(07-16-2015 01:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 11:37 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 09:30 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 08:51 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Texas politics.

As originally envisioned, the Big 8 expansion was only to include Texas A&M and UT-Austin.

BYU and UNM were leading candidates to be 11 & 12.

But once Texas politics forced BU and TTU onto the league, those two lost their place at the table.

Now the original B12 could have still invited them and gone to 14 (The B12 owns the rights to the name "Big 14") but at the time, 12 was decided to be the max.

k. Thanks

Actually the original plan was to take all 16 from the Big 8 and SWC. There were lots of things talked about. I never seen it said BYU and UNM were ever a top priority, but they were discussed. Texas always knew they had to find a home for Texas Tech or they weren't going anywhere.

The idea to add the entire SWC to the Big 8... did anyone from the Big 8 ever take that seriously? From what I've read that started with the SWC and didn't get anywhere with the Big 8. One of the old articles about the Big 8/SWC drama told the story of the Big 8 asking a TV consultant how much money a 16-team Big 8/SWC would get from the TV networks, and how much money the Big 8 would get if they invited only UT and A&M to join, and the consultant's answer was, "The same amount."

It might be correct that the mentions of BYU and New Mexico were just spitballing, or trial balloons or whatever you want to call it, and not something that was seriously pursued at the time.

There was an interview in the last couple of years with the KSU president at the time where he said they all got in a room and agreed to pursue the 16 team idea, but the next he heard it was going to be a Big 12.

I got the impression that the OU and UT ADs really drove the process. KSU may have been in the dark because they may have been out in some of the scenarios.

I heard the comment about the TV $ except I remember it being 12 vs. 10. They needed the ccg to pay for Baylor and Tech. At some point they probably figured out adding all 8 of the Texas schools didn't make financial sense and didn't solve the issues the SWC had.

(07-16-2015 11:27 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I agree about Texas not joing the SEC. However, I think they might bend a little on the LHN. BUT IMO no way Texas goes Imdependent.....they would have to place their basketball, baseball and other sports in the American Atheletic Conference or some other G5. Can't see that happening

(07-16-2015 03:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 01:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 11:37 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 09:30 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  k. Thanks

Actually the original plan was to take all 16 from the Big 8 and SWC. There were lots of things talked about. I never seen it said BYU and UNM were ever a top priority, but they were discussed. Texas always knew they had to find a home for Texas Tech or they weren't going anywhere.

The idea to add the entire SWC to the Big 8... did anyone from the Big 8 ever take that seriously? From what I've read that started with the SWC and didn't get anywhere with the Big 8. One of the old articles about the Big 8/SWC drama told the story of the Big 8 asking a TV consultant how much money a 16-team Big 8/SWC would get from the TV networks, and how much money the Big 8 would get if they invited only UT and A&M to join, and the consultant's answer was, "The same amount."

It might be correct that the mentions of BYU and New Mexico were just spitballing, or trial balloons or whatever you want to call it, and not something that was seriously pursued at the time.

There was an interview in the last couple of years with the KSU president at the time where he said they all got in a room and agreed to pursue the 16 team idea, but the next he heard it was going to be a Big 12.

I got the impression that the OU and UT ADs really drove the process. KSU may have been in the dark because they may have been out in some of the scenarios.

I heard the comment about the TV $ except I remember it being 12 vs. 10. They needed the ccg to pay for Baylor and Tech. At some point they probably figured out adding all 8 of the Texas schools didn't make financial sense and didn't solve the issues the SWC had.

Yeah, a "merger" of conferences doesn't really work in that scenario or pretty much any other scenario. The way to maximize dollars-per-team is to get the most dollars you can and split it the fewest ways you can. So it makes perfect sense that the Big 8 guys were trying to get the most money with the fewest teams.

K-State was never a power player in the Big 8, so it also makes sense that their president would not have been in the loop until the very end.

(07-16-2015 02:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  What I read was BYU, TCU and Houston as #12 until Texas politics got involved. I would love to see Baylor get booted for a much more deserving school to be in.

(07-16-2015 02:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 02:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  What I read was BYU, TCU and Houston as #12 until Texas politics got involved. I would love to see Baylor get booted for a much more deserving school to be in.

