A lot has been said about ESPN's role in this, but what about FOX?

FOX definitely has seen its presence in college football increase and is sure to do so in the future. And FOX knows who butters their bread, the Big Ten. Their relationship with the Big Ten goes back to when they signed with the Big Ten Championship and when they signed with the Big Ten they made sure they got the first overall pick every season as opposed to their Big 12 and Pac-12 deals, essentially guaranteeing Michigan/Ohio State will air on FOX every season. The Big Ten Championship had 13.55M viewers (Sports Media Watch) and OSU-Mich had 12.42M. Their next highest game of the season? PSU-OSU with 9.43M. Their marketing strategy this season was "Big Noon" to put their biggest games of the season at noon. Well all but three of their noon games this season were Big Ten and one of the three Big 12 games (WV-OKL) was the lowest rated game in the noon slot all season, worse than NEB-PUR! It wasn't completely bad for the Big 12 on FOX, Oklahoma-Texas finished right behind PSU-OSU with 7.25M viewers, ahead of WISC-OSU (6.65M).

So if FOX wants to improve their college football presence, the best way to do it is to grab the #1 pick in the Big Ten every week instead of sharing it with ABC/ESPN. This past season, ABC aired MICH/PSU and PSU/MINN, both got big ratings that FOX didn't get. What if FOX had those games as well? Now here's the kicker! What if the Big Ten had Texas and Oklahoma? FOX gets the top Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State games every year, the Red River Rivalry every year, the occasional OSU/OU and OSU/UT games, and doesn't have to pay a dime for OU/WV games that draw 2.5M viewers while freezing ESPN/ABC out of 1st tier Texas and Oklahoma games! It makes a ton of sense for FOX to go to the Big Ten and Texas/Oklahoma and say to them we'll give you a boatload of money to make it happen. This would be 1st tier rights or 1st/2nd tier only, maybe ESPN finds a way to make do (or ESPN goes over the top with a counter proposal). But if ESPN wants to fight for Texas, you think FOX doesn't have any interest in Texas and Oklahoma? Tell me this isn't their dream scenario?

I'm going to pretend to be FOX Sports' CEO. Consider this my initial offer to the Big Ten. You bring in Texas and Oklahoma and we'll give you $320 million a year for first tier rights, $20 million per member. Your move, Big Ten, Texas, and Oklahoma (and ESPN and SEC).

(02-25-2020 11:26 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Texas wouldn't move for money, anyway. So that's a moot point. What they don't want is a situation where either the SEC or Big Ten offer the #2 and #3 of the Big 12. They could tolerate the likes of Missouri and Colorado leaving but not Oklahoma, because there's no guarantee whether the RRR would continue without Oklahoma in the fold. Too much at stake. Plus going under 10 would affect the TV part of the deal so much that it would render the Big 12 not viable without a P5 replacement.

While a partial merger with the PAC is not ideal it certainly beats having to send the non-revenue sports to the Northeast, upper Midwest or Southeast. Something like this is going to be seriously consider the closer we get to 2024 or thereabouts.

The image of the Big 12 was hurt with the defections, but in the revenue sports, the Big 12 is arguably stronger. Non-revs were hurt as Nebraska and A&M were in the Big 3 with Texas in non-rev. But Nebraska, A&M and CU were the bottom 3 programs in basketball. Missouri was solid, but never managed to win anything of consequence. It was addition by subtraction. And TCU and WVU have done more in football since the turn of the century than any of the defectors. CU has been mostly abysmal, A&M and Missouri have been mostly middle of the pack, and Nebraska has not been Nebraska.

(02-26-2020 06:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 05:18 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 12:08 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 01:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its hard for any of the other 3 to match the value of the SEC and Big 10. None have the dominance in their markets. The ACC and Pac 12 don't have the same interest in college sports in their areas.

The Big 10 and SEC are each in 11 states and have dominant institutions in nearly all of them.

The Big 10:
2 states flagship and also land grant
1 state sole flagship/land grant and major private
6 states sole flagship/land grant
2 states flagship
They have the 5,6,7, 10 and 11 states in population.

The SEC:
2 states flagship and also land grant
1 state sole flagship/land grant and major private
6 states sole flagship/land grant (although FL, GA and KY have strong secondary schools unlike MO, AR, LA)
1 state flagship
1 state landgrant
They have states 2,3 and 8 in population.

