska. (Recruits from Texas) He is right, it would help Nebraska. He's wrong that Texas will go to the big ten. You Nebraska fans knew going into the big ten that you'd take a hit in recruiting. Maybe you guys thought that it wouldn't be as bad? You guys all knew that the Nebraska/Texas divorce was final. There will be no remarriage...move on and schedule Houston, Rice, & SMU OOC for access to Texas. Schedule a big game at Jerry World vs Arky. Those are realistic suggestions.
Cheers!

Nebraska needs all the help they can get, academically and athletically.

(07-02-2016 12:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 12:02 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  They would make less money in the Big Ten. The Big Ten conf distribution (at 16 members -- which includes BTN) will be probably ~$10M/year higher than the Big 12 (at 10 members -- which doesn't include secondary rights deals), while losing $15M/year off the top from LHN. That's a loss.

Um ... duh, the home team owns the rights to the games. The argument has nothing to do with Texas road games. Texas wants all Texas home events, that aren't taken as part of a primary rights agreement, to be on LHN. Plain and simple.

You're wrong and you know you're wrong, about LHN. Big Ten would force Texas to give secondary rights to BTN and take only an equal share, the same as schools like Minnesota, Northwestern and Purdue. Texas can't accept that. And that's just fine, we don't want or need it anyway.


Obviously you've been defeated, but you'll never admit it.

He wants Texas in the Big ten for the simple fact that he thinks it would help Nebraska. (Recruits from Texas) He is right, it would help Nebraska. He's wrong that Texas will go to the big ten. You Nebraska fans knew going into the big ten that you'd take a hit in recruiting. Maybe you guys thought that it wouldn't be as bad? You guys all knew that the Nebraska/Texas divorce was final. There will be no remarriage...move on and schedule Houston, Rice, & SMU OOC for access to Texas. Schedule a big game at Jerry World vs Arky. Those are realistic suggestions.
Cheers!

Nebraska needs all the help they can get, academically and athletically.

Then they should've stayed in the Big 12.

Once the GOR is up, the ACC will wake up and offer Texas a Notre Dame type of deal. Will add millions of fans to the ACC and Texas can schedule themselves an 8 game home football season.

NM ST is Indy and will need $ to keep their athletic programs going as will UMASS. Texas already has a relationship with BYU and there are several private U's in Texas (Rice, SMU) in states bordering Texas (Tulsa, Tulane) that would be natural fits for the Horns schedule. Every once in a while Texas can throw Tulane a bone and play them in New Orleans since they have access to a large indoor stadium and Louisiana talent but otherwise a ND type deal with the ACC would bring both parties lots of benefits and give Texas the chance to schedule 8 home games a year in most seasons with a possibility of 9 some years.

5 ACC games per year plus NM ST, TUlsa, Tulane, Rice, SMU & UMASS just about completes their schedule every year.

(07-01-2016 02:38 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  As of today Texas makes by far the most money through TV contracts at $45 million. With the new B1G TV contract, Texas will be able to get a higher payout through the B1G money without BTN money. This would increase the amount of money Texas gets from a TV deal by over $10 million a year. Closer to $15 million increase.


The B1G will be able to manage the LHN with BTN. Games that involve Texas at B1G schools (road games) can be on BTN. The home games for Texas would be on the LHN.

Academics matter to Texas. That eliminates the SEC.

I'm not going to continue writing on and on for why I think Texas ends up in the B1G, but I'm very confident it happens.

And I predict it happens BEFORE the next B1G TV contract - thus, within the next 5 years.

If they do this, they will lose the recruiting wars with the Aggies. Other than money, it has not worked out too well for the Huskers.

(07-02-2016 11:25 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 11:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  So NebFan,

nothing more to say for yourself? Your wistful daydream was sliced into a thousand bits.

You haven't addressed:

- stever blowing up the number of your original claim
- me and others blowing up the premise, based on the fact that Texas won't give up the LHN
- bullet (actual Texas fan) saying that Texas won't go to the Big Ten


Au Revoir, Texas-Big Ten fantasy.

Meh, those are very weak counter points that don't hold any water.

The 45 million is the total payout. They would get paid more in the B1G.

Texas doesn't have to give up the LHN. I already stated how it would work. Texas has played B1G teams on the road in Olympic sports and there games were on BTN. It just means that Texas gets paid through ESPN instead of BTN. And the B1G told Texas they could keep the LHN in 2011.

