Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
Author Message
jedclampett Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,345
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #1
U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
U. Texas may have the worst reputation of any school in the P5, at least as far as being a conference member is concerned:

1) They are in some ways considered "the destroyer of conferences," because they alienated Arkansas enough to drive them out of the old Southwest Conference (SWC), and then led a group of 4 schools (UT, A&M, TT, Baylor) into the Big-8, which became the Big-12, causing the SWC to go out of existence and casting TCU, Houston, SMU, and Rice adrift.

2) Once in the Big-12, UT started to piss off its conference mates by throwing its weight around and basically exercising veto power over all conference decisions. As a result, they drove Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, and even Texas A&M out of the Big-12. The remaining schools have no other P5 option but the Big-12, and simply have to put up with UT's "bull"y-ing ways. They simply can't live without 'em.

3) Arkansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, and Texas A&M, it turned out, "couldn't live with 'em."

4) For the same reason, the ACC, B1G, PAC-12, and SEC probably can't live with 'em either.

5) For that reason, the Big-12 will probably remain in existence, and since U. Texas has no interest in losing part of its share of Big-12 income by adding any schools, the Big-12 will probably continue along with 10 members into the foreseeable future. The Big-12 had a chance to add as many schools as they wanted to a couple of years back, but concluded that not even one available school would boost their income enough to make it worthwhile. That situation hasn't changed.

If Texas doesn't switch conferences, and if they again veto the idea of adding any more teams to the Big-12, is any realignment involving possible? If so, how?

1) Some limited FBS realignment could take place if one or more of the other four P5 conferences add G5 or independent team(s).

2) Some current Big-12 teams might follow Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, and A&M out of the Big-12 and into other P5 conferences.

3) The B1G or SEC could expand to 16 teams by raiding the ACC or Big-12, or the PAC could expand to 14 teams by adding teams such as Utah St., Colorado St., San Diego St., or BYU.

4) The ACC could add 1 or 2 teams, such as West Virginia or one of the AAC schools.

5) Although extremely unlikely, there could possibly be a mass exodus of most of the current Big-12 schools, not including U. Texas, similar to the mass exodus of the Big East schools from 2008 to 2013.

--The most unlikely, yet most interesting form that such a mass exodus could take would be for 4, 5, 6, or 8 of the Big-12 teams to leave Texas behind and set up a new conference, along with 4, 6, or 8 AAC or MWC schools.

--In such an extremely unlikely scenario, Texas, TT, TCU, Baylor, and perhaps Oklahoma and OK State could reload with as many AAC and MWC schools as they want (e.g., Boise St., Colo St., BYU, Houston & Memphis), with some of the other AAC & MWC schools going to any conference that the hypothetical "Big-12 rebels" might invite to join them.

--This would probably result in an expansion of the number of power conferences from P5/A5 to P6/A6, with the existing P5 conferences being joined by a new P6 conference made up of schools such as Kansas, K State, Iowa St., West Virginia and AAC/MWC schools such as Air Force, Utah State, Colorado State, BYU, Cincy, SMU, and possibly Temple, UCF, &/or USF.
03-23-2020 06:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Erictelevision Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 880
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Uconn hoops
Location:
Post: #2
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
I'd LOVE for the Kansases and ISU to jump to the B1G, WVU to ACC. The remaining Texas schools make sense for the SEC. The XII probably rebuilds with the local AAC schools.
03-23-2020 06:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,345
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #3
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
(03-23-2020 06:43 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  I'd LOVE for the Kansases and ISU to jump to the B1G, WVU to ACC. The remaining Texas schools make sense for the SEC. The XII probably rebuilds with the local AAC schools.

The SEC could expand to 16. Which two Texas schools would they want to take?

I can think of one: Baylor. One of the Oklahoma schools might be their next choice, or WVU, if they don't go to the ACC.
03-23-2020 06:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 2,395
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #4
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
(03-23-2020 06:37 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  --This would probably result in an expansion of the number of power conferences from P5/A5 to P6/A6, with the existing P5 conferences being joined by a new P6 conference made up of schools such as Kansas, K State, Iowa St., West Virginia and AAC/MWC schools such as Air Force, Utah State, Colorado State, BYU, Cincy, SMU, and possibly Temple, UCF, &/or USF.

Quite the contrary. That conference would not be considered a power conference with that lineup.
03-23-2020 07:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 356
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 16
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #5
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
(03-23-2020 06:37 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  If Texas doesn't switch conferences, and if they again veto the idea of adding any more teams to the Big-12, is any realignment involving possible? If so, how?

1) Some limited FBS realignment could take place if one or more of the other four P5 conferences add G5 or independent team(s).

2) Some current Big-12 teams might follow Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, and A&M out of the Big-12 and into other P5 conferences.

3) The B1G or SEC could expand to 16 teams by raiding the ACC or Big-12, or the PAC could expand to 14 teams by adding teams such as Utah St., Colorado St., San Diego St., or BYU.

4) The ACC could add 1 or 2 teams, such as West Virginia or one of the AAC schools.

5) Although extremely unlikely, there could possibly be a mass exodus of most of the current Big-12 schools, not including U. Texas, similar to the mass exodus of the Big East schools from 2008 to 2013.

--The most unlikely, yet most interesting form that such a mass exodus could take would be for 4, 5, 6, or 8 of the Big-12 teams to leave Texas behind and set up a new conference, along with 4, 6, or 8 AAC or MWC schools.

--In such an extremely unlikely scenario, Texas, TT, TCU, Baylor, and perhaps Oklahoma and OK State could reload with as many AAC and MWC schools as they want (e.g., Boise St., Colo St., BYU, Houston & Memphis), with some of the other AAC & MWC schools going to any conference that the hypothetical "Big-12 rebels" might invite to join them.

--This would probably result in an expansion of the number of power conferences from P5/A5 to P6/A6, with the existing P5 conferences being joined by a new P6 conference made up of schools such as Kansas, K State, Iowa St., West Virginia and AAC/MWC schools such as Air Force, Utah State, Colorado State, BYU, Cincy, SMU, and possibly Temple, UCF, &/or USF.

Your assumption is Texas won't leave the Big 12. I'm not saying that's a valid assumption, it is. Of course if someone waves a ton of money in front of them, they may change their minds. There's a saying everything/everyone has a price. Depending on who you ask, Texas was pretty close to joining the Pac-12 last round.

As for your list:

1) I really don't see any of the remaining P5's adding a G5 member. I'm a Temple fan too being in Philly and I'd love for the Big Ten or ACC to add them (and/or UConn) but I'm realistic to know they won't. I'd also like to see UCF make the jump but the two most geographically compatible conferences already have Florida covered. The conference that could use UCF the most is the Big 12 and your premise is Texas will veto any new members.

2) For another Big 12 member to leave, some other conference will have to want them. The obvious choice other than Texas for a school that other conferences would want would be Oklahoma. Would other conferences want them if they aren't getting Texas as well? There's a possibility the Big Ten may pass because Oklahoma isn't an AAU member (they're more likely to live with Oklahoma if Texas comes along but not without them). The SEC doesn't have an AAU requirement and would probably love to have them. If you take Oklahoma but Texas refuses to leave the Big 12, Kansas most likely becomes the next choice because of academics, demographics, and men's basketball. The other Big 12 teams have zero value to the Big Ten, SEC, or Pac-12 without Texas or Oklahoma.

3) I discussed the idea of the Big Ten/SEC raiding the Big 12 in #2. I don't see the Pac-12 raiding the MWC or any other conferences other than the Big 12. I am assuming the ACC members are off limits because of their Grant of Rights agreement that runs until 2036-37.

4) I highly doubt the ACC will add anyone. I'd love for them to add Temple and/or UConn although I don't see that happening. I'd hate for them to add West Virginia and hope they still have some academic standards although they did throw them away when they added Louisville. If they don't get raided, they would have no reason to add anyone.

5) Other than Oklahoma, the remaining schools would become irrelevant if they left Texas behind. If the other nine schools "kicked" Texas out of the Big 12, who would care about the conference? They can't do it. More likely it will be the other way around. There is a thread that the Big 12 schools may have to give Texas and Oklahoma more money or concessions to keep them in the Big 12 similar to what the WCC did to keep Gonzaga around.
03-23-2020 07:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,345
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #6
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
(03-23-2020 07:00 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(03-23-2020 06:37 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  --This would probably result in an expansion of the number of power conferences from P5/A5 to P6/A6, with the existing P5 conferences being joined by a new P6 conference made up of schools such as Kansas, K State, Iowa St., West Virginia and AAC/MWC schools such as Air Force, Utah State, Colorado State, BYU, Cincy, SMU, and possibly Temple, UCF, &/or USF.

Quite the contrary. That conference would not be considered a power conference with that lineup.

It would be up to ESPN. They put up the money to create the P5, and they could expand it into a P6.

A conference made up of these teams could probably generate nearly as much income for ESPN as the revised "Big-12" would:

1) Kansas
2) Kansas State
3) Iowa State
4) West Virginia
5) Memphis (large metro area, very successful FB & BB)
6) Cincinnati (large metro area, very successful FB & BB)
7) Air Force FB (national viewership) / Gonzaga BB
8) Colorado State (strong regional following)
9) Houston (former SWC, large metro area; bad feelings about Texas)
10) UCF (large metro area) (or Navy FB / Wichita State BB)

Other options: San Diego State (large metro area, very successful FB & BB), Utah State, USF (large metro area, former Big East), SMU (large metro area, former SWC)

Such a new P6 conference might get the smallest media package, but would still be able to bargain for $15 to $20 million per school annually with 4-5 top 25 FB teams and 5-7 NCAA tournament teams every season.


new "Big-12" (minus two):

Texas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Baylor
Texas Tech
TCU
BYU
Boise State

Other options: San Diego State, Utah State, SMU, UCF, & USF
03-23-2020 07:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,592
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 884
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #7
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
(03-23-2020 06:37 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  --This would probably result in an expansion of the number of power conferences from P5/A5 to P6/A6, with the existing P5 conferences being joined by a new P6 conference made up of schools such as Kansas, K State, Iowa St., West Virginia and AAC/MWC schools such as Air Force, Utah State, Colorado State, BYU, Cincy, SMU, and possibly Temple, UCF, &/or USF.

I don't think any major bowl would sign a Contract with that conference, nor would the P5 share their CFP money with them, so in short, that would not be a Power conference. It would get demoted like the Big East was demoted after all the 2011-2012 raids with the C-USA backfills.
03-23-2020 07:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,345
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #8
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
(03-23-2020 07:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-23-2020 06:37 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  --This would probably result in an expansion of the number of power conferences from P5/A5 to P6/A6, with the existing P5 conferences being joined by a new P6 conference made up of schools such as Kansas, K State, Iowa St., West Virginia and AAC/MWC schools such as Air Force, Utah State, Colorado State, BYU, Cincy, SMU, and possibly Temple, UCF, &/or USF.

I don't think any major bowl would sign a Contract with that conference, nor would the P5 share their CFP money with them, so in short, that would not be a Power conference. It would get demoted like the Big East was demoted after all the 2011-2012 raids with the C-USA backfills.

The top 4 bowls might not signing a contract with them, but the top 6 or 8 probably would, with teams like West Virginia, Memphis, Cincinnati, Kansas State, Iowa State, UCF, Air Force, Houston, and Navy in the conference.

This conference would have the potential to match the accomplishments of the Big East FB conference. After all, West Virginia and Cincinnati were two of the most successful FB programs in the Big East.
03-23-2020 08:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,752
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 508
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #9
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
(03-23-2020 07:09 PM)schmolik Wrote:  5) Other than Oklahoma, the remaining schools would become irrelevant if they left Texas behind. If the other nine schools "kicked" Texas out of the Big 12, who would care about the conference? They can't do it. More likely it will be the other way around. There is a thread that the Big 12 schools may have to give Texas and Oklahoma more money or concessions to keep them in the Big 12 similar to what the WCC did to keep Gonzaga around.

Let's challenge that premise.

Texas' 10 year average power rating per Sagarin is right about in the middle of the Big 12. They aren't much better, if at all, in hoops than most of their conference mates either. If they are as big of a bully as you say, and one can make a good case that you are correct, why not take a chance and stand up to the bully? Tell them that if they want to stay in the conference they will have to accept equal tratment with everyone else. If they refuse, dissolve the Big 12 and reform as the Big 9 without them.

My guess is that they would back down, as long as Oklahoma commits to stay with the other 8 schools. Texas needs the other Big 12 schools as much as they need Texas. The SEC is realistically the only option for the Horns if the Big 9 hold firm, and in that case Texas would have to give up whatever political power they now have in the conference anyway.

Oklahoma is the linchpin here. Take care of them and the Big 9 don't need Texas. They might still like to have them, but they don't need them. What they need is the backbone to stand up to Texas.
03-24-2020 08:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 356
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 16
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #10
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
(03-24-2020 08:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-23-2020 07:09 PM)schmolik Wrote:  5) Other than Oklahoma, the remaining schools would become irrelevant if they left Texas behind. If the other nine schools "kicked" Texas out of the Big 12, who would care about the conference? They can't do it. More likely it will be the other way around. There is a thread that the Big 12 schools may have to give Texas and Oklahoma more money or concessions to keep them in the Big 12 similar to what the WCC did to keep Gonzaga around.

Let's challenge that premise.

Texas' 10 year average power rating per Sagarin is right about in the middle of the Big 12. They aren't much better, if at all, in hoops than most of their conference mates either. If they are as big of a bully as you say, and one can make a good case that you are correct, why not take a chance and stand up to the bully? Tell them that if they want to stay in the conference they will have to accept equal tratment with everyone else. If they refuse, dissolve the Big 12 and reform as the Big 9 without them.

My guess is that they would back down, as long as Oklahoma commits to stay with the other 8 schools. Texas needs the other Big 12 schools as much as they need Texas. The SEC is realistically the only option for the Horns if the Big 9 hold firm, and in that case Texas would have to give up whatever political power they now have in the conference anyway.

Oklahoma is the linchpin here. Take care of them and the Big 9 don't need Texas. They might still like to have them, but they don't need them. What they need is the backbone to stand up to Texas.

What incentive does Oklahoma have to be in a "Big 9" without Texas? If they wanted to break free from Texas, they could join the SEC. Value in media rights isn't just wins and losses, in a group of nine someone is likely going to be undefeated. UCF was 12-0 two years in a row in the AAC. A Big 9 without Texas isn't going to attract as many eyeballs and won't be as valuable to ESPN or FOX, plain and simple. Oklahoma might leave for the SEC or if they are willing to have them the Big Ten without Texas but they will never go along with this "Big 9" plan and the networks will give them way less money if they do.

Oklahoma may not need Texas but they can't carry a conference all by themselves. IMO, neither can Texas. The Big 12 works because they have both Texas and Oklahoma. I would say both of them are at least 40% of the Big 12's value (more if you don't care at all about men's basketball). If you take one of them away, the Big 12's value plummets. Texas can act like they can replace Oklahoma and the Big 12 will still be valuable. Go ask ESPN/FOX. FOX didn't want the Big 12 Championship Game after one airing and that was with Oklahoma in the conference. The SEC, Big Ten, Pac 12, ESPN, and FOX all know the Big 12's value is mostly concentrated in two schools so there's incentive to take the value of the conference out of it and it's easy to do. Texas wants the Big 12 to stay. The other power players want the Big 12 to go bye bye.
03-24-2020 08:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,592
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 884
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #11
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
(03-23-2020 08:20 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(03-23-2020 07:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-23-2020 06:37 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  --This would probably result in an expansion of the number of power conferences from P5/A5 to P6/A6, with the existing P5 conferences being joined by a new P6 conference made up of schools such as Kansas, K State, Iowa St., West Virginia and AAC/MWC schools such as Air Force, Utah State, Colorado State, BYU, Cincy, SMU, and possibly Temple, UCF, &/or USF.

I don't think any major bowl would sign a Contract with that conference, nor would the P5 share their CFP money with them, so in short, that would not be a Power conference. It would get demoted like the Big East was demoted after all the 2011-2012 raids with the C-USA backfills.

The top 4 bowls might not signing a contract with them, but the top 6 or 8 probably would, with teams like West Virginia, Memphis, Cincinnati, Kansas State, Iowa State, UCF, Air Force, Houston, and Navy in the conference.

This conference would have the potential to match the accomplishments of the Big East FB conference. After all, West Virginia and Cincinnati were two of the most successful FB programs in the Big East.

Performance on the field doesn't mean all that much. The 2005 - 2013 Big East performed very much like a "P" on the field but because it had lost its brand names, it was demoted to non-AQ as soon as the contracts expired. Last year the AAC was equal to the ACC on the field but nobody is rushing to give them P-level contracts.

I just think it extremely unlikely that any of the current six Major bowls would have any interest in signing a deal with that conference.
03-24-2020 08:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,592
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 884
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #12
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
(03-24-2020 08:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  My guess is that they would back down, as long as Oklahoma commits to stay with the other 8 schools. Texas needs the other Big 12 schools as much as they need Texas. The SEC is realistically the only option for the Horns if the Big 9 hold firm, and in that case Texas would have to give up whatever political power they now have in the conference anyway.

That makes zero sense to me. Texas will be a "power" school no matter what. They can join any conference any time they want, and could get a ND-level deal if they went independent.

In contrast, the other Big 12 schools, save for Oklahoma, are "P" only because of the presence of Texas and OU.

Bottom line is that if Texas leaves the Big 12, there are zero scenarios where they drop from "P" status as a result. In contrast, for all the remainders save for OU, if Texas leaves there are lots of scenarios in which they drop from P-status.
03-24-2020 08:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnintx Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 484
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 68
I Root For: Oklahoma
Location: Houston
Post: #13
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
(03-24-2020 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  That makes zero sense to me. Texas will be a "power" school no matter what. They can join any conference any time they want, and could get a ND-level deal if they went independent.

In contrast, the other Big 12 schools, save for Oklahoma, are "P" only because of the presence of Texas and OU.

Bottom line is that if Texas leaves the Big 12, there are zero scenarios where they drop from "P" status as a result. In contrast, for all the remainders save for OU, if Texas leaves there are lots of scenarios in which they drop from P-status.

This. Texas could go 3-9 for the next five years, and miss the next five NCAA men's basketball tournaments, and would still provide maximum value to a conference.

They have everything conferences and networks are looking for: big markets, large alumni base, even bigger fan base. For better or for worse, they can carry a conference by themselves. This is their preference. They don't have to dominate on the field (they don't). They just have to generate interest (which they do).

Furthermore, with their brand name, they are everyone's biggest game. This generates interest among opposing fan bases. And, to touch on the OP's original post, Texas generates antipathy like no other school outside Notre Dame. They've shared a conference with 17 different schools in the last 100 years. They have attracted more than their share of hate.
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2020 02:56 PM by johnintx.)
03-24-2020 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,214
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1305
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #14
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
(03-24-2020 08:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(03-23-2020 07:09 PM)schmolik Wrote:  5) Other than Oklahoma, the remaining schools would become irrelevant if they left Texas behind. If the other nine schools "kicked" Texas out of the Big 12, who would care about the conference? They can't do it. More likely it will be the other way around. There is a thread that the Big 12 schools may have to give Texas and Oklahoma more money or concessions to keep them in the Big 12 similar to what the WCC did to keep Gonzaga around.

Let's challenge that premise.

Texas' 10 year average power rating per Sagarin is right about in the middle of the Big 12. They aren't much better, if at all, in hoops than most of their conference mates either. If they are as big of a bully as you say, and one can make a good case that you are correct, why not take a chance and stand up to the bully? Tell them that if they want to stay in the conference they will have to accept equal tratment with everyone else. If they refuse, dissolve the Big 12 and reform as the Big 9 without them.

My guess is that they would back down, as long as Oklahoma commits to stay with the other 8 schools. Texas needs the other Big 12 schools as much as they need Texas. The SEC is realistically the only option for the Horns if the Big 9 hold firm, and in that case Texas would have to give up whatever political power they now have in the conference anyway.

Oklahoma is the linchpin here. Take care of them and the Big 9 don't need Texas. They might still like to have them, but they don't need them. What they need is the backbone to stand up to Texas.

Sounds like something somebody in a basketball state would say.04-cheers
Notre Dame went 107-78 over the next 15 years after Lou Holtz left, a 58% winning %, 7-5 average per year. They only had 9 winning seasons out of 15. And they were still one of the strongest brands once Brian Kelly started winning.

Texas had a rough decade, but the prior decade they were #2 in winning %, behind only Boise St.
03-24-2020 04:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,214
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1305
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #15
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
(03-23-2020 06:37 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  U. Texas may have the worst reputation of any school in the P5, at least as far as being a conference member is concerned:

1) They are in some ways considered "the destroyer of conferences," because they alienated Arkansas enough to drive them out of the old Southwest Conference (SWC), and then led a group of 4 schools (UT, A&M, TT, Baylor) into the Big-8, which became the Big-12, causing the SWC to go out of existence and casting TCU, Houston, SMU, and Rice adrift.

2) Once in the Big-12, UT started to piss off its conference mates by throwing its weight around and basically exercising veto power over all conference decisions. As a result, they drove Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, and even Texas A&M out of the Big-12. The remaining schools have no other P5 option but the Big-12, and simply have to put up with UT's "bull"y-ing ways. They simply can't live without 'em.

3) Arkansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, and Texas A&M, it turned out, "couldn't live with 'em."

4) For the same reason, the ACC, B1G, PAC-12, and SEC probably can't live with 'em either.

5) For that reason, the Big-12 will probably remain in existence, and since U. Texas has no interest in losing part of its share of Big-12 income by adding any schools, the Big-12 will probably continue along with 10 members into the foreseeable future. The Big-12 had a chance to add as many schools as they wanted to a couple of years back, but concluded that not even one available school would boost their income enough to make it worthwhile. That situation hasn't changed.

If Texas doesn't switch conferences, and if they again veto the idea of adding any more teams to the Big-12, is any realignment involving possible? If so, how?

1) Some limited FBS realignment could take place if one or more of the other four P5 conferences add G5 or independent team(s).

2) Some current Big-12 teams might follow Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, and A&M out of the Big-12 and into other P5 conferences.

3) The B1G or SEC could expand to 16 teams by raiding the ACC or Big-12, or the PAC could expand to 14 teams by adding teams such as Utah St., Colorado St., San Diego St., or BYU.

4) The ACC could add 1 or 2 teams, such as West Virginia or one of the AAC schools.

5) Although extremely unlikely, there could possibly be a mass exodus of most of the current Big-12 schools, not including U. Texas, similar to the mass exodus of the Big East schools from 2008 to 2013.

--The most unlikely, yet most interesting form that such a mass exodus could take would be for 4, 5, 6, or 8 of the Big-12 teams to leave Texas behind and set up a new conference, along with 4, 6, or 8 AAC or MWC schools.

--In such an extremely unlikely scenario, Texas, TT, TCU, Baylor, and perhaps Oklahoma and OK State could reload with as many AAC and MWC schools as they want (e.g., Boise St., Colo St., BYU, Houston & Memphis), with some of the other AAC & MWC schools going to any conference that the hypothetical "Big-12 rebels" might invite to join them.

--This would probably result in an expansion of the number of power conferences from P5/A5 to P6/A6, with the existing P5 conferences being joined by a new P6 conference made up of schools such as Kansas, K State, Iowa St., West Virginia and AAC/MWC schools such as Air Force, Utah State, Colorado State, BYU, Cincy, SMU, and possibly Temple, UCF, &/or USF.

If Texas is so disliked, why does every conference want them?
Its similar to Notre Dame. Fans tend to really dislike Notre Dame. But that has nothing to do with what ADs and Presidents think.

And your "facts" are just all wrong.

1. The SWC was a dead man walking. UT and A&M almost left in 1989 with Arkansas, but gave the rest ultimatums to improve things. The Oilers and Cowboys killed the SWC along with the UGA/OU TV lawsuit. SMU's death penalty was the mortal blow. Arkansas wanted Texas to come along.

2., 3. Colorado decided they were more closely tied to the Pacific Coast and instantly regretted staying with their old Big 8 rivals (their board voted by 1 vote to stay with the Big 12 and reject a late offer from the Pac). They were trying to get Texas to go with them to the Pac 12 after that. Texas A&M had been wanting to go to the SEC since at least 1989. They got forced politically to join the Big 12. Nebraska simply had a better offer. Their president said he had a great relationship with the Texas president. The Big 10 provided more money, more stability, more prestige and better rivalries-OU had been Nebraska's only real rival in the Big 8 and now they only had them every other year. KU, KSU, Mizzou and ISU just didn't really rate. Colorado was leaving. Missouri didn't want to risk getting left behind as almost happened the year before.

5. The networks fought adding schools. And so none of the 10 were in favor of it after talking to the networks.
03-24-2020 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,211
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #16
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
It would have been very interesting if things had transpired differently circa 1989:

Colorado to the PAC 11

Nebraska and Penn St to the Big Ten

Texas, TAMU, Ark, & potentially others (Oklahoma?) to the SEC

SWC schools and remaining Big 8 merge.
03-24-2020 05:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


johnintx Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 484
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 68
I Root For: Oklahoma
Location: Houston
Post: #17
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
(03-24-2020 05:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It would have been very interesting if things had transpired differently circa 1989:

Colorado to the PAC 11

Nebraska and Penn St to the Big Ten

Texas, TAMU, Ark, & potentially others (Oklahoma?) to the SEC

SWC schools and remaining Big 8 merge.

I'm glad it didn't happen in 1989. Oklahoma had just been hit with major probation, and was entering a nuclear winter for the athletic department. Of course, even with that, OU was still able to team with Texas in 1994 to organize the Big 12, which began play in 1996.
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2020 06:08 PM by johnintx.)
03-24-2020 06:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,214
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1305
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #18
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
(03-24-2020 05:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It would have been very interesting if things had transpired differently circa 1989:

Colorado to the PAC 11

Nebraska and Penn St to the Big Ten

Texas, TAMU, Ark, & potentially others (Oklahoma?) to the SEC

SWC schools and remaining Big 8 merge.

Texas was a week away from the Pac and A&M the SEC, but Stanford vetoed the move. When Stanford changed their mind a month or so later, Texas and Texas A&M had already recommitted to the SWC. Arkansas went ahead and moved.

If not for Stanford, Texas and Colorado likely would have been the Pac 12 and Arkansas and A&M in the SEC. What would the Big 8-1 have done? Add Texas Tech, Houston and BYU? The political pressure for Baylor wouldn't have worked on the Big 8 schools. And this was before Houston's programs took a nosedive which left them in a bad position in 1994 when the Big 12 was formed.
03-24-2020 07:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,211
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #19
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
(03-24-2020 07:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(03-24-2020 05:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It would have been very interesting if things had transpired differently circa 1989:

Colorado to the PAC 11

Nebraska and Penn St to the Big Ten

Texas, TAMU, Ark, & potentially others (Oklahoma?) to the SEC

SWC schools and remaining Big 8 merge.

Texas was a week away from the Pac and A&M the SEC, but Stanford vetoed the move. When Stanford changed their mind a month or so later, Texas and Texas A&M had already recommitted to the SWC. Arkansas went ahead and moved.

If not for Stanford, Texas and Colorado likely would have been the Pac 12 and Arkansas and A&M in the SEC. What would the Big 8-1 have done? Add Texas Tech, Houston and BYU? The political pressure for Baylor wouldn't have worked on the Big 8 schools. And this was before Houston's programs took a nosedive which left them in a bad position in 1994 when the Big 12 was formed.

What a bizarro world that would have been. In retrospect, I don’t know that Texas in the PAC 12 would have been a good fit. I think the horns would be unhappy. They’d have to bow to the Cali 4 and that wouldn’t fly.
03-24-2020 09:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,557
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 133
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #20
RE: U. Texas: Either ya' can't live with 'em, or (in B-12) ya' can't live without 'em.
I know nothing lasts forever, but things seem pretty stable in the Big 12 (other than that corona thing). Not a lot of animosity between schools other than on the field/court rivalries. Conference revenues are good, the round robin really is ideal for competitiveness and rivalry building and the on the field and court performance is strong on the national stage. Having been a fan in the sWC years when I felt a real animosity toward them, now it iS just typical competitive stuff. I’m sure at some point finances will change so that the Big 12 will change (expand, schools leave, whatever). But right now it’s in a pretty good steady state.
03-24-2020 11:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: SumItUp, 6 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.