There is another thread where the SC AD says "everything is on the table." If they wanted to create a conference that looked like the Big 10 or SEC, they would have to dump 3 or 4 members and pick up teams from the Big 12.
For example:
West
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanford (never going to be dumped-but probably doesn't add much value)
Arizona
East
Utah
Colorado
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Kansas

Then the Pac has 9 states.
6 states flagship only
1 state flagship and landgrant
1 state flagship and #3 school
1 state flagship, #2 school and 2 major privates
Top 15 states-#1, #2, #13, #14

Maybe Stanford and USC explore independence and the rest break off and partially merge with the Big 12.

Washington
Oregon
Cal
UCLA
Arizona State
Arizona
Utah

Texas
Texas Tech
TCU
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Oklahoma State

TCU covers the private school angle. Stanford and USC keep their non-revenue sports in the merged conference, plus scheduled games against their city rivals, while they explore games against ACC, Big Ten and SEC opponents.

And here's the big one: the PAC-B1G scheduling agreement is revived. With USC/Stanford removed there's no more Domer snag to pull the strings out. Everyone gets critical games in Texas and California without having to add any teams from there.

Or you can just keep USC and Stanford for a Pac-16 and move TCU to the Texas side. I'd also consider BYU instead of TCU. I think Arizona State is important. Even though Arizona is the #1 in Arizona, ASU is in the Phoenix metro and it's good to have a state school in the Phoenix area with a large student body. They'd be the one "second choice public" between the Big 12/Pac 12 I'd want most (other than A&M, who's off limits).

Cal, UCLA, USC, Stanford
Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Arizona State
Utah, BYU, Colorado, Kansas
Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Texahoma is possible by dropping TCU and Baylor. I put in the NW programs with the AZ programs so that neither gain an advantage with being put in with the CA programs. Btw, it would have to have a new name because both the Pac and Big XII names would have to be retired. Maybe Bullet's idea of buying up the WAC's trademark has merit.

The new WAC would likely have the Rose Bowl contract and perhaps a contract with the Sugar Bowl or Cotton Bowl....perhaps shared with the B1G or SEC?

Washington State and Oregon State to the MWC...where they are actually a better fit...

Boise State, Fresno State, SDSU, SJSU, Hawaii, Washington State, Oregon State
Nevada, UNLV, Utah State Air Force, Colorado State, Wyoming, New Mexico

The Big 12 backfills with Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF and USF

TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Houston
WVU, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF, USF

(02-26-2020 07:14 AM)schmolik Wrote:  A lot has been said about ESPN's role in this, but what about FOX?

FOX definitely has seen its presence in college football increase and is sure to do so in the future. And FOX knows who butters their bread, the Big Ten. Their relationship with the Big Ten goes back to when they signed with the Big Ten Championship and when they signed with the Big Ten they made sure they got the first overall pick every season as opposed to their Big 12 and Pac-12 deals, essentially guaranteeing Michigan/Ohio State will air on FOX every season. The Big Ten Championship had 13.55M viewers (Sports Media Watch) and OSU-Mich had 12.42M. Their next highest game of the season? PSU-OSU with 9.43M. Their marketing strategy this season was "Big Noon" to put their biggest games of the season at noon. Well all but three of their noon games this season were Big Ten and one of the three Big 12 games (WV-OKL) was the lowest rated game in the noon slot all season, worse than NEB-PUR! It wasn't completely bad for the Big 12 on FOX, Oklahoma-Texas finished right behind PSU-OSU with 7.25M viewers, ahead of WISC-OSU (6.65M).

So if FOX wants to improve their college football presence, the best way to do it is to grab the #1 pick in the Big Ten every week instead of sharing it with ABC/ESPN. This past season, ABC aired MICH/PSU and PSU/MINN, both got big ratings that FOX didn't get. What if FOX had those games as well? Now here's the kicker! What if the Big Ten had Texas and Oklahoma? FOX gets the top Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State games every year, the Red River Rivalry every year, the occasional OSU/OU and OSU/UT games, and doesn't have to pay a dime for OU/WV games that draw 2.5M viewers while freezing ESPN/ABC out of 1st tier Texas and Oklahoma games! It makes a ton of sense for FOX to go to the Big Ten and Texas/Oklahoma and say to them we'll give you a boatload of money to make it happen. This would be 1st tier rights or 1st/2nd tier only, maybe ESPN finds a way to make do (or ESPN goes over the top with a counter proposal). But if ESPN wants to fight for Texas, you think FOX doesn't have any interest in Texas and Oklahoma? Tell me this isn't their dream scenario?