Fans always say so and so will not go here and there. That stuff means nothing.

The 45 million like you just said is the total payout. in your initial post you said that Texas makes by far the most money through TV contracts at 45 million. Which is utter bs.

And just because the Big Ten told Texas back in 2011 they could keep the LHN- doesn't mean that would be the case now. In fact, with Ohio St and Michigan so much stronger now than they were back 5-6 years ago- it probably won't be the case now.

You just want Texas in the Big Ten to help Nebraska out competitively. With what the Big Ten just did- they don't need Texas quite frankly.

(07-02-2016 12:34 PM)BattleCougarRed_88 Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 12:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 12:02 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-02-2016 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  They would make less money in the Big Ten. The Big Ten conf distribution (at 16 members -- which includes BTN) will be probably ~$10M/year higher than the Big 12 (at 10 members -- which doesn't include secondary rights deals), while losing $15M/year off the top from LHN. That's a loss.

Um ... duh, the home team owns the rights to the games. The argument has nothing to do with Texas road games. Texas wants all Texas home events, that aren't taken as part of a primary rights agreement, to be on LHN. Plain and simple.

You're wrong and you know you're wrong, about LHN. Big Ten would force Texas to give secondary rights to BTN and take only an equal share, the same as schools like Minnesota, Northwestern and Purdue. Texas can't accept that. And that's just fine, we don't want or need it anyway.


Obviously you've been defeated, but you'll never admit it.

He wants Texas in the Big ten for the simple fact that he thinks it would help Nebraska. (Recruits from Texas) He is right, it would help Nebraska. He's wrong that Texas will go to the big ten. You Nebraska fans knew going into the big ten that you'd take a hit in recruiting. Maybe you guys thought that it wouldn't be as bad? You guys all knew that the Nebraska/Texas divorce was final. There will be no remarriage...move on and schedule Houston, Rice, & SMU OOC for access to Texas. Schedule a big game at Jerry World vs Arky. Those are realistic suggestions.
Cheers!

Nebraska needs all the help they can get, academically and athletically.

Then they should've stayed in the Big 12.

Well of course they should have. My brother lives in Lincoln and although he's thrilled that Iowa is in the same conference as Nebraska, he says the local husker fans (no-academic people) grumble about the trips to Northwestern and Minney etc. They liked going down to Columbia, Norman, Austin a lot more. Yes, they made a mistake leaving the big 12, The only way it's not a mistake is if Mizzou, OU & Texas join them in the Big Ten.
Cheers!

Nebraska hasn't been "NEBRASKA" since the early 2000's I don't pay a ton of attention to Big 12 football but something happened before the Big 10 move.

NebFan,

Regardless of your fabricated a number, sourced entirely out of your ____, that conveniently helps make the argument of Texas netting more revenue from the Big Ten than it does from the Big 12 + LHN, you still lose the war in either path you try to take forward from there:

A - Minnesota, Purdue, Northwestern, etc. will never vote to let an outsider like Texas into the conference with a greater revenue share than founding members receive. It will never, ever happen and there is nothing that Nebraska - another outsider - can do about it.

B - Texas will never accept an equal revenue share as schools like Minnesota, Purdue, Northwestern, etc. when, in its own eyes, it is Texas' value that would be boosting the Big Ten's media contracts up to the point where Texas could actually stand to increase its revenue. You just don't get it: they're greedy! It doesn't matter if they'd make more than they do with Big 12 + LHN ... in their viewpoint they're losing money that should be theirs!

Obvious MplsBison is against any school that he doesn't favor himself.

I'm even more confident in Texas coming to the B1G after posting this thread since their isn't a single argument presented that stands on its own.

(07-02-2016 06:05 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  Nebraska hasn't been "NEBRASKA" since the early 2000's I don't pay a ton of attention to Big 12 football but something happened before the Big 10 move.

Also, I don't recall Nebraska playing a Texas school on a regular basis prior to the formation of the Big Twelve.

(07-02-2016 08:06 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Obvious MplsBison is against any school that he doesn't favor himself.

I'm even more confident in Texas coming to the B1G after posting this thread since their isn't a single argument presented that stands on its own.

I don't have a dog in this fight but the Longhorns must satisfy two interests IMO; the fans/donors and the academics. I just don't see how the B1G can satisfy the former.

