(10-24-2020 06:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Oklahoma leaves and Texas doesn’t it makes more sense for Texas to go Indy and do a 5 game deal with the Big 12.

If Oklahoma leaves the Big 12......there won't be any Big 12 for Texas to make a 5 game deal with.

(10-24-2020 07:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 06:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Oklahoma leaves and Texas doesn’t it makes more sense for Texas to go Indy and do a 5 game deal with the Big 12.

If Oklahoma leaves the Big 12......there won't be any Big 12 for Texas to make a 5 game deal with.

What will happen to the Big 12 then?

(10-24-2020 07:15 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 07:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 06:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Oklahoma leaves and Texas doesn’t it makes more sense for Texas to go Indy and do a 5 game deal with the Big 12.

If Oklahoma leaves the Big 12......there won't be any Big 12 for Texas to make a 5 game deal with.

What will happen to the Big 12 then?

So I learned that the Big 12 will apparently dissolve the instant Oklahoma leaves. Good to know.

(10-24-2020 07:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 06:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Oklahoma leaves and Texas doesn’t it makes more sense for Texas to go Indy and do a 5 game deal with the Big 12.

If Oklahoma leaves the Big 12......there won't be any Big 12 for Texas to make a 5 game deal with.

If the choice is between Big 12 minus TX and OU vs the ACC, I will take the ACC. The reasons include better football opponents including Clemson, Miami, and FSU (and potentially ND depending on the arrangement), better basketball and olympic sports, better academics, exposure in the east coast, ACCN, etc.

(10-24-2020 07:15 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 07:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 06:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Oklahoma leaves and Texas doesn’t it makes more sense for Texas to go Indy and do a 5 game deal with the Big 12.

If Oklahoma leaves the Big 12......there won't be any Big 12 for Texas to make a 5 game deal with.

What will happen to the Big 12 then?

So in a scenario where Oklahoma and Kansas accept Big Ten invitations or Oklahoma and Oklahoma St accept SEC invitations the Big 12 would be:

WVU
Iowa St
Kansas St
Kansas/Oklahoma St
TCU
Baylor
TTU
Texas

The Big 12 replace the pair they lost with say Houston and BYU/Cincinnati.

They go to 11 for Olympic sports. Texas plays FB independent—playing 5 Big 12 opponents a year—the equivalent of playing everyone every other year.

UC could go undefeated this year looking at their schedule. Would they get a look by the ACC or Big12? We know ND ain’t coming any time soon. Would the ACC do an odd number and leave a placeholder for ND? If Clemson ever falls off I don’t think there will be a huge football disparity if Memphis UC SMU and UCF can continue to post wins. UC would also alleviate things for WVU but not sure who school #12 would be.

(10-24-2020 06:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-23-2020 12:43 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 05:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  The exercise has been interesting, but in reality the eventual #16 wasn't even on the list.
If Notre Dame is the presumed #15, number 16 with out a doubt will be Texas. The question then is: does Oklahoma State accompany Oklahoma to the SEC or will that honor go to the oft mentioned West Virginia?

There is no way that Texas would ever go to the ACC. In my opinion the logical choice after Notre Dame is West Virginia.

I don't pretend to know the "mind of Texas".
What I do know is that Texas is bound to ESPN for another 10-11 years. The ACC is bound to ESPN for another 15-16 years.
ESPN will need to reduce overhead and try to maximize profits as they transition their business model because of the reduction of cable subscribers.

If you start to merge the thought processes of University Presidents who we are told are looking to enhance their schools prestige, and hard core business folks that are attempting to generate profits, the result may be to move in a direction that no one ever thought possible.

IF Oklahoma leaves the Big XII first, and IF Texas doesn't feel comfortable following TAMU to the SEC, THEN a 5-game deal with the ACC (like ND) is a viable option for the Longhorns, IMO.

Agree that under the two circumstances, some form of deal between the ACC and Texas becomes a possibility.

Nevertheless, Texas would have other options. For example, the B12 could backfill and still remain a P5 conference. The B12 has enough good football programs, that they could successfully compete against the other power conferences. The B12 also has such a strong presence throughout the state of Texas that they would maintain profitable bowl tie-ins. If the B12 backfills with UCF & USF, the B12 is still very attractive to the media and bowls. It’s just UT-Austin’s decision.