I'm going to pretend to be FOX Sports' CEO. Consider this my initial offer to the Big Ten. You bring in Texas and Oklahoma and we'll give you $320 million a year for first tier rights, $20 million per member. Your move, Big Ten, Texas, and Oklahoma (and ESPN and SEC).

That’s a great set up for Fox and the Big Ten. The party that needs convincing is Texas.

Big 10 membership means 4 conference games a year out of state.

At home you’ve got 4 conference games plus the RRR against Oklahoma in Dallas.

Texas is going to need all 3 of their remaining games to be in Texas and at least 2 of them at home in order to play 8 games in Texas and have 6 true home games.

It’s achievable with one buy game and two 2-for-1 series going at the same time:

Year 1:
vs Rice (buy game)
vs Baylor
@ TTU

Year 2:
vs UNT (buy game)
@ Baylor
vs TTU

Year 3:
vs UTEP (buy game)
vs Baylor
vs TTU

Why oh why, do people keep saying Texas needs 8 games in state.

THAT IS NONSENSE..

(02-26-2020 01:57 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 06:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 05:18 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-26-2020 12:08 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(02-25-2020 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  There is another thread where the SC AD says "everything is on the table." If they wanted to create a conference that looked like the Big 10 or SEC, they would have to dump 3 or 4 members and pick up teams from the Big 12.
For example:
West
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanford (never going to be dumped-but probably doesn't add much value)
Arizona
East
Utah
Colorado
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Kansas

Then the Pac has 9 states.
6 states flagship only
1 state flagship and landgrant
1 state flagship and #3 school
1 state flagship, #2 school and 2 major privates
Top 15 states-#1, #2, #13, #14

Maybe Stanford and USC explore independence and the rest break off and partially merge with the Big 12.

Washington
Oregon
Cal
UCLA
Arizona State
Arizona
Utah

Texas
Texas Tech
TCU
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Oklahoma State

TCU covers the private school angle. Stanford and USC keep their non-revenue sports in the merged conference, plus scheduled games against their city rivals, while they explore games against ACC, Big Ten and SEC opponents.

And here's the big one: the PAC-B1G scheduling agreement is revived. With USC/Stanford removed there's no more Domer snag to pull the strings out. Everyone gets critical games in Texas and California without having to add any teams from there.

Or you can just keep USC and Stanford for a Pac-16 and move TCU to the Texas side. I'd also consider BYU instead of TCU. I think Arizona State is important. Even though Arizona is the #1 in Arizona, ASU is in the Phoenix metro and it's good to have a state school in the Phoenix area with a large student body. They'd be the one "second choice public" between the Big 12/Pac 12 I'd want most (other than A&M, who's off limits).

Cal, UCLA, USC, Stanford
Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Arizona State
Utah, BYU, Colorado, Kansas
Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Texahoma is possible by dropping TCU and Baylor. I put in the NW programs with the AZ programs so that neither gain an advantage with being put in with the CA programs. Btw, it would have to have a new name because both the Pac and Big XII names would have to be retired. Maybe Bullet's idea of buying up the WAC's trademark has merit.

The new WAC would likely have the Rose Bowl contract and perhaps a contract with the Sugar Bowl or Cotton Bowl....perhaps shared with the B1G or SEC?

Washington State and Oregon State to the MWC...where they are actually a better fit...

Boise State, Fresno State, SDSU, SJSU, Hawaii, Washington State, Oregon State
Nevada, UNLV, Utah State Air Force, Colorado State, Wyoming, New Mexico

The Big 12 backfills with Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF and USF

TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Houston
WVU, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF, USF

Athletically, Oregon State might fit better in the Mountain West, but one thing to definitely remember: Oregon State is a founding member of the Pac12. It's hard for founding members of a conference to walk away from a conference, although it has definitely been done before (the Big 12 to me is an exception. That conference has had a lot of problems!!!), and Oregon State's president has held a position of power for a long time in the PAC 12. Why would he want to give that up??? In addition, although it's been awhile, Oregon State has been to the forerunner of the CFP, the BCS, back in 2001, vs Notre Dame, who they beat in the Fiesta Bowl.