Sure, they could add 4 former B12 schools, but if there is unrest over the current slate I'm hard pressed to see how a shift to a midwest heavy schedule would appease the masses.

I would think that Oklahoma would rather be in the BIG with teams like Nebraska and Wisconsin. The money is at this time is better and have some great history.

Some of you guys are really funny. You have been arguing realignment scenarios for so long, you believe that you can fit schools into a box based on parameters that YOU set, rather than the needs or desires of the schools. I was raised a Texas fan and have followed them for over 55 years. But go ahead and ignore everything said by Texas fans like me and bullet or by rival fans who understand Texas football like 10thMountain. I'm sure you know better.

For a school like Texas, the money of the Big 10 or SEC won't be the determining factor in a conference decision. Texas has money, so any bump those conferences can offer won't be worth the power and influence they might have to relinquish. Academics do matter at Texas, but it doesn't matter so much when athletics are concerned.

What DOES matter is recruiting. Imagine for a moment that, after joining the Big 10, the Texas football or baseball coach is meeting with a five star recruit in the state, a kid who anyone in the country would take, but the recruit has narrowed his choice to Texas and Texas A&M. The Texas coach is selling his Big 10 schedule featuring Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, Northwestern and occasional games with Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, etc. Outside is the A&M coach who is ready to show a schedule including Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and occasional games with Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, etc. Believe me when I say that no Texas football player grows up hoping to play a Big 10 schedule, but some do end up going that way, so the Texas football coach has a shot. If it's a baseball recruit, A&M gets the commitment on the spot. I would guess that Texas recruiting would hit Nebraska levels of mediocrity if the Longhorns moved to the Big 10. Someone with decision-making input will recognize this and the proposal will be dead on arrival. They may flirt with the Big 10 to aid in getting the best deal they can elsewhere, but barring a Big 10 move to 18-20 to include anyone Texas wants, I can't see a match.

Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin would want to stick together...and OU/Kansas/Mizzou/Texas would want to stick together. If Nebraska could get a protected cross-over game with OU, I think they'd prefer to be with Iowa/Minn/Wiscy. And to keep some old flavors of the Big Ten alive, I think you'd want to mix things up as much as possible.

Try this. (protected)
UT (PSU)
OU (Neb)
Mizzou (Iowa)
Kansas (UMD)
Illinois (NW)
Purdue (Indiana)

Minn (Rut)
UW (OSU)
Iowa (Mizzou)
Nebraska (OU)
MSU (UM)
Indiana (Purdue)

OSU (UW)
PSU (Texas)
UM (MSU)
Rutgers (Minn)
UMD (Kansas)
NW (Illinois)

(07-02-2016 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  They would make less money in the Big Ten. The Big Ten conf distribution (at 16 members -- which includes BTN) will be probably ~$10M/year higher than the Big 12 (at 10 members -- which doesn't include secondary rights deals), while losing $15M/year off the top from LHN. That's a loss.

Not that I think Texas is joining the B1G, but your math is wrong.

The B1G will be making $10 million more than the B12 just comparing the Fox/ESPN deals. If Texas loses the $15 million in LHN money, why wouldn't they gain BTN money, which is $8mm before the BTN adds Texas and its 27 million+ population?

Fans have no say in this stuff. If they did Missouri would be in the B1G and Maryland would still be in the ACC.

Heck, Oklahoma fans are basically 40 percent SEC, 30 percent B1G and the rest split elsewhere. OK academia and administrative people are strong B1G leaning.

(07-03-2016 08:24 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Fans have no say in this stuff. If they did Missouri would be in the B1G and Maryland would still be in the ACC.

Heck, Oklahoma fans are basically 40 percent SEC, 30 percent B1G and the rest split elsewhere. OK academia and administrative people are strong B1G leaning.

Nebby fans vote with their feet, fannies and checkbooks.
Maryland had been dead to the ACC (and vice versa) for some time. There was no enthusiasm on Maryland's part when any ACC football team went to College Park, in fact the only thing their fans got up for were the Dook and Carolina basketball games. And don't think it was a one way street......Maryland coming to any ACC venue was NOT must see.
Maryland and the ACC had been growing apart for some time, and the only reason that anybody is upset about Maryland's departure is that the Maryland administrators are liars when everybody else in the ACC gave them the benefit of the doubt about being honorable.