(06-16-2020 10:06 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 10:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 09:51 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 09:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ESPN can't afford to keep the Big 12 together without adding content to it to enhance their investments in Texas and Oklahoma.

Since PAC schools wouldn't add enough value to make more money poured into Texas and Oklahoma pay off, where might you suppose those brands would come from to make their investment in the Big 12 profitable? What markets are football crazy enough to make UT and OU games must see TV? And I'm not talking the SEC.

If nobody is added to the Big 12 to increase their value there is no reason whatsoever for ESPN to invest further in Texas and Oklahoma.

Guess which TV market has the most viewers watching college football on ESPN/ABC.

He thinks Texas A&M rules the Texas market

I am the average Joe in Texas and nobody cares about the SEC here outside of Houston

You totally miss the point, as usual. And you are in such a damned hurry to lay an insult that you didn't read the post well enough either! The SEC will rule ESPN/ABC but not until they are no longer on CBS. There is only one way to augment further investment in Texas and Oklahoma, and as I said it isn't the SEC.

To enhance the value of Oklahoma and Texas you need to make them relevant in the strongest football markets. Add Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Miami to the Big 12 and you add the value in the markets that add the most viewers to what Texas and Oklahoma already command. Toss in Pitt to play WVU and Louisville and you have quite a nice 16.

Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Baylor, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

You can't get the ratings out of the PAC to make that merger work. Add brands with national appeal to Texas and Oklahoma and add the strongest football loving markets and it's a winner.

And another thing you are no average Joe in Texas, and the SEC does quite well there, but certainly not Texas numbers, but you spit the bit trying for an insult as usual. Then thought better of it and tried to take down the post.

Still the likeliest outcome is that FOX and ESPN continue to split the Big 12, that Oklahoma renews their T3 rights, and that nothing happens. But if there is movement it will start in Norman.

How would you suggest that ESPN and the Big 12 get around the ACC GOR if they made a move like that?

What would become of the 8 left behind ACC members? Do the Big Ten and SEC go hunting for VA/NC schools? BC, Cuse, and Duke join the Big East. WF to TBD?

This idea that the ACC schools want to or would leave is far fetched. Clemson would gain nothing by joining the Big 12. FSU is not what it once was, Georgia Tech won’t move the TV needle and Miami is a far flung private school from the rest of the league. Pitt and Louisville are less nonsensical but would require Louisville to move to an inferior basketball league and Pitt to leave behind rivalries with BC and Cuse. Plus, travel for basketball and Olympic sports, in light of the budget crunches and COVID reality, would be a nightmare. Finally, why would ESPN devalue its cable channel for the ACC by reallocating schools to a league with no network, and no reasonably foreseeable chance of getting one outside of some ESPN+ site? Just send Texas to the ACC with ND, put KU and Oklahoma in the B1G, WVU and TCU or OK State to the SEC and merge the remaining 5 schools into the AAC or MWC, or become a tweener league by adding BYU, SDSU and Boise as FB-only plus Houston, Cincy, Memphis and UCF to the 5 leftovers to get back to 12 FB and 9 all other sports. Add Wichita and Dayton if you want to get to 11 in all non FB sports and have 20 game round-robin league.

(06-22-2020 09:36 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(06-16-2020 10:06 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 10:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 09:51 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 09:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Guess which TV market has the most viewers watching college football on ESPN/ABC.

He thinks Texas A&M rules the Texas market

I am the average Joe in Texas and nobody cares about the SEC here outside of Houston

You totally miss the point, as usual. And you are in such a damned hurry to lay an insult that you didn't read the post well enough either! The SEC will rule ESPN/ABC but not until they are no longer on CBS. There is only one way to augment further investment in Texas and Oklahoma, and as I said it isn't the SEC.

To enhance the value of Oklahoma and Texas you need to make them relevant in the strongest football markets. Add Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Miami to the Big 12 and you add the value in the markets that add the most viewers to what Texas and Oklahoma already command. Toss in Pitt to play WVU and Louisville and you have quite a nice 16.

Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Baylor, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

You can't get the ratings out of the PAC to make that merger work. Add brands with national appeal to Texas and Oklahoma and add the strongest football loving markets and it's a winner.

And another thing you are no average Joe in Texas, and the SEC does quite well there, but certainly not Texas numbers, but you spit the bit trying for an insult as usual. Then thought better of it and tried to take down the post.

Still the likeliest outcome is that FOX and ESPN continue to split the Big 12, that Oklahoma renews their T3 rights, and that nothing happens. But if there is movement it will start in Norman.

How would you suggest that ESPN and the Big 12 get around the ACC GOR if they made a move like that?

What would become of the 8 left behind ACC members? Do the Big Ten and SEC go hunting for VA/NC schools? BC, Cuse, and Duke join the Big East. WF to TBD?

This idea that the ACC schools want to or would leave is far fetched. Clemson would gain nothing by joining the Big 12. FSU is not what it once was, Georgia Tech won’t move the TV needle and Miami is a far flung private school from the rest of the league. Pitt and Louisville are less nonsensical but would require Louisville to move to an inferior basketball league and Pitt to leave behind rivalries with BC and Cuse. Plus, travel for basketball and Olympic sports, in light of the budget crunches and COVID reality, would be a nightmare. Finally, why would ESPN devalue its cable channel for the ACC by reallocating schools to a league with no network, and no reasonably foreseeable chance of getting one outside of some ESPN+ site? Just send Texas to the ACC with ND, put KU and Oklahoma in the B1G, WVU and TCU or OK State to the SEC and merge the remaining 5 schools into the AAC or MWC, or become a tweener league by adding BYU, SDSU and Boise as FB-only plus Houston, Cincy, Memphis and UCF to the 5 leftovers to get back to 12 FB and 9 all other sports. Add Wichita and Dayton if you want to get to 11 in all non FB sports and have 20 game round-robin league.

I don't think this was your intent, but...

(06-22-2020 09:36 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  FSU is not what it once was,

(06-22-2020 09:36 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Georgia Tech won’t move the TV needle

(06-22-2020 09:36 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  and Miami is a far flung private school from the rest of the league.

... you have made a very convincing argument that Texas should not join the ACC.

I concur, that post made it clear that Texas shouldn't want to be part of the ACC, ever.

(06-23-2020 06:20 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  I concur, that post made it clear that Texas shouldn't want to be part of the ACC, ever.

Touche. However, travel costs aside, Clemson is as good if not better than Oklahoma in football and Texas could still play OU in an OOC game every year. Baylor and Virginia Tech are at least roughly equivalent for FB and Louisville, Virginia, Duke, UNC and Florida State are all better all-sports programs than West Virginia, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC's academics record (UNC notwithstanding) is still significantly better than the Big XII. That being said, it would not surprise me if Texas were to see the financial benefits in getting "Notre Dame" deal from the ACC. They could go independent in football and then park all of its other sports in the ACC, sell their T1 rights to ESPN/ABC to try and boost carriage of LHN, and then have 6-7 guaranteed games against ACC teams, with the road games going onto the ACC ESPN channel and most home games on ESPN or ABC with simulcast on LHN. Thrown in an annual game against ND as part of that deal, plus an annual game against OU, and UT would still have 3-4 openings each year to schedule intersectional matchups with schools like Ohio State, USC, UCLA, Michigan, LSU, Bama and other Lonestar state schools like Baylor, TCU, TTU, Rice or, dare to dream, A&M.

(06-23-2020 08:36 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 06:20 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  I concur, that post made it clear that Texas shouldn't want to be part of the ACC, ever.

Touche. However, travel costs aside, Clemson is as good if not better than Oklahoma in football and Texas could still play OU in an OOC game every year. Baylor and Virginia Tech are at least roughly equivalent for FB and Louisville, Virginia, Duke, UNC and Florida State are all better all-sports programs than West Virginia, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC's academics record (UNC notwithstanding) is still significantly better than the Big XII. That being said, it would not surprise me if Texas were to see the financial benefits in getting "Notre Dame" deal from the ACC. They could go independent in football and then park all of its other sports in the ACC, sell their T1 rights to ESPN/ABC to try and boost carriage of LHN, and then have 6-7 guaranteed games against ACC teams, with the road games going onto the ACC ESPN channel and most home games on ESPN or ABC with simulcast on LHN. Thrown in an annual game against ND as part of that deal, plus an annual game against OU, and UT would still have 3-4 openings each year to schedule intersectional matchups with schools like Ohio State, USC, UCLA, Michigan, LSU, Bama and other Lonestar state schools like Baylor, TCU, TTU, Rice or, dare to dream, A&M.

Texas will not place their other sports teams on a island where they have to travel to Syracuse, Boston, Miami etc., to play away conference games. Texas can do a lot better than that and they will.

Texas can go Indy and place it’s other sports in the Big 12. They don’t need to go to the ACC and it would make little sense for them to do so.

The 7 schools left in the Big 12 would take that deal because Texas’s Olympic sports and 5 football games is better than no exposure at all.

(06-23-2020 09:18 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:36 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 06:20 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  I concur, that post made it clear that Texas shouldn't want to be part of the ACC, ever.

Touche. However, travel costs aside, Clemson is as good if not better than Oklahoma in football and Texas could still play OU in an OOC game every year. Baylor and Virginia Tech are at least roughly equivalent for FB and Louisville, Virginia, Duke, UNC and Florida State are all better all-sports programs than West Virginia, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC's academics record (UNC notwithstanding) is still significantly better than the Big XII. That being said, it would not surprise me if Texas were to see the financial benefits in getting "Notre Dame" deal from the ACC. They could go independent in football and then park all of its other sports in the ACC, sell their T1 rights to ESPN/ABC to try and boost carriage of LHN, and then have 6-7 guaranteed games against ACC teams, with the road games going onto the ACC ESPN channel and most home games on ESPN or ABC with simulcast on LHN. Thrown in an annual game against ND as part of that deal, plus an annual game against OU, and UT would still have 3-4 openings each year to schedule intersectional matchups with schools like Ohio State, USC, UCLA, Michigan, LSU, Bama and other Lonestar state schools like Baylor, TCU, TTU, Rice or, dare to dream, A&M.

Texas will not place their other sports teams on a island where they have to travel to Syracuse, Boston, Miami etc., to play away conference games. Texas can do a lot better than that and they will.

I think that depends on the available options. If their only option becomes a non-power conference, they might consider it. Let’s say the ACC says bring 3 friends and we will provide the best regional scheduling for all our schools that we can. Possibly enticing.

(06-23-2020 09:29 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:18 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:36 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 06:20 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  I concur, that post made it clear that Texas shouldn't want to be part of the ACC, ever.

Touche. However, travel costs aside, Clemson is as good if not better than Oklahoma in football and Texas could still play OU in an OOC game every year. Baylor and Virginia Tech are at least roughly equivalent for FB and Louisville, Virginia, Duke, UNC and Florida State are all better all-sports programs than West Virginia, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC's academics record (UNC notwithstanding) is still significantly better than the Big XII. That being said, it would not surprise me if Texas were to see the financial benefits in getting "Notre Dame" deal from the ACC. They could go independent in football and then park all of its other sports in the ACC, sell their T1 rights to ESPN/ABC to try and boost carriage of LHN, and then have 6-7 guaranteed games against ACC teams, with the road games going onto the ACC ESPN channel and most home games on ESPN or ABC with simulcast on LHN. Thrown in an annual game against ND as part of that deal, plus an annual game against OU, and UT would still have 3-4 openings each year to schedule intersectional matchups with schools like Ohio State, USC, UCLA, Michigan, LSU, Bama and other Lonestar state schools like Baylor, TCU, TTU, Rice or, dare to dream, A&M.

Texas will not place their other sports teams on a island where they have to travel to Syracuse, Boston, Miami etc., to play away conference games. Texas can do a lot better than that and they will.

I think that depends on the available options. If their only option becomes a non-power conference, they might consider it. Let’s say the ACC says bring 3 friends and we will provide the best regional scheduling for all our schools that we can. Possibly enticing.

NO. Texas and Notre Dame are the most wanted schools in all of college football. Texas has more options than you can shake a stick at. Texas does not 'settle' for anything, they don't have to.

If Texas goes Indy in football, they will leave their non-football teams in the Big2 which will be thrilled to have them.

(06-15-2020 10:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To enhance the value of Oklahoma and Texas you need to make them relevant in the strongest football markets. Add Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Miami to the Big 12 and you add the value in the markets that add the most viewers to what Texas and Oklahoma already command. Toss in Pitt to play WVU and Louisville and you have quite a nice 16.

Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Baylor, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

You can't get the ratings out of the PAC to make that merger work. Add brands with national appeal to Texas and Oklahoma and add the strongest football loving markets and it's a winner.

Still the likeliest outcome is that FOX and ESPN continue to split the Big 12, that Oklahoma renews their T3 rights, and that nothing happens. But if there is movement it will start in Norman.

JR the answer has been right under my nose and I didn't see it.

I do believe that some of your suppositions are incorrect.
First and foremost, I don't thing we will ever see a 16 team conference. We'll settle in at either 12 or 14 teams per league. But your placement of Louisville and Pitt into the Big 12 is brilliant.

Pitt, West Virginia, Louisville, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor Texas, Texas Tech

(06-23-2020 12:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 10:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To enhance the value of Oklahoma and Texas you need to make them relevant in the strongest football markets. Add Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Miami to the Big 12 and you add the value in the markets that add the most viewers to what Texas and Oklahoma already command. Toss in Pitt to play WVU and Louisville and you have quite a nice 16.

Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Baylor, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

You can't get the ratings out of the PAC to make that merger work. Add brands with national appeal to Texas and Oklahoma and add the strongest football loving markets and it's a winner.

Still the likeliest outcome is that FOX and ESPN continue to split the Big 12, that Oklahoma renews their T3 rights, and that nothing happens. But if there is movement it will start in Norman.

JR the answer has been right under my nose and I didn't see it.

I do believe that some of your suppositions are incorrect.
First and foremost, I don't thing we will ever see a 16 team conference. We'll settle in at either 12 or 14 teams per league. But your placement of Louisville and Pitt into the Big 12 is brilliant.

Pitt, West Virginia, Louisville, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor Texas, Texas Tech

How much more money would adding Louisville and Pitt to the conference make? And does ESPN Plus buy their T3 rights too?

(06-23-2020 01:09 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 12:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 10:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To enhance the value of Oklahoma and Texas you need to make them relevant in the strongest football markets. Add Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Miami to the Big 12 and you add the value in the markets that add the most viewers to what Texas and Oklahoma already command. Toss in Pitt to play WVU and Louisville and you have quite a nice 16.

Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Baylor, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

You can't get the ratings out of the PAC to make that merger work. Add brands with national appeal to Texas and Oklahoma and add the strongest football loving markets and it's a winner.

Still the likeliest outcome is that FOX and ESPN continue to split the Big 12, that Oklahoma renews their T3 rights, and that nothing happens. But if there is movement it will start in Norman.

JR the answer has been right under my nose and I didn't see it.

I do believe that some of your suppositions are incorrect.
First and foremost, I don't thing we will ever see a 16 team conference. We'll settle in at either 12 or 14 teams per league. But your placement of Louisville and Pitt into the Big 12 is brilliant.

Pitt, West Virginia, Louisville, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor Texas, Texas Tech

How much more money would adding Louisville and Pitt to the conference make? And does ESPN Plus buy their T3 rights too?

Also, you would have to pay Pitt a lot more money than they now get, for it to make sense for them.

Obviously WVU is close enough to Pitt, but the next closest Big 12 school is Iowa State, and Pitt is closer to every ACC school except FSU and Miami than it is to Iowa State.

(06-23-2020 01:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 01:09 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 12:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 10:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To enhance the value of Oklahoma and Texas you need to make them relevant in the strongest football markets. Add Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Miami to the Big 12 and you add the value in the markets that add the most viewers to what Texas and Oklahoma already command. Toss in Pitt to play WVU and Louisville and you have quite a nice 16.

Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Baylor, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

You can't get the ratings out of the PAC to make that merger work. Add brands with national appeal to Texas and Oklahoma and add the strongest football loving markets and it's a winner.

Still the likeliest outcome is that FOX and ESPN continue to split the Big 12, that Oklahoma renews their T3 rights, and that nothing happens. But if there is movement it will start in Norman.

JR the answer has been right under my nose and I didn't see it.

I do believe that some of your suppositions are incorrect.
First and foremost, I don't thing we will ever see a 16 team conference. We'll settle in at either 12 or 14 teams per league. But your placement of Louisville and Pitt into the Big 12 is brilliant.

Pitt, West Virginia, Louisville, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor Texas, Texas Tech

How much more money would adding Louisville and Pitt to the conference make? And does ESPN Plus buy their T3 rights too?

Also, you would have to pay Pitt a lot more money than they now get, for it to make sense for them.

Obviously WVU is close enough to Pitt, but the next closest Big 12 school is Iowa State, and Pitt is closer to every ACC school except FSU and Miami than it is to Iowa State.

Yeah the idea of Pitt and Louisville to the Big12 is DOA. Plus, Texas shot the addition of Louisville down already.

(06-23-2020 01:35 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 01:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 01:09 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 12:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 10:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To enhance the value of Oklahoma and Texas you need to make them relevant in the strongest football markets. Add Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Miami to the Big 12 and you add the value in the markets that add the most viewers to what Texas and Oklahoma already command. Toss in Pitt to play WVU and Louisville and you have quite a nice 16.

Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Baylor, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

You can't get the ratings out of the PAC to make that merger work. Add brands with national appeal to Texas and Oklahoma and add the strongest football loving markets and it's a winner.

Still the likeliest outcome is that FOX and ESPN continue to split the Big 12, that Oklahoma renews their T3 rights, and that nothing happens. But if there is movement it will start in Norman.

JR the answer has been right under my nose and I didn't see it.

I do believe that some of your suppositions are incorrect.
First and foremost, I don't thing we will ever see a 16 team conference. We'll settle in at either 12 or 14 teams per league. But your placement of Louisville and Pitt into the Big 12 is brilliant.

Pitt, West Virginia, Louisville, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor Texas, Texas Tech

How much more money would adding Louisville and Pitt to the conference make? And does ESPN Plus buy their T3 rights too?

Also, you would have to pay Pitt a lot more money than they now get, for it to make sense for them.

Obviously WVU is close enough to Pitt, but the next closest Big 12 school is Iowa State, and Pitt is closer to every ACC school except FSU and Miami than it is to Iowa State.

Yeah the idea of Pitt and Louisville to the Big12 is DOA. Plus, Texas shot the addition of Louisville down already.

Might work as an alliance deal between the two conferences. Not that Pitt would be happy about it.

(06-23-2020 08:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 01:35 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 01:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 01:09 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 12:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR the answer has been right under my nose and I didn't see it.

I do believe that some of your suppositions are incorrect.
First and foremost, I don't thing we will ever see a 16 team conference. We'll settle in at either 12 or 14 teams per league. But your placement of Louisville and Pitt into the Big 12 is brilliant.

Pitt, West Virginia, Louisville, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor Texas, Texas Tech

How much more money would adding Louisville and Pitt to the conference make? And does ESPN Plus buy their T3 rights too?

Also, you would have to pay Pitt a lot more money than they now get, for it to make sense for them.

Obviously WVU is close enough to Pitt, but the next closest Big 12 school is Iowa State, and Pitt is closer to every ACC school except FSU and Miami than it is to Iowa State.

Yeah the idea of Pitt and Louisville to the Big12 is DOA. Plus, Texas shot the addition of Louisville down already.

Might work as an alliance deal between the two conferences. Not that Pitt would be happy about it.

Pitt will never be happy..so it doesn't matter lol

(06-23-2020 10:10 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:29 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:18 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:36 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 06:20 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  I concur, that post made it clear that Texas shouldn't want to be part of the ACC, ever.

Touche. However, travel costs aside, Clemson is as good if not better than Oklahoma in football and Texas could still play OU in an OOC game every year. Baylor and Virginia Tech are at least roughly equivalent for FB and Louisville, Virginia, Duke, UNC and Florida State are all better all-sports programs than West Virginia, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC's academics record (UNC notwithstanding) is still significantly better than the Big XII. That being said, it would not surprise me if Texas were to see the financial benefits in getting "Notre Dame" deal from the ACC. They could go independent in football and then park all of its other sports in the ACC, sell their T1 rights to ESPN/ABC to try and boost carriage of LHN, and then have 6-7 guaranteed games against ACC teams, with the road games going onto the ACC ESPN channel and most home games on ESPN or ABC with simulcast on LHN. Thrown in an annual game against ND as part of that deal, plus an annual game against OU, and UT would still have 3-4 openings each year to schedule intersectional matchups with schools like Ohio State, USC, UCLA, Michigan, LSU, Bama and other Lonestar state schools like Baylor, TCU, TTU, Rice or, dare to dream, A&M.

Texas will not place their other sports teams on a island where they have to travel to Syracuse, Boston, Miami etc., to play away conference games. Texas can do a lot better than that and they will.

I think that depends on the available options. If their only option becomes a non-power conference, they might consider it. Let’s say the ACC says bring 3 friends and we will provide the best regional scheduling for all our schools that we can. Possibly enticing.

NO. Texas and Notre Dame are the most wanted schools in all of college football. Texas has more options than you can shake a stick at. Texas does not 'settle' for anything, they don't have to.

If Texas goes Indy in football, they will leave their non-football teams in the Big2 which will be thrilled to have them.

Unless you are also positing that OU leaves, why would the remaining Big 12 schools keep Texas without football? Texas basketball and baseball are mediocre compared to years past and there would still be 3 Lonestar State teams in an 8 or 9 team rump conference for recruiting. Texas being allowed to leave in football and keep everything else in the Big 12 is as much a pipe dream as the idea of UConn joining the Big East for all of that conference’s sponsored sports but leaving football in the American. It’s sad, but nonetheless incontrovertible, that USC, Texas, Miami, Colorado, Nebraska and FSU have all become has-beens in football over the last 15 years due to the Urban Meyer/Nick Saban/Dabo-ization of the SEC/B1G/ACC. Texas under Tom Herman is trending toward John Mackovic territory.

(06-23-2020 09:06 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:10 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:29 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:18 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:36 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Touche. However, travel costs aside, Clemson is as good if not better than Oklahoma in football and Texas could still play OU in an OOC game every year. Baylor and Virginia Tech are at least roughly equivalent for FB and Louisville, Virginia, Duke, UNC and Florida State are all better all-sports programs than West Virginia, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC's academics record (UNC notwithstanding) is still significantly better than the Big XII. That being said, it would not surprise me if Texas were to see the financial benefits in getting "Notre Dame" deal from the ACC. They could go independent in football and then park all of its other sports in the ACC, sell their T1 rights to ESPN/ABC to try and boost carriage of LHN, and then have 6-7 guaranteed games against ACC teams, with the road games going onto the ACC ESPN channel and most home games on ESPN or ABC with simulcast on LHN. Thrown in an annual game against ND as part of that deal, plus an annual game against OU, and UT would still have 3-4 openings each year to schedule intersectional matchups with schools like Ohio State, USC, UCLA, Michigan, LSU, Bama and other Lonestar state schools like Baylor, TCU, TTU, Rice or, dare to dream, A&M.

Texas will not place their other sports teams on a island where they have to travel to Syracuse, Boston, Miami etc., to play away conference games. Texas can do a lot better than that and they will.

I think that depends on the available options. If their only option becomes a non-power conference, they might consider it. Let’s say the ACC says bring 3 friends and we will provide the best regional scheduling for all our schools that we can. Possibly enticing.

NO. Texas and Notre Dame are the most wanted schools in all of college football. Texas has more options than you can shake a stick at. Texas does not 'settle' for anything, they don't have to.

If Texas goes Indy in football, they will leave their non-football teams in the Big2 which will be thrilled to have them.

Unless you are also positing that OU leaves, why would the remaining Big 12 schools keep Texas without football? Texas basketball and baseball are mediocre compared to years past and there would still be 3 Lonestar State teams in an 8 or 9 team rump conference for recruiting. Texas being allowed to leave in football and keep everything else in the Big 12 is as much a pipe dream as the idea of UConn joining the Big East for all of that conference’s sponsored sports but leaving football in the American.

LOL the baseball team is loaded for this coming season and were having a pretty good one before Covid. They also made it to Omaha just a few seasons ago..
You have a point with basketball but CDC will figure that out soon enough.. and still it's Texas and yes the Big 12 without UT will still sign up if UT is willing to play 6 teams in conference.

(06-23-2020 09:09 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:06 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:10 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:29 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:18 AM)texoma Wrote:  Texas will not place their other sports teams on a island where they have to travel to Syracuse, Boston, Miami etc., to play away conference games. Texas can do a lot better than that and they will.

I think that depends on the available options. If their only option becomes a non-power conference, they might consider it. Let’s say the ACC says bring 3 friends and we will provide the best regional scheduling for all our schools that we can. Possibly enticing.

NO. Texas and Notre Dame are the most wanted schools in all of college football. Texas has more options than you can shake a stick at. Texas does not 'settle' for anything, they don't have to.

If Texas goes Indy in football, they will leave their non-football teams in the Big2 which will be thrilled to have them.

Unless you are also positing that OU leaves, why would the remaining Big 12 schools keep Texas without football? Texas basketball and baseball are mediocre compared to years past and there would still be 3 Lonestar State teams in an 8 or 9 team rump conference for recruiting. Texas being allowed to leave in football and keep everything else in the Big 12 is as much a pipe dream as the idea of UConn joining the Big East for all of that conference’s sponsored sports but leaving football in the American.

LOL the baseball team is loaded for this coming season and were having a pretty good one before Covid. They also made it to Omaha just a few seasons ago..
You have a point with basketball but CDC will figure that out soon enough.. and still it's Texas and yes the Big 12 without UT will still sign up if UT is willing to play 6 teams in conference.

Are you guaranteeing that visiting conference teams will get to participate in shirtless drum circles at the new arena with “Minister of Culture” Wooderson, followed by a party at the Moon Tower?

Baylor, TCU, TTU, Kansas St, Iowa St, WVU, Kansas/Okla St

Those 7 would absolutely keep Longhorn Olympic sports and make a deal that would put the Longhorn football team in Their stadium once every 4 years.

These terms are way better than none at all if Texas leaves for another P5.

(06-23-2020 09:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Baylor, TCU, TTU, Kansas St, Iowa St, WVU, Kansas/Okla St

Those 7 would absolutely keep Longhorn Olympic sports and make a deal that would put the Longhorn football team in Their stadium once every 4 years.

These terms are way better than none at all if Texas leaves for another P5.

I agree with that. Besides as a UT fan, olympic sports has done so much better than the big 3 has in a long time.

(06-23-2020 09:06 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:10 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:29 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:18 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:36 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Touche. However, travel costs aside, Clemson is as good if not better than Oklahoma in football and Texas could still play OU in an OOC game every year. Baylor and Virginia Tech are at least roughly equivalent for FB and Louisville, Virginia, Duke, UNC and Florida State are all better all-sports programs than West Virginia, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC's academics record (UNC notwithstanding) is still significantly better than the Big XII. That being said, it would not surprise me if Texas were to see the financial benefits in getting "Notre Dame" deal from the ACC. They could go independent in football and then park all of its other sports in the ACC, sell their T1 rights to ESPN/ABC to try and boost carriage of LHN, and then have 6-7 guaranteed games against ACC teams, with the road games going onto the ACC ESPN channel and most home games on ESPN or ABC with simulcast on LHN. Thrown in an annual game against ND as part of that deal, plus an annual game against OU, and UT would still have 3-4 openings each year to schedule intersectional matchups with schools like Ohio State, USC, UCLA, Michigan, LSU, Bama and other Lonestar state schools like Baylor, TCU, TTU, Rice or, dare to dream, A&M.

Texas will not place their other sports teams on a island where they have to travel to Syracuse, Boston, Miami etc., to play away conference games. Texas can do a lot better than that and they will.

I think that depends on the available options. If their only option becomes a non-power conference, they might consider it. Let’s say the ACC says bring 3 friends and we will provide the best regional scheduling for all our schools that we can. Possibly enticing.

NO. Texas and Notre Dame are the most wanted schools in all of college football. Texas has more options than you can shake a stick at. Texas does not 'settle' for anything, they don't have to.

If Texas goes Indy in football, they will leave their non-football teams in the Big2 which will be thrilled to have them.

Unless you are also positing that OU leaves, why would the remaining Big 12 schools keep Texas without football? Texas basketball and baseball are mediocre compared to years past and there would still be 3 Lonestar State teams in an 8 or 9 team rump conference for recruiting. Texas being allowed to leave in football and keep everything else in the Big 12 is as much a pipe dream as the idea of UConn joining the Big East for all of that conference’s sponsored sports but leaving football in the American. It’s sad, but nonetheless incontrovertible, that USC, Texas, Miami, Colorado, Nebraska and FSU have all become has-beens in football over the last 15 years due to the Urban Meyer/Nick Saban/Dabo-ization of the SEC/B1G/ACC. Texas under Tom Herman is trending toward John Mackovic territory.

To my knowledge no one has said anything about Texas leaving, if OU does not leave. If OU stays, the Big12 will remain as is with both Texas and OU and P5 conference realignment is likely dead and there is no need for any of this discussion..

But just for the record, if OU leaves the Big 12 and Texas decides to go Independent in football, the remaining Big12 teams will be thrilled to keep Texas non-football teams. I have explained this several times.

The pipe dream is thinking Texas would take a Notre Dame type deal with the ACC.