(02-28-2020 08:49 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Athletically, Oregon State might fit better in the Mountain West, but one thing to definitely remember: Oregon State is a founding member of the Pac12. It's hard for founding members of a conference to walk away from a conference, although it has definitely been done before (the Big 12 to me is an exception. That conference has had a lot of problems!!!), and Oregon State's president has held a position of power for a long time in the PAC 12. Why would he want to give that up??? In addition, although it's been awhile, Oregon State has been to the forerunner of the CFP, the BCS, back in 2001, vs Notre Dame, who they beat in the Fiesta Bowl.

Of course Oregon State would never decide to voluntarily leave from the Pac-12. But who said it was their choice? There's no precedence to expel a member but if Bohm is right and everything is truly on the table, who knows? It's obvious they are either the biggest dead weight or second biggest dead weight in the conference, if the Big 12 raids the Pac 12 or the Pac-12 and Big 12 merge and take the best, we all know Oregon State's not making the cut.

(02-27-2020 10:19 AM)texoma Wrote:  Why oh why, do people keep saying Texas needs 8 games in state.

I think what they are saying is that Texas wants 8 games in state, so somebody putting together a bid to get Texas's interest may have to cater to that desire.

Obviously Texas can survive perfectly well, and remain one of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country, with a "mere" six or seven game in state.

_____________________________

(02-28-2020 09:11 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Of course Oregon State would never decide to voluntarily leave from the Pac-12. But who said it was their choice? There's no precedence to expel a member but if Bohm is right and everything is truly on the table, who knows? It's obvious they are either the biggest dead weight or second biggest dead weight in the conference, if the Big 12 raids the Pac 12 or the Pac-12 and Big 12 merge and take the best, we all know Oregon State's not making the cut.

One thing to remember about the post-2011 continuity rules is that it doesn't prevent any random collection of schools from forming a new conference, it just denies them an autobid until that new conference has been running a basketball competition for eight years.

But if there was a new "Pacific and Southwest Conference" of Washington, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Texas Tech, Texas, Oklahoma and ... oh, say Kansas (so you don't accuse me of being biased to the Pokes (Go Pokes!)) ... it doesn't actually require an autobid to be sending multiple schools to the Tourney. Unlike a new conference make from a collection of non-P5 schools which risks a long dry spell locked out of the Tourney, a new conference made of P5 schools only has to worry about what is its place in the CFP contract.

(02-28-2020 08:49 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Athletically, Oregon State might fit better in the Mountain West, but one thing to definitely remember: Oregon State is a founding member of the Pac12. It's hard for founding members of a conference to walk away from a conference, although it has definitely been done before (the Big 12 to me is an exception. That conference has had a lot of problems!!!), and Oregon State's president has held a position of power for a long time in the PAC 12. Why would he want to give that up??? In addition, although it's been awhile, Oregon State has been to the forerunner of the CFP, the BCS, back in 2001, vs Notre Dame, who they beat in the Fiesta Bowl.

Right, Oregon State has done a lot better athletically than, say, Minnesota. And if the response is, Minnesota is the only P5 school in the state, then fine, go look at other relatively small states that have "too many" power-conference programs.

(02-28-2020 03:05 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  [quote='texoma' pid='16701346' dateline='1582816774']

Why oh why, do people keep saying Texas needs 8 games in state.

I think what they are saying is that Texas wants 8 games in state, so somebody putting together a bid to get Texas's interest may have to cater to that desire.

Obviously Texas can survive perfectly well, and remain one of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country, with a "mere" six or seven game in state.

_____________________________

Where oh where did they get the idea that Texas wants 8 games in the state.

Texas has never said anything about wanting to play 8 eight games in state. The reason Texas wanted out of the SWC was to avoid playing many of the schools in the old SWC that were in the state.

(02-28-2020 05:33 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(02-28-2020 03:05 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  [quote='texoma' pid='16701346' dateline='1582816774']

Why oh why, do people keep saying Texas needs 8 games in state.

I think what they are saying is that Texas wants 8 games in state, so somebody putting together a bid to get Texas's interest may have to cater to that desire.

Obviously Texas can survive perfectly well, and remain one of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country, with a "mere" six or seven game in state.

_____________________________

Where oh where did they get the idea that Texas wants 8 games in the state.

Texas has never said anything about 8 eight games in state. The reason Texas wanted out of the SWC was to avoid playing many of the schools in the old SWC that were in the state.

People are always making up things about Texas because Texas doesn't act the way they want them to act. "Texas needs 8 games in state." "Texas needs to power over their fellow conference members."