In 1994, Baylor was clearly more "deserving" than UH, TCU, SMU or Rice. Only UH was really close. Baylor had more athletic success in the 90s and far more fan support. Rice is small, SMU was just coming off the death penalty, TCU never really recovered from their 1984 recruiting violations and UH was in a big down cycle.

(07-16-2015 06:12 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 02:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  What I read was BYU, TCU and Houston as #12 until Texas politics got involved. I would love to see Baylor get booted for a much more deserving school to be in.

Then what you read was 100% wrong.

Tech's AD at the time said it was going to be ten teams (Big8+UT+A&M) until politics added seats for both BU and Tech and it was never anyone else. It's in one of the main articles about the whole deal and a direct quote.

Nobody was supposed to be in and then replaced by BU or Tech who both got in the same way.

(07-16-2015 05:29 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 11:27 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I agree about Texas not joing the SEC. However, I think they might bend a little on the LHN. BUT IMO no way Texas goes Imdependent.....they would have to place their basketball, baseball and other sports in the American Atheletic Conference or some other G5. Can't see that happening

The prevailing theory and one that I agree has a high likelihood of happening were things to go that direction is that the ACC would give Texas the same deal as Notre Dame. 5 football games per year plus conference membership in all sponsored sports that Texas fields. Honestly that's a win-win for both sides for the most part. Texas and Oklahoma are still going to play, Texas will still play a game or two a year against other non-ACC P5 competition, that gets you to 7 or 8 games. I'd be willing to bet in such a situation that Notre Dame is willing to schedule Texas to an annual or near-annual match up as well. That gets you to 8 to 9 games. Maybe bring back the A&M series which both sides would benefit from and you're at 9 to 10. Add 2 or 3 G5/FCS (if they're so inclined for an FCS game) and you've got a schedule. Let's see it this way:
Notre Dame, Oklahoma, A&M, ACC, ACC, ACC, ACC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, G5, G5, FCS/G5
Not a bad schedule for them at all, a little strange because it will be more extraregional than anything they've done before, but a solid schedule.

(07-16-2015 06:59 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 05:29 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 11:27 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I agree about Texas not joing the SEC. However, I think they might bend a little on the LHN. BUT IMO no way Texas goes Imdependent.....they would have to place their basketball, baseball and other sports in the American Atheletic Conference or some other G5. Can't see that happening

The prevailing theory and one that I agree has a high likelihood of happening were things to go that direction is that the ACC would give Texas the same deal as Notre Dame. 5 football games per year plus conference membership in all sponsored sports that Texas fields. Honestly that's a win-win for both sides for the most part. Texas and Oklahoma are still going to play, Texas will still play a game or two a year against other non-ACC P5 competition, that gets you to 7 or 8 games. I'd be willing to bet in such a situation that Notre Dame is willing to schedule Texas to an annual or near-annual match up as well. That gets you to 8 to 9 games. Maybe bring back the A&M series which both sides would benefit from and you're at 9 to 10. Add 2 or 3 G5/FCS (if they're so inclined for an FCS game) and you've got a schedule. Let's see it this way:
Notre Dame, Oklahoma, A&M, ACC, ACC, ACC, ACC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, G5, G5, FCS/G5
Not a bad schedule for them at all, a little strange because it will be more extraregional than anything they've done before, but a solid schedule.

One BIG problem with that...all the teams except football at UT would have to travel to the East Coast for EVERY SINGLE ROAD GAME.....that is just not feasible.

(07-16-2015 06:25 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 02:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 02:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  What I read was BYU, TCU and Houston as #12 until Texas politics got involved. I would love to see Baylor get booted for a much more deserving school to be in.

In 1994, Baylor was clearly more "deserving" than UH, TCU, SMU or Rice. Only UH was really close. Baylor had more athletic success in the 90s and far more fan support. Rice is small, SMU was just coming off the death penalty, TCU never really recovered from their 1984 recruiting violations and UH was in a big down cycle.

