(10-21-2020 11:21 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 10:02 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It's very doubtful that Texas and Oklahoma could do much better in the SEC or Big Ten.

They're sitting pretty, right where they are.

Texas, in particular, has a great arrangement, since they're generating a lot of revenue through the Longhorn network.

I agree with this. Texas and Oklahoma like being the 900 and 800 pound gorillas of the Big 12. Even Texas would not have nearly as much power in the B1G or SEC.

They will stay where they are unless circumstances compel them. What are compelling circumstances? We saw one of them emerge in 2015, when Oklahoma was convinced that without a CCG, the Big 12 was at a structural disadvantage in making the playoffs. That was solved by getting the rules changed to allow them a CCG. So access to playoffs is one thing.

The other of course would be money. If the dust settles on a new round of TV deals in 2025 and it is clear that the Big 12 is and will continue to fall dramatically behind the B1G and SEC, that could prompt them to move as well, either to one of those conferences, the PAC, or to go independent.

Can y'all fill me in on the power in conference talk? Don't get the they lose the power talk if they moved to the BIG or SEC. If UT was in the SEC, what will magically disappear that they have right now in the Big12? The only difference is the path to the CFP.

Is it because the Big12 title game is in Dallas? And they would be playing in GA for the SEC CCG? Or if Jerry throws out money to have it rotated then, is that UT using it's "power"?

I think it's an overrated narrative tbh.

To be clear, when I refer to power, I am referring to political and administrative power in running the conference. Not success on the athletic fields.

Currently, Texas wields enormous power in the Big 12 because the rest of the conference, with the exception of Oklahoma, knows that if Texas doesn't like how the conference is being run, it can leave and that would likely cause the other schools to fall from the ranks of the Power-conference level. As the Iowa State AD said in 2016 "without Texas and Oklahoma, we are the Mountain West". And falling from the ranks of the P-level is the ultimate nightmare for a school currently in that club.

This gives those two schools enormous leverage when it comes to making decisions about how to run the conference. Despite being outnumbered greatly, nothing will happen in the Big 12 unless Texas and OU approve.

But if Texas were to join the B1G or SEC, they would lose that leverage, because obviously those leagues do not need them in order to be Power-level. They are power-level right now without them. So they would lose that kind of dominant administrative power they have in the Big 12.

And believe me, Administrators like having Administrative power. It's largely why they become Administrators.

(10-08-2020 05:09 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  I know I'm wasting my time saying this but: PLEASE don't fight the hypothetical! Anyway, here's the scenario:

1) B1G invite KU and UVa. Are told,"We need to bring along our 'little brother'." Big 10 agrees

2) PAC XII Invites OU and UT, are ALSO told "little bro comes along". PAC is like,"Cool with us, PAC-16!"

3) POTUS instructs SECDEF that AFA and Navy must go Indy

As a result:

1) What's left of the BIG XII joins the AAC

2) MWC stands pat

What, if anything, does the ACC do?

Interesting scenario but a few questions...

What’s the incentive for the Big Ten to expand into Kansas/Virginia and why is it so lucrative that the Big Ten agreed to accept Kansas St and Virginia Tech?

There’s no mention of the SEC. Are we to assume that they stay at 14?

(10-21-2020 01:37 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 01:03 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:  I think it's more likely that the B12 successfully poaches a couple or more PAC schools than the other way around. The PAC is in a nose dive on all fronts.

That may well be the case. The PAC "needs" Texas and Oklahoma the way a kangaroo needs a subscription to Netflix.

That being said, it's hard to think of a PAC team that would be better off in the Big 12. Colorado would be the best fit, but they were unhappy in the Big 12 and would be unlikely to return. Utah seems to be doing just fine in the PAC - - "if it ain't broke, why fix it?"

That would probably leave just AZ and AZ State. Would they have anything to gain from switching to the Big 12?

Assuming it's just them, I'd probably stay in the Pac-12 as all $ being equal I'd rather be with the California schools than the Texas schools. Of course if the $ isn't equal, as USC once said, everything is on the table.

(10-21-2020 08:54 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 01:53 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 12:06 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 09:59 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-20-2020 08:51 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  So you think UT or ou would be wary of the competition if they went to either the BIG or SEC? Seriously?

And the fans of those conferences/schools, wouldn't want to play Texas or ou? Are you kidding me? LSU fans drove the 8 hour trip and packed Austin a year ago. You don't think UT playing MN in MN wouldn't sell out that crowd?