You just have to listen to the presidents and chancellors. President Powers in his press conference after they killed the Pac 16 deal said they could get the same money and similar scheduling without any change. Earlier, with regards to the Big 10 in an e-mail, said he didn't want to fly the softball team all over the midwest. That would apply to all the non-rev sports. Chancellor Cunningham said he didn't want to join the SEC because those schools would take athletes with academics that Texas wouldn't touch (you can argue until you are blue in the face whether that is true or not, but the Texas administration believes it, and most of the regular students in at least half the SEC schools wouldn't get any consideration for Texas admission).

And college presidents are risk-averse. Texas is comfortably the top revenue producing athletic program despite having notably less media revenue than SEC and Big 10 schools. If you change conferences, you put that at risk.

The main reason why folks talk about 8 games in Texas is because historically they’ve always played very Texas heavy schedules.

Think about the SWC days. They played one conference game a year out state every other year!

On top of that, their big OOC game in the Cotton Bowl was, you guessed it, IN TEXAS.


Traditionally Texas has enjoyed using their conference games against in state opponents to get exposure throughout the state and connect with their fanbase where they lived, as opposed to their fans always going to them in Austin.

Maybe that stance and strategy has changed some over the years but that’s always been part of their brand, home field advantage no matter where in the state they play as the burnt orange faithful pour into opposing venues.

I put it out there on Texas's SB Nation page, Burnt Orange Nation.
https://www.burntorangenation.com/2020/2...s-grant-of

(02-28-2020 06:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-28-2020 05:33 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(02-28-2020 03:05 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  [quote='texoma' pid='16701346' dateline='1582816774']

Why oh why, do people keep saying Texas needs 8 games in state.

I think what they are saying is that Texas wants 8 games in state, so somebody putting together a bid to get Texas's interest may have to cater to that desire.

Obviously Texas can survive perfectly well, and remain one of the wealthiest athletic departments in the country, with a "mere" six or seven game in state.

_____________________________

Where oh where did they get the idea that Texas wants 8 games in the state.

Texas has never said anything about 8 eight games in state. The reason Texas wanted out of the SWC was to avoid playing many of the schools in the old SWC that were in the state.

People are always making up things about Texas because Texas doesn't act the way they want them to act. "Texas needs 8 games in state." "Texas needs to power over their fellow conference members."

You just have to listen to the presidents and chancellors. President Powers in his press conference after they killed the Pac 16 deal said they could get the same money and similar scheduling without any change. Earlier, with regards to the Big 10 in an e-mail, said he didn't want to fly the softball team all over the midwest. That would apply to all the non-rev sports. Chancellor Cunningham said he didn't want to join the SEC because those schools would take athletes with academics that Texas wouldn't touch (you can argue until you are blue in the face whether that is true or not, but the Texas administration believes it, and most of the regular students in at least half the SEC schools wouldn't get any consideration for Texas admission).

And college presidents are risk-averse. Texas is comfortably the top revenue producing athletic program despite having notably less media revenue than SEC and Big 10 schools. If you change conferences, you put that at risk.

Interesting comments from Bullet. Geography is certainly a concern to UT but so is academics. Of the three conferences that Texas can feasibly move to, the SEC seems to be the one most geographically compatible but there were academic issues. Despite the geographical differences, the most serious move that Texas was going to make last realignment cycle was going to the Pac-12, that tells a lot.

Now since then, West Virginia was added to the Big 12. Texas isn't flying their softball team all across the Midwest but they are flying a lot of their sports to West Virginia (WV doesn't have a softball team:) Now you see why I suggested the Big 12 allow their other sports out of the Big 12 and stay as just a football member, it benefits both sides. Of course there's a difference between flying to just West Virginia and flying to say Ohio State, Penn State, and both Michigan schools and of course flying to California and the Pacific NW is a whole other beast so Powers certainly had a point.

At the time, the gap between the Big 12 and the other conferences wasn't as big and Texas found it could make as much staying in the Big 12. The gap between the Big 12 and the Big Ten and SEC has widened. We expect the SEC's contract to skyrocket. The Big Ten's may or may not. If FOX/ESPN want to pay for Texas and Oklahoma and don't want to pay for the Little Eight, they'll go to the SEC, Big Ten, or even the Pac-12 and say to them bring in Texas and Oklahoma and we'll give you a boatload more money. All of a sudden "staying put" may not be the best option financially for Texas. I'm not saying the decision Texas will make this decade will be different than they did last decade but the financial landscape will be very different.

(02-28-2020 05:33 PM)texoma Wrote:  Where oh where did they get the idea that Texas wants 8 games in the state.

Because they keep doing it?

Quote: Texas has never said anything about wanting to play 8 eight games in state. The reason Texas wanted out of the SWC was to avoid playing many of the schools in the old SWC that were in the state.

A lot of people put more credence in what academic politicians do than on what they say. When they broke for the SWC to make the Big12, it was in a divisional set-up where it was easy to ensure eight games played in Texas every year. So the move that was consistent with "didn't like the lineup they were playing" was also consistent with "liked playing a lot of games in Texas every year".

Texas could have fought for a school from outside of Texas to replace Texas A&M when they left for the SEC ... if they were really hankering to be playing more games out of state. If they were really hankering for playing more games out of state they could push for playing the RRR on campus again instead of in Dallas every year.

(02-29-2020 10:17 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  When they broke for the SWC to make the Big12, it was in a divisional set-up where it was easy to ensure eight games played in Texas every year.

The original Big 12 had obvious geographic divisions for football, and needed divisions because of the CCG rules at the time. Also, the Big 8 wanted to add just UT and TAMU. Baylor and Texas Tech were included only because of strong-arming by politicians, not because the Horns wanted more away football games in-state.

(02-29-2020 10:17 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Texas could have fought for a school from outside of Texas to replace Texas A&M when they left for the SEC.

IIRC, it was Oklahoma who wanted TCU to be invited. Based on the story told by the then-TCU and now-UT athletic director, UT wasn't pushing for TCU and had to be persuaded.

(02-29-2020 11:44 AM)Wedge Wrote:  IIRC, it was Oklahoma who wanted TCU to be invited. Based on the story told by the then-TCU and now-UT athletic director, UT wasn't pushing for TCU and had to be persuaded.

Yes. OU was supportive. Joe Castiglione (OU AD) wanted them in. However, Chris Del Conte, then the TCU AD, drove to Austin with his assistant and showed up at DeLoss Dodds' (longtime UT AD) door. They were prepared with binders full of information, but they instead went out for drinks. Once DeLoss Dodds had a few drinks, TCU was in the Big 12.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...in-big-12/

I did a little math on this subject and the SEC could add 2.8 billion by adding Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Kansas. That I would think would effectively eliminate the Big 12 as a power conference.

The current SEC is worth just under 7.5 billion. This add would put us over 10 billion and close to doubling the total value of the Big 10, at least according to the WSJ valuations.

By attendance and gross total revenue the additions work as well with the exception of Kansas's football attendance.

As far as a grouping that might please Texas in a conference of 3 divisions of 6 it would look like this:

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Tennessee

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt.

It doesn't upset the current SEC, and it essentially gives Texas a division of familiar faces.

(02-29-2020 11:44 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Also, the Big 8 wanted to add just UT and TAMU. Baylor and Texas Tech were included only because of strong-arming by politicians, not because the Horns wanted more away football games in-state.

And today was poetic justice for TCU when they beat Baylor and stormed the court on them. It wasn't just a win, it was personal. Baylor had no business being in the Big 12 back then, they probably had the least right to be in. If Texas politicians want to help out a state funded school like Texas Tech, that's one thing. Why didn't they do the same for Houston? You don't do things for private schools. And if any private school deserved to be in, SMU and TCU are in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area and Rice is in Houston. Why help a school in some irrelevant town only known for Baylor and Dr. Pepper?

(02-29-2020 08:25 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-29-2020 11:44 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Also, the Big 8 wanted to add just UT and TAMU. Baylor and Texas Tech were included only because of strong-arming by politicians, not because the Horns wanted more away football games in-state.

And today was poetic justice for TCU when they beat Baylor and stormed the court on them. It wasn't just a win, it was personal. Baylor had no business being in the Big 12 back then, they probably had the least right to be in. If Texas politicians want to help out a state funded school like Texas Tech, that's one thing. Why didn't they do the same for Houston? You don't do things for private schools. And if any private school deserved to be in, SMU and TCU are in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area and Rice is in Houston. Why help a school in some irrelevant town only known for Baylor and Dr. Pepper?

Baylor was easily the 4th strongest program in the SWC at the time (1994). UH was in a slump. TCU, SMU and Rice were all pretty bad. Baylor had far better attendance than the other 4.