You are correct. This is the last 10 years of the SWC, Conference record only

Tx A&M 63-9-2 60,691
Texas 47-27 67,049
Tx Tech 43-30-1 36,832
Baylor 41-32-1 34,515
Houston 29-43-2 22,843
TCU 25-49 28,435
Rice 21-53 21,345
SMU 8-50-2 22,639

(07-16-2015 09:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 06:59 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 05:29 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 11:27 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I agree about Texas not joing the SEC. However, I think they might bend a little on the LHN. BUT IMO no way Texas goes Imdependent.....they would have to place their basketball, baseball and other sports in the American Atheletic Conference or some other G5. Can't see that happening

The prevailing theory and one that I agree has a high likelihood of happening were things to go that direction is that the ACC would give Texas the same deal as Notre Dame. 5 football games per year plus conference membership in all sponsored sports that Texas fields. Honestly that's a win-win for both sides for the most part. Texas and Oklahoma are still going to play, Texas will still play a game or two a year against other non-ACC P5 competition, that gets you to 7 or 8 games. I'd be willing to bet in such a situation that Notre Dame is willing to schedule Texas to an annual or near-annual match up as well. That gets you to 8 to 9 games. Maybe bring back the A&M series which both sides would benefit from and you're at 9 to 10. Add 2 or 3 G5/FCS (if they're so inclined for an FCS game) and you've got a schedule. Let's see it this way:
Notre Dame, Oklahoma, A&M, ACC, ACC, ACC, ACC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, G5, G5, FCS/G5
Not a bad schedule for them at all, a little strange because it will be more extraregional than anything they've done before, but a solid schedule.

One BIG problem with that...all the teams except football at UT would have to travel to the East Coast for EVERY SINGLE ROAD GAME.....that is just not feasible.

Notre Dame does it. The only ND road trip within the ACC that is close enough to bus is Louisville.

(07-17-2015 01:31 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 09:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 06:59 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 05:29 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 11:27 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I agree about Texas not joing the SEC. However, I think they might bend a little on the LHN. BUT IMO no way Texas goes Imdependent.....they would have to place their basketball, baseball and other sports in the American Atheletic Conference or some other G5. Can't see that happening

The prevailing theory and one that I agree has a high likelihood of happening were things to go that direction is that the ACC would give Texas the same deal as Notre Dame. 5 football games per year plus conference membership in all sponsored sports that Texas fields. Honestly that's a win-win for both sides for the most part. Texas and Oklahoma are still going to play, Texas will still play a game or two a year against other non-ACC P5 competition, that gets you to 7 or 8 games. I'd be willing to bet in such a situation that Notre Dame is willing to schedule Texas to an annual or near-annual match up as well. That gets you to 8 to 9 games. Maybe bring back the A&M series which both sides would benefit from and you're at 9 to 10. Add 2 or 3 G5/FCS (if they're so inclined for an FCS game) and you've got a schedule. Let's see it this way:
Notre Dame, Oklahoma, A&M, ACC, ACC, ACC, ACC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, G5, G5, FCS/G5
Not a bad schedule for them at all, a little strange because it will be more extraregional than anything they've done before, but a solid schedule.

One BIG problem with that...all the teams except football at UT would have to travel to the East Coast for EVERY SINGLE ROAD GAME.....that is just not feasible.

Notre Dame does it. The only ND road trip within the ACC that is close enough to bus is Louisville.

Actually Pitt is just close enough that they could and they might. Its about 5.5 hours by car/bus. But that's only 2 of 14 other places they play and they manage just fine. Besides the OOC stuff for the other sports can easily be kept regional to teams primarily in Texas and to lesser extents Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc.

(07-16-2015 02:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  What I read was BYU, TCU and Houston as #12 until Texas politics got involved. I would love to see Baylor get booted for a much more deserving school to be in.

(07-16-2015 09:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 06:59 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 05:29 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 11:27 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I agree about Texas not joing the SEC. However, I think they might bend a little on the LHN. BUT IMO no way Texas goes Imdependent.....they would have to place their basketball, baseball and other sports in the American Atheletic Conference or some other G5. Can't see that happening

The prevailing theory and one that I agree has a high likelihood of happening were things to go that direction is that the ACC would give Texas the same deal as Notre Dame. 5 football games per year plus conference membership in all sponsored sports that Texas fields. Honestly that's a win-win for both sides for the most part. Texas and Oklahoma are still going to play, Texas will still play a game or two a year against other non-ACC P5 competition, that gets you to 7 or 8 games. I'd be willing to bet in such a situation that Notre Dame is willing to schedule Texas to an annual or near-annual match up as well. That gets you to 8 to 9 games. Maybe bring back the A&M series which both sides would benefit from and you're at 9 to 10. Add 2 or 3 G5/FCS (if they're so inclined for an FCS game) and you've got a schedule. Let's see it this way:
Notre Dame, Oklahoma, A&M, ACC, ACC, ACC, ACC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, G5, G5, FCS/G5
Not a bad schedule for them at all, a little strange because it will be more extraregional than anything they've done before, but a solid schedule.

One BIG problem with that...all the teams except football at UT would have to travel to the East Coast for EVERY SINGLE ROAD GAME.....that is just not feasible.

Notre Dame does it. The only ND road trip within the ACC that is close enough to bus is Louisville.

(07-17-2015 02:11 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 02:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  What I read was BYU, TCU and Houston as #12 until Texas politics got involved. I would love to see Baylor get booted for a much more deserving school to be in.

(07-16-2015 09:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 06:59 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 05:29 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 11:27 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I agree about Texas not joing the SEC. However, I think they might bend a little on the LHN. BUT IMO no way Texas goes Imdependent.....they would have to place their basketball, baseball and other sports in the American Atheletic Conference or some other G5. Can't see that happening

The prevailing theory and one that I agree has a high likelihood of happening were things to go that direction is that the ACC would give Texas the same deal as Notre Dame. 5 football games per year plus conference membership in all sponsored sports that Texas fields. Honestly that's a win-win for both sides for the most part. Texas and Oklahoma are still going to play, Texas will still play a game or two a year against other non-ACC P5 competition, that gets you to 7 or 8 games. I'd be willing to bet in such a situation that Notre Dame is willing to schedule Texas to an annual or near-annual match up as well. That gets you to 8 to 9 games. Maybe bring back the A&M series which both sides would benefit from and you're at 9 to 10. Add 2 or 3 G5/FCS (if they're so inclined for an FCS game) and you've got a schedule. Let's see it this way:
Notre Dame, Oklahoma, A&M, ACC, ACC, ACC, ACC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, G5, G5, FCS/G5
Not a bad schedule for them at all, a little strange because it will be more extraregional than anything they've done before, but a solid schedule.

One BIG problem with that...all the teams except football at UT would have to travel to the East Coast for EVERY SINGLE ROAD GAME.....that is just not feasible.

Notre Dame does it. The only ND road trip within the ACC that is close enough to bus is Louisville.

If you look at a map you will see that Austin, Texas is about twice as far from most of the ACC teams as South Bend, Indiana. I think some people forget just how big the State of Texas is compared to some Eastern states.

I know many of the teams have charter flights, but some would have to fly commercial and there is an additional problem. Without checking airline schedcules, I would think that there are direct flights from Chicago to most of the ACC loactions. Austin is not a hub, so most flights to the East coast would require a change of planes, adding a couple of hours of travel time to the flights.

There would be a big difference in travel requirements for the two schools.

(07-17-2015 02:58 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 02:11 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 02:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  What I read was BYU, TCU and Houston as #12 until Texas politics got involved. I would love to see Baylor get booted for a much more deserving school to be in.

(07-16-2015 09:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 06:59 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 05:29 PM)brista21 Wrote:  The prevailing theory and one that I agree has a high likelihood of happening were things to go that direction is that the ACC would give Texas the same deal as Notre Dame. 5 football games per year plus conference membership in all sponsored sports that Texas fields. Honestly that's a win-win for both sides for the most part. Texas and Oklahoma are still going to play, Texas will still play a game or two a year against other non-ACC P5 competition, that gets you to 7 or 8 games. I'd be willing to bet in such a situation that Notre Dame is willing to schedule Texas to an annual or near-annual match up as well. That gets you to 8 to 9 games. Maybe bring back the A&M series which both sides would benefit from and you're at 9 to 10. Add 2 or 3 G5/FCS (if they're so inclined for an FCS game) and you've got a schedule. Let's see it this way:
Notre Dame, Oklahoma, A&M, ACC, ACC, ACC, ACC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, G5, G5, FCS/G5
Not a bad schedule for them at all, a little strange because it will be more extraregional than anything they've done before, but a solid schedule.

One BIG problem with that...all the teams except football at UT would have to travel to the East Coast for EVERY SINGLE ROAD GAME.....that is just not feasible.

Notre Dame does it. The only ND road trip within the ACC that is close enough to bus is Louisville.

If you look at a map you will see that Austin, Texas is about twice as far from most of the ACC teams as South Bend, Indiana. I think some people forget just how big the State of Texas is compared to some Eastern states.

I know many of the teams have charter flights, but some would have to fly commercial and there is an additional problem. Without checking airline schedcules, I would think that there are direct flights from Chicago to most of the ACC loactions. Austin is not a hub, so most flights to the East coast would require a change of planes, adding a couple of hours of travel time to the flights.

There would be a big difference in travel requirements for the two schools.

880 miles wide on I-10

(07-17-2015 02:58 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 02:11 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 02:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  What I read was BYU, TCU and Houston as #12 until Texas politics got involved. I would love to see Baylor get booted for a much more deserving school to be in.

If you look at a map you will see that Austin, Texas is about twice as far from most of the ACC teams as South Bend, Indiana. I think some people forget just how big the State of Texas is compared to some Eastern states.

I know many of the teams have charter flights, but some would have to fly commercial and there is an additional problem. Without checking airline schedcules, I would think that there are direct flights from Chicago to most of the ACC loactions. Austin is not a hub, so most flights to the East coast would require a change of planes, adding a couple of hours of travel time to the flights.

There would be a big difference in travel requirements for the two schools.

880 miles wide on I-10

(07-17-2015 02:11 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I would think that there are direct flights from Chicago to most of the ACC loactions. Austin is not a hub, so most flights to the East coast would require a change of planes, adding a couple of hours of travel time to the flights.

There would be a big difference in travel requirements for the two schools.

(07-17-2015 03:51 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 02:11 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I would think that there are direct flights from Chicago to most of the ACC loactions. Austin is not a hub, so most flights to the East coast would require a change of planes, adding a couple of hours of travel time to the flights.

There would be a big difference in travel requirements for the two schools.

Here's the thing though, if you're flying commercial via Chicago from Notre Dame, its about 120 miles from South Bend to O'Hare. That's roughly two hours and realistically there's plenty of days where that takes nearly 3 hours with Chicagoland traffic. The reality is Notre Dame is mostly using charters from South Bend Airport just the same as UT would end up using mostly charters to ACC locales. Georgia Tech, Boston College and Miami seem to be the only places they could easily do commercial to. They can kind of sort of do commercial to Wake Forest via Charlotte but that still requires a 90 minute or more bus ride after stepping off the plane.

(07-17-2015 03:02 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 02:58 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 02:11 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 02:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  What I read was BYU, TCU and Houston as #12 until Texas politics got involved. I would love to see Baylor get booted for a much more deserving school to be in.

(07-16-2015 09:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 06:59 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  One BIG problem with that...all the teams except football at UT would have to travel to the East Coast for EVERY SINGLE ROAD GAME.....that is just not feasible.

Notre Dame does it. The only ND road trip within the ACC that is close enough to bus is Louisville.

If you look at a map you will see that Austin, Texas is about twice as far from most of the ACC teams as South Bend, Indiana. I think some people forget just how big the State of Texas is compared to some Eastern states.

I know many of the teams have charter flights, but some would have to fly commercial and there is an additional problem. Without checking airline schedcules, I would think that there are direct flights from Chicago to most of the ACC loactions. Austin is not a hub, so most flights to the East coast would require a change of planes, adding a couple of hours of travel time to the flights.

There would be a big difference in travel requirements for the two schools.

880 miles wide on I-10

One way?
That's one heck of a road trip.

BTW, I understand it's a 7 hour bus trip from Austin to Lubbock.