(10-24-2020 06:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-23-2020 12:43 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 05:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  The exercise has been interesting, but in reality the eventual #16 wasn't even on the list.
If Notre Dame is the presumed #15, number 16 with out a doubt will be Texas. The question then is: does Oklahoma State accompany Oklahoma to the SEC or will that honor go to the oft mentioned West Virginia?

There is no way that Texas would ever go to the ACC. In my opinion the logical choice after Notre Dame is West Virginia.

I don't pretend to know the "mind of Texas".
What I do know is that Texas is bound to ESPN for another 10-11 years. The ACC is bound to ESPN for another 15-16 years.
ESPN will need to reduce overhead and try to maximize profits as they transition their business model because of the reduction of cable subscribers.

If you start to merge the thought processes of University Presidents who we are told are looking to enhance their schools prestige, and hard core business folks that are attempting to generate profits, the result may be to move in a direction that no one ever thought possible.

IF Oklahoma leaves the Big XII first, and IF Texas doesn't feel comfortable following TAMU to the SEC, THEN a 5-game deal with the ACC (like ND) is a viable option for the Longhorns, IMO.

Sure, an indy UT FB program in this scenario could cut a 5-game deal with the ACC, but there seems to be little reason to do so. As long as there are Texas schools in the Big 12, indy UT FB would have a reason to continue playing Big 12 schools. They would also have the flexibility to schedule ACC schools like Clemson without the hindrance of a formal X-game agreement. Here's a plausible schedule for indy UT FB (games not in chronological order):

Annual home-and-homes
Texas Tech (Big 12)
@ TCU (Big 12)
Baylor (Big 12)

Annual neutral site game
vs Oklahoma (SEC/Big Ten) [in Dallas]

2-year home-and-homes with power schools
@ LSU (SEC)
Clemson (ACC)
@ Ohio State (Big Ten)
USC (Pac-12)

Buy games
SMU (AAC)
Houston (AAC)
North Texas (CUSA)
UTSA (CUSA)

8 home games plus the RRR in Dallas and an away game at TCU for 10 games in Texas -- very much to UT's tastes.

(10-25-2020 09:59 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 06:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-23-2020 12:43 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 05:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  The exercise has been interesting, but in reality the eventual #16 wasn't even on the list.
If Notre Dame is the presumed #15, number 16 with out a doubt will be Texas. The question then is: does Oklahoma State accompany Oklahoma to the SEC or will that honor go to the oft mentioned West Virginia?

There is no way that Texas would ever go to the ACC. In my opinion the logical choice after Notre Dame is West Virginia.

I don't pretend to know the "mind of Texas".
What I do know is that Texas is bound to ESPN for another 10-11 years. The ACC is bound to ESPN for another 15-16 years.
ESPN will need to reduce overhead and try to maximize profits as they transition their business model because of the reduction of cable subscribers.

If you start to merge the thought processes of University Presidents who we are told are looking to enhance their schools prestige, and hard core business folks that are attempting to generate profits, the result may be to move in a direction that no one ever thought possible.

IF Oklahoma leaves the Big XII first, and IF Texas doesn't feel comfortable following TAMU to the SEC, THEN a 5-game deal with the ACC (like ND) is a viable option for the Longhorns, IMO.

Sure, an indy UT FB program in this scenario could cut a 5-game deal with the ACC, but there seems to be little reason to do so. As long as there are Texas schools in the Big 12, indy UT FB would have a reason to continue playing Big 12 schools. They would also have the flexibility to schedule ACC schools like Clemson without the hindrance of a formal X-game agreement. Here's a plausible schedule for indy UT FB (games not in chronological order):

Annual home-and-homes
Texas Tech (Big 12)
@ TCU (Big 12)
Baylor (Big 12)

Annual neutral site game
vs Oklahoma (SEC/Big Ten) [in Dallas]

2-year home-and-homes with power schools
@ LSU (SEC)
Clemson (ACC)
@ Ohio State (Big Ten)
USC (Pac-12)

Buy games
SMU (AAC)
Houston (AAC)
North Texas (CUSA)
UTSA (CUSA)

8 home games plus the RRR in Dallas and an away game at TCU for 10 games in Texas -- very much to UT's tastes.

Sure but what about basketball and olympic sports? Even ND has been affiliated with a conference for non FB for long time.

(10-25-2020 10:56 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 09:59 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 06:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-23-2020 12:43 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  There is no way that Texas would ever go to the ACC. In my opinion the logical choice after Notre Dame is West Virginia.