As far as the lawsuits and stuff go.. They can't sue if they decide to leave as soon as the GOR expires. It's only 4 more years away but in '22, they both will be putting feelers out there just to check the temperature.

As I said before, as a UT fan, I really wouldn't want them to go to the BIG..even if ou agrees to go there. I'd rather take Tech in tow and play in the SEC.. where there is built in rivalries vs Ark and aggy.. and I'm pretty sure LSU will be the next. Travel will be less expensive than playing a BIG West division. RRS will remain in Dallas, and ou can re-unite with Nebraska with or without osu.

I really don't feel a Pac merger will really help either schools.. So if UT/ou move on.. maybe the PAC expands and grabs TCU/BU/UH..?

But if Oklahoma goes to the SEC and the SEC says to Texas you can come in and be #16 but Tech/Baylor/etc isn't welcome, would UT join the SEC on those terms?

I'm Big Ten first but from a college football standpoint I would want OU/UT in the SEC first because of the rivalries (UT with A&M and Ark, OU with Ala, LSU).

Didn't know that ou/ark was a thing tbh. Have no idea what would happen if the SEC used ou as leverage.. at that point, I see UT calling their bluff, forcing the SEC to take Kansas or oklahoma st to pair up with ou, while UT just goes independent. BIG is not for UT

I meant to say Texas with A&M and Arkansas and Oklahoma with Alabama and LSU. I'm sure many of the more western SEC schools would love to play both Texas and Oklahoma.

UT wants to "call the SEC's bluff"? They can enjoy a lot less money. Then watch the Sugar Bowl go to SEC/ACC and/or the CFP go to four conference champions. You want to do all of this for Tech?

I would do it if it were up to me, but UT wouldn't agree if the SEC commish told them.. Either you alone join with ou or you are out and we will get KU/osu to take your place. UT will say, oh really? and move on.. For better or worse, they won't get an ultimatum.. Larry Scott tried doing that and it ended poorly for him

The key for Texas last time was Oklahoma was still on their side. As long as Oklahoma remains loyal to UT and the Big 12, the Big 12 is a P5 conference and the networks, the other P5's, and everyone else has to accept them and the Little Eight as one (or Little Seven ifs one of them joins OU in the SEC). But if the others can wrestle OU away from Texas, then the Big 12 as Texas and the Little Eight has less power. Also, Texas football was a lot stronger now than they were back around 2010. Now Oklahoma is clearly the big dog football wise in the Big 12, UT has been mediocre in the 2010's, and we've seen the Longhorn Network in action (it wasn't the success ESPN thought it would be).

(10-21-2020 10:02 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It's very doubtful that Texas and Oklahoma could do much better in the SEC or Big Ten.

They're sitting pretty, right where they are.

Texas, in particular, has a great arrangement, since they're generating a lot of revenue through the Longhorn network.

(10-21-2020 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 10:02 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It's very doubtful that Texas and Oklahoma could do much better in the SEC or Big Ten.

They're sitting pretty, right where they are.

Texas, in particular, has a great arrangement, since they're generating a lot of revenue through the Longhorn network.

I agree with this. Texas and Oklahoma like being the 900 and 800 pound gorillas of the Big 12. Even Texas would not have nearly as much power in the B1G or SEC.

They will stay where they are unless circumstances compel them. What are compelling circumstances? We saw one of them emerge in 2015, when Oklahoma was convinced that without a CCG, the Big 12 was at a structural disadvantage in making the playoffs. That was solved by getting the rules changed to allow them a CCG. So access to playoffs is one thing.

The other of course would be money. If the dust settles on a new round of TV deals in 2025 and it is clear that the Big 12 is and will continue to fall dramatically behind the B1G and SEC, that could prompt them to move as well, either to one of those conferences, the PAC, or to go independent.

That's based on the current contracts. If ESPN and FOX wanted to stiff the Big 12 in the next set of contracts, they could. They can make Oklahoma and/or Texas "an offer they can't refuse" to leave. That's what I would do. Why am I paying P5 rates for 10 schools when only two schools in the conference are worth it and I can just move those two schools to other conferences and pay the Little 8 G5 rates instead? If ESPN and FOX think like me, they will do what they can to entice Oklahoma/Texas to the SEC, Big Ten, or Pac 12.

(10-21-2020 11:21 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 10:02 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It's very doubtful that Texas and Oklahoma could do much better in the SEC or Big Ten.

They're sitting pretty, right where they are.

Texas, in particular, has a great arrangement, since they're generating a lot of revenue through the Longhorn network.

I agree with this. Texas and Oklahoma like being the 900 and 800 pound gorillas of the Big 12. Even Texas would not have nearly as much power in the B1G or SEC.

They will stay where they are unless circumstances compel them. What are compelling circumstances? We saw one of them emerge in 2015, when Oklahoma was convinced that without a CCG, the Big 12 was at a structural disadvantage in making the playoffs. That was solved by getting the rules changed to allow them a CCG. So access to playoffs is one thing.

The other of course would be money. If the dust settles on a new round of TV deals in 2025 and it is clear that the Big 12 is and will continue to fall dramatically behind the B1G and SEC, that could prompt them to move as well, either to one of those conferences, the PAC, or to go independent.

Can y'all fill me in on the power in conference talk? Don't get the they lose the power talk if they moved to the BIG or SEC. If UT was in the SEC, what will magically disappear that they have right now in the Big12? The only difference is the path to the CFP.

Is it because the Big12 title game is in Dallas? And they would be playing in GA for the SEC CCG? Or if Jerry throws out money to have it rotated then, is that UT using it's "power"?

I think it's an overrated narrative tbh.

That would be an interesting thought? Could the SEC use the Championship Game and move it to Arlington some years as a way to lure Oklahoma/Texas into the conference? I'm sure not only they would like it but Texas A&M and LSU might prefer it to Atlanta. I'm sure Jerry (or Stephen if Jerry passes in the next few years as Jerry's pretty old now) will pay megabucks for the SEC Championship Game.

(10-21-2020 02:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 11:21 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 10:02 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It's very doubtful that Texas and Oklahoma could do much better in the SEC or Big Ten.

They're sitting pretty, right where they are.

Texas, in particular, has a great arrangement, since they're generating a lot of revenue through the Longhorn network.

I agree with this. Texas and Oklahoma like being the 900 and 800 pound gorillas of the Big 12. Even Texas would not have nearly as much power in the B1G or SEC.

They will stay where they are unless circumstances compel them. What are compelling circumstances? We saw one of them emerge in 2015, when Oklahoma was convinced that without a CCG, the Big 12 was at a structural disadvantage in making the playoffs. That was solved by getting the rules changed to allow them a CCG. So access to playoffs is one thing.

The other of course would be money. If the dust settles on a new round of TV deals in 2025 and it is clear that the Big 12 is and will continue to fall dramatically behind the B1G and SEC, that could prompt them to move as well, either to one of those conferences, the PAC, or to go independent.

Can y'all fill me in on the power in conference talk? Don't get the they lose the power talk if they moved to the BIG or SEC. If UT was in the SEC, what will magically disappear that they have right now in the Big12? The only difference is the path to the CFP.

Is it because the Big12 title game is in Dallas? And they would be playing in GA for the SEC CCG? Or if Jerry throws out money to have it rotated then, is that UT using it's "power"?

I think it's an overrated narrative tbh.

To be clear, when I refer to power, I am referring to political and administrative power in running the conference. Not success on the athletic fields.

Currently, Texas wields enormous power in the Big 12 because the rest of the conference, with the exception of Oklahoma, knows that if Texas doesn't like how the conference is being run, it can leave and that would likely cause the other schools to fall from the ranks of the Power-conference level. As the Iowa State AD said in 2016 "without Texas and Oklahoma, we are the Mountain West". And falling from the ranks of the P-level is the ultimate nightmare for a school currently in that club.

This gives those two schools enormous leverage when it comes to making decisions about how to run the conference. Despite being outnumbered greatly, nothing will happen in the Big 12 unless Texas and OU approve.

But if Texas were to join the B1G or SEC, they would lose that leverage, because obviously those leagues do not need them in order to be Power-level. They are power-level right now without them. So they would lose that kind of dominant administrative power they have in the Big 12.

And believe me, Administrators like having Administrative power. It's largely why they become Administrators.

No one's questioning Texas's desire for power. The goal is to throw so much money at them to give up power (or take so much money away from them). Either that or enjoy paying Baylor and Iowa State more than you're paying Clemson.

C00G:

B1G gets new markets and gets half a loaf, rather than no loaf

My OP didn't mention the SEC, BUT: I'd think they'd be interested in the Research Triangle

If the above happens, I can foresee the ACC, Big XII and American consolidate.

(10-21-2020 01:26 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 11:21 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 10:02 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It's very doubtful that Texas and Oklahoma could do much better in the SEC or Big Ten.

They're sitting pretty, right where they are.

Texas, in particular, has a great arrangement, since they're generating a lot of revenue through the Longhorn network.

I agