(07-07-2014 08:05 PM)JRsec Wrote: (07-07-2014 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote: So are you both saying that Texas stays exactly where they are until the PAC caves in?
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this:
1. Texas goes to the PAC if ESPN gets a piece of that network.
2. If ESPN doesn't get a piece of that network then Texas gets offered a N.D. like deal to the ACC and they may or may not get to bring a tag-along or two.
3. If ESPN doesn't get a piece of the PAC and Texas doesn't want to come to the ACC then and only then might they actually consider equal voting and television revenue in exchange for a schedule more desirable to their alumni by making a move to the SEC.
4. I do not foresee any scenario where Texas is stupid enough to head to the Big 10 and surrender forever their status in their home state.
Some of my insights on this.
1. If the networks (mostly ESPN) throw insane money at Texas to go to the PAC it has a slim chance of happening; however, I don't think that the PAC is likely going to happen for a few reasons.
A) Texas's big cigars are not big on the PAC - at all. They like talking sports (i.e. football) with their peers in the energy biz (oil and gas) in TX and OK. WV and KS are growing in these areas so fit with the demo. The SEC is almost certainly bigger with these guys because of the gulf oil reserves and the associates they would have from SEC schools in the energy field (LSU, A&M, etc.). ESPN can throw money at UT to go to the PAC, but UT alums can make this look like pocket change with their donations. They need to keep those guys happy. The current B12 is preferable for these guys to the PAC.
B) UT president Powers was a driver for the PAC (and even he was convinced by Dodds/alums to pass on the PAC in 2010). He is in the midst of getting ousted by the UT BoR either this week or, if he wins, later this year (resigns). There is not likely going to be a PAC champion at UT. The AD spent time at ASU, but he is a UT grad and is not anywhere in the same ballpark as Dodds in power or influence. He's a new, unproven guy to the alums. Dodds also indicated that Texas is looking to the east if a future move occurs.
C) The PAC is really not a step up financially from the B12 for UT since the national networks pay about the same for the B12 (if B12 gets the CCG deregulated then they might jump PAC slightly there), but the B12 splits it fewer ways. The LHN payout (and OU Fox deal) > than PACN payout almost certainly for a long time. The increase in PAC payout would have to be pretty high to make D worth it.
D) Time zone and travel issues. The PAC is for the most part 2 time zones in the wrong direction and would give them the least national exposure of any of the power conferences because of this. Travel would also be much greater. The PAC would be a really far flung conference with the addition of B12 schools east of CO.
E) Loss of control and power. This is true for any conference that doesn't give UT a ND deal, take 8 or more B12 schools (the PAC's best chance to get Texas), or is not formed from scratch (i.e. a ND/UT led ACC/B12 merged conference).
2) Most likely. They will probably have to take a couple Texas schools too, at least, even if they offer a ND deal to UT. More likely they need to add 4-6 B12 schools IMO. I think the ACC (or some B12/ACC hybrid) is by far the most likely future home if the B12 dies and the ACC survives.
3) Possible. Texas would have to swallow it's pride and follow A&M and that might be the deal breaker for them. OU would have to head to the SEC with them or I think they say no as well. Would be the best geographic and sports fit for them. But I think the ACC is way more attractive to them for a few reasons (academics, less cutthroat recruiting and competition, more power). The ACC would be fools to let them fall to the SEC. Which is why I think the SEC will not happen. The ACC will give them what they want.
I also think the SEC would be better off taking solid to mediocre football schools, but very good to great basketball schools in new markets (UNC, UVA, or Kansas would be great examples). There can be only so many top dogs in football and I think the SEC is really at that point now. Some school(s) is going to suffer Arkansas's fate (former power to also ran) if Texas and OU join the SEC IMO. BB revenue is the next gold pot for conferences once they wrestle it away from the NCAA. I would love to be in the SEC's shoes as a conference. They have so much flexibility in which direction they go. Kudos to the SEC.
4) Disagree, but think the B1G is behind the ACC and SEC mainly due to ESPN. Texas will not write off the B10 (it's academically great and financially the strongest conference), but I think they want at least one more Texas school with them (and OU as well) if they go to the B1G and that is the issue. See Gee's Tech problem comments. A&M would have been an acceptable B1G add, but they got their dream conference and are not a possibility. TTU is getting money pumped into it to reach T1, but how soon can they get their academics to a level acceptable to the B1G (if ever)? Rice is AAU and stellar academically, but it is a small private. Would Rice be good enough if it got you the trifecta of UT, OU, and KU. I would jump on that if I was the B1G. If the B1G offered to take OU, KU and Rice/TTU, I think Texas would have to think hard on that offer, if they decide the B12 can't meet their needs going forward.
Texas would love to keep the B12 together if it can. It runs it and gets what it wants there for the most part; whereas, OU is willing to move for the right offer. Poach OU and you get a leg up on landing Texas and the B12 would die the next day. This is why the PAC should have taken OU and OSU in 2011. It would have killed the B12, and even if they didn't land Texas they would have probably landed TTU (they love the PAC) and one of KU/KSU/ISU. Big blunder IMO. They really have limited options in the west without B12 schools.