I don't pretend to know the "mind of Texas".
What I do know is that Texas is bound to ESPN for another 10-11 years. The ACC is bound to ESPN for another 15-16 years.
ESPN will need to reduce overhead and try to maximize profits as they transition their business model because of the reduction of cable subscribers.

If you start to merge the thought processes of University Presidents who we are told are looking to enhance their schools prestige, and hard core business folks that are attempting to generate profits, the result may be to move in a direction that no one ever thought possible.

IF Oklahoma leaves the Big XII first, and IF Texas doesn't feel comfortable following TAMU to the SEC, THEN a 5-game deal with the ACC (like ND) is a viable option for the Longhorns, IMO.

Sure, an indy UT FB program in this scenario could cut a 5-game deal with the ACC, but there seems to be little reason to do so. As long as there are Texas schools in the Big 12, indy UT FB would have a reason to continue playing Big 12 schools. They would also have the flexibility to schedule ACC schools like Clemson without the hindrance of a formal X-game agreement. Here's a plausible schedule for indy UT FB (games not in chronological order):

Annual home-and-homes
Texas Tech (Big 12)
@ TCU (Big 12)
Baylor (Big 12)

Annual neutral site game
vs Oklahoma (SEC/Big Ten) [in Dallas]

2-year home-and-homes with power schools
@ LSU (SEC)
Clemson (ACC)
@ Ohio State (Big Ten)
USC (Pac-12)

Buy games
SMU (AAC)
Houston (AAC)
North Texas (CUSA)
UTSA (CUSA)

8 home games plus the RRR in Dallas and an away game at TCU for 10 games in Texas -- very much to UT's tastes.

Sure but what about basketball and olympic sports? Even ND has been affiliated with a conference for non FB for long time.

I only said UT's FB program would go independent. Their non-FB sports would remain in the Big 12.

(10-25-2020 11:15 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 10:56 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 09:59 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 06:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  I don't pretend to know the "mind of Texas".
What I do know is that Texas is bound to ESPN for another 10-11 years. The ACC is bound to ESPN for another 15-16 years.
ESPN will need to reduce overhead and try to maximize profits as they transition their business model because of the reduction of cable subscribers.

If you start to merge the thought processes of University Presidents who we are told are looking to enhance their schools prestige, and hard core business folks that are attempting to generate profits, the result may be to move in a direction that no one ever thought possible.

IF Oklahoma leaves the Big XII first, and IF Texas doesn't feel comfortable following TAMU to the SEC, THEN a 5-game deal with the ACC (like ND) is a viable option for the Longhorns, IMO.

Sure, an indy UT FB program in this scenario could cut a 5-game deal with the ACC, but there seems to be little reason to do so. As long as there are Texas schools in the Big 12, indy UT FB would have a reason to continue playing Big 12 schools. They would also have the flexibility to schedule ACC schools like Clemson without the hindrance of a formal X-game agreement. Here's a plausible schedule for indy UT FB (games not in chronological order):

Annual home-and-homes
Texas Tech (Big 12)
@ TCU (Big 12)
Baylor (Big 12)

Annual neutral site game
vs Oklahoma (SEC/Big Ten) [in Dallas]

2-year home-and-homes with power schools
@ LSU (SEC)
Clemson (ACC)
@ Ohio State (Big Ten)
USC (Pac-12)

Buy games
SMU (AAC)
Houston (AAC)
North Texas (CUSA)
UTSA (CUSA)

8 home games plus the RRR in Dallas and an away game at TCU for 10 games in Texas -- very much to UT's tastes.

Sure but what about basketball and olympic sports? Even ND has been affiliated with a conference for non FB for long time.

I only said UT's FB program would go independent. Their non-FB sports would remain in the Big 12.

Very unlikely in my opinion.

Why would Big 12 allow UT to go FB independent? Even if they do, expect a lot of bickering. UT’s influence will definitely be diminished. Forget about the GOR. Everyone will look for other options. In other words, it will be one unhappy and unstable conference.

UT can do much better with BIG, the SEC or the ACC (partial).

(10-25-2020 08:14 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 06:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-23-2020 12:43 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 05:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  The exercise has been interesting, but in reality the eventual #16 wasn't even on the list.
If Notre Dame is the presumed #15, number 16 with out a doubt will be Texas. The question then is: does Oklahoma State accompany Oklahoma to the SEC or will that honor go to the oft mentioned West Virginia?

There is no way that Texas would ever go to the ACC. In my opinion the logical choice after Notre Dame is West Virginia.

I don't pretend to know the "mind of Texas".
What I do know is that Texas is bound to ESPN for another 10-11 years. The ACC is bound to ESPN for another 15-16 years.
ESPN will need to reduce overhead and try to maximize profits as they transition their business model because of the reduction of cable subscribers.

If you start to merge the thought processes of University Presidents who we are told are looking to enhance their schools prestige, and hard core business folks that are attempting to generate profits, the result may be to move in a direction that no one ever thought possible.

IF Oklahoma leaves the Big XII first, and IF Texas doesn't feel comfortable following TAMU to the SEC, THEN a 5-game deal with the ACC (like ND) is a viable option for the Longhorns, IMO.

Agree that under the two circumstances, some form of deal between the ACC and Texas becomes a possibility.

Nevertheless, Texas would have other options. For example, the B12 could backfill and still remain a P5 conference. The B12 has enough good football programs, that they could successfully compete against the other power conferences. The B12 also has such a strong presence throughout the state of Texas that they would maintain profitable bowl tie-ins. If the B12 backfills with UCF & USF, the B12 is still very attractive to the media and bowls. It’s just UT-Austin’s decision.

If Oklahoma leaves the Big 12 has no way to backfill.
If the nets wouldn't accept two additional schools WITH OKLAHOMA there is no way they accept one, two or three G5 schools in the Big 12 or for that conference to expect to be able to be considered P5.
If either Texas or Oklahoma leave, the Big 12 is toast.

(10-25-2020 11:49 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 11:15 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 10:56 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 09:59 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 06:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IF Oklahoma leaves the Big XII first, and IF Texas doesn't feel comfortable following TAMU to the SEC, THEN a 5-game deal with the ACC (like ND) is a viable option for the Longhorns, IMO.

Sure, an indy UT FB program in this scenario could cut a 5-game deal with the ACC, but there seems to be little reason to do so. As long as there are Texas schools in the Big 12, indy UT FB would have a reason to continue playing Big 12 schools. They would also have the flexibility to schedule ACC schools like Clemson without the hindrance of a formal X-game agreement. Here's a plausible schedule for indy UT FB (games not in chronological order):

Annual home-and-homes
Texas Tech (Big 12)
@ TCU (Big 12)
Baylor (Big 12)

Annual neutral site game
vs Oklahoma (SEC/Big Ten) [in Dallas]

2-year home-and-homes with power schools
@ LSU (SEC)
Clemson (ACC)
@ Ohio State (Big Ten)
USC (Pac-12)

Buy games
SMU (AAC)
Houston (AAC)
North Texas (CUSA)
UTSA (CUSA)

8 home games plus the RRR in Dallas and an away game at TCU for 10 games in Texas -- very much to UT's tastes.

Sure but what about basketball and olympic sports? Even ND has been affiliated with a conference for non FB for long time.

I only said UT's FB program would go independent. Their non-FB sports would remain in the Big 12.

Very unlikely in my opinion.

Why would Big 12 allow UT to go FB independent? Even if they do, expect a lot of bickering. UT’s influence will definitely be diminished. Forget about the GOR. Everyone will look for other options. In other words, it will be one unhappy and unstable conference.

UT can do much better with BIG, the SEC or the ACC (partial).

The rest of the Big 12 has never been able to order UT around. And if OU is gone, the conference's relevance hinges entirely upon the presence of UT. If that means keeping them only for non-FB sports, the rest of the Big 12 will absolutely do that. If UT is generous/diplomatic enough, it will opt to continue playing the members of the Big 12 in football, although less frequently for the non-Texas members. If the rest of the Big 12 actually had other options, they would already have taken them.

(10-25-2020 12:18 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 08:14 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 06:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-23-2020 12:43 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  There is no way that Texas would ever go to the ACC. In my opinion the logical choice after Notre Dame is West Virginia.

I don't pretend to know the "mind of Texas".
What I do know is that Texas is bound to ESPN for another 10-11 years. The ACC is bound to ESPN for another 15-16 years.
ESPN will need to reduce overhead and try to maximize profits as they transition their business model because of the reduction of cable subscribers.

If you start to merge the thought processes of University Presidents who we are told are looking to enhance their schools prestige, and hard core business folks that are attempting to generate profits, the result may be to move in a direction that no one ever thought possible.

IF Oklahoma leaves the Big XII first, and IF Texas doesn't feel comfortable following TAMU to the SEC, THEN a 5-game deal with the ACC (like ND) is a viable option for the Longhorns, IMO.

Agree that under the two circumstances, some form of deal between the ACC and Texas becomes a possibility.

Nevertheless, Texas would have other options. For example, the B12 could backfill and still remain a P5 conference. The B12 has enough good football programs, that they could successfully compete against the other power conferences. The B12 also has such a strong presence throughout the state of Texas that they would maintain profitable bowl tie-ins. If the B12 backfills with UCF & USF, the B12 is still very attractive to the media and bowls. It’s just UT-Austin’s decision.

If Oklahoma leaves the Big 12 has no way to backfill.
If the nets wouldn't accept two additional schools WITH OKLAHOMA there is no way they accept one, two or three G5 schools in the Big 12 or for that conference to expect to be able to be considered P5.
If either Texas or Oklahoma leave, the Big 12 is toast.

Of course, if the Big 12 loses OU, then they'll lose UT at least for football, and will thus no longer be considered a true power FB conference. But unlike what you implied, the conference will still exist, just as a tweener at best. And UT will still be considered a power FB school even as an indy, just like Notre Dame has been.

(10-25-2020 12:35 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 12:18 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 08:14 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 06:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-24-2020 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  I don't pretend to know the "mind of Texas".
What I do know is that Texas is bound to ESPN for another 10-11 years. The ACC is bound to ESPN for another 15-16 years.
ESPN will need to reduce overhead and try to maximize profits as they transition their business model because of the reduction of cable subscribers.

If you start to merge the thought processes of University Presidents who we are told are looking to enhance their schools prestige, and hard core business folks that are attempting to generate profits, the result may be to move in a direction that no one ever thought possible.

IF Oklahoma leaves the Big XII first, and IF Texas doesn't feel comfortable following TAMU to the SEC, THEN a 5-game deal with the ACC (like ND) is a viable option for the Longhorns, IMO.

Agree that under the two circumstances, some form of deal between the ACC and Texas becomes a possibility.

Nevertheless, Texas would have other options. For example, the B12 could backfill and still remain a P5 conference. The B12 has enough good football programs, that they could successfully compete against the other power conferences. The B12 also has such a strong presence throughout the state of Texas that they would maintain profitable bowl tie-ins. If the B12 backfills with UCF & USF, the B12 is still very attractive to the media and bowls. It’s just UT-Austin’s decision.

If Oklahoma leaves the Big 12 has no way to backfill.
If the nets wouldn't accept two additional schools WITH OKLAHOMA there is no way they accept one, two or three G5 schools in the Big 12 or for that conference to expect to be able to be considered P5.
If either Texas or Oklahoma leave, the Big 12 is toast.

Of course, if the Big 12 loses OU, then they'll lose UT at least for football, and will thus no longer be considered a true power FB conference. But unlike what you implied, the conference will still exist, just as a tweener at best. And UT will still be considered a power FB school even as an indy, just like Notre Dame has been.

At best they would be at the level of the AAC........in fact a merger of the AAC and the Big 12 leftovers may be a pretty good idea.

(10-25-2020 12:32 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 11:49 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 11:15 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 10:56 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 09:59 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Sure, an indy UT FB program in this scenario could cut a 5-game deal with the ACC, but there seems to be little reason to do so. As long as there are Texas schools in the Big 12, indy UT FB would have a reason to continue playing Big 12 schools. They would also have the flexibility to schedule ACC schools like Clemson without the hindrance of a formal X-game agreement. Here's a plausible schedule for indy UT FB (games not in chronological order):

Annual home-and-homes
Texas Tech (Big 12)
@ TCU (Big 12)
Baylor (Big 12)

Annual neutral site game
vs Oklahoma (SEC/Big Ten) [in Dallas]

2-year home-and-homes with power schools
@ LSU (SEC)
Clemson (ACC)
@ Ohio State (Big Ten)
USC (Pac-12)

Buy games
SMU (AAC)
Houston (AAC)
North Texas (CUSA)
UTSA (CUSA)

8 home games plus the RRR in Dallas and an away game at TCU for 10 games in Texas -- very much to UT's tastes.

Sure but what about basketball and olympic sports? Even ND has been affiliated with a conference for non FB for long time.

I only said UT's FB program would go independent. Their non-FB sports would remain in the Big 12.

Very unlikely in my opinion.

Why would Big 12 allow UT to go FB independent? Even if they do, expect a lot of bickering. UT’s influence will definitely be diminished. Forget about the GOR. Everyone will look for other options. In other words, it will be one unhappy and unstable conference.

UT can do much better with BIG, the SEC or the ACC (partial).

The rest of the Big 12 has never been able to order UT around. And if OU is gone, the conference's relevance hinges entirely upon the presence of UT. If that means keeping them only for non-FB sports, the rest of the Big 12 will absolutely do that. If UT is generous/diplomatic enough, it will opt to continue playing the members of the Big 12 in football, although less frequently for the non-Texas members. If the rest of the Big 12 actually had other options, they would already have taken them.

Again, UT would be much better off with the ACC. Ask ND. It could have stayed with Big East while maintaining the true football independece.

(10-25-2020 12:55 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 12:32 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 11:49 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 11:15 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 10:56 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  Sure but what about basketball and olympic sports? Even ND has been affiliated with a conference for non FB for long time.

I only said UT's FB program would go independent. Their non-FB sports would remain in the Big 12.

Very unlikely in my opinion.

Why would Big 12 allow UT to go FB independent? Even if they do, expect a lot of bickering. UT’s influence will definitely be diminished. Forget about the GOR. Everyone will look for other options. In other words, it will be one unhappy and unstable conference.

UT can do much better with BIG, the SEC or the ACC (partial).

The rest of the Big 12 has never been able to order UT around. And if OU is gone, the conference's relevance hinges entirely upon the presence of UT. If that means keeping them only for non-FB sports, the rest of the Big 12 will absolutely do that. If UT is generous/diplomatic enough, it will opt to continue playing the members of the Big 12 in football, although less frequently for the non-Texas members. If the rest of the Big 12 actually had other options, they would already have taken them.

Again, UT would be much better off with the ACC. Ask ND. It could have stayed with Big East while maintaining the true football independece.

ND wanted Southern exposure, so they moved to the ACC. UT only wants Texas exposure, so they'll stick with the Big 12. They're not going to want to schlep their non-FB sports all over the east coast.

(10-25-2020 12:58 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 12:55 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 12:32 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 11:49 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(10-25-2020 11:15 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I only said UT's FB program would go independent. Their non-FB sports would remain in the Big 12.

Very unlikely in my opinion.

Why would Big 12 allow UT to go FB independent? Even if they do, expect a lot of bickering. UT’s influence will definitely be diminished. Forget about the GOR. Everyone will look for other options. In other words, it will be one unhappy and unstable conference.

UT can do much better with BIG, the SEC or the ACC (partial).

The rest of the Big 12 has never been able to order UT around. And if OU is gone, the conference's relevance hinges entirely upon the presence of UT. If that means keeping them only for non-FB sports, the rest of the Big 12 will absolutely do that. If UT is generous/diplomatic enough, it will opt to continue playing the members of the Big 12 in football, although less frequently for the non-Texas members. If the rest of the Big 12 actually had other options, they would already have taken them.

Again, UT would be much better off with the ACC. Ask ND. It could have stayed with Big East while maintaining the true football independece.

ND wanted Southern exposure, so they moved to the ACC. UT only wants Texas exposure, so they'll stick with the Big 12. They're not going to want to schlep their non-FB sports all over the east coast.

You are entitled to your opinion. But I just don’t think Texas only want Texas exposure. Last time I checked, the LHN was broadcast nationwide.

Texas wants to both be master of their conference and keep their cash to themselves.

They can’t bully the ACC around the way they can the Big 12 and while a lot of the football poet would be sucked out of the Big 12 if they lost Oklahoma, they are still a very respectable conference in basketball.

If Oklahoma decides to leave but Texas is not interested in giving in to another P5, Texas football will go independent, while everything else stays in the Big 12.

This model will work because the Longhorns should easily be able to sell T1 and T2 rights to someone, likely the Mouse, and get top dollar.

Big name schools from the P4 will still line up to play the Horns. Why lock yourself into a deal that means playing football games at BC, Cuse, WF, and Duke when you can go straight to the schools you want to play—Florida St, Miami, Clemson, and VT and sign. A series of Home and Homes?

Your Penn St, Ohio St, Michigan, Nebraska, USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington types are also going to be willing to supply 2 game series and probably even some of the big name SEC schools too.

Mid tier P4s and the better instate schools wouldn’t hesitate to do 2 for 1s with a name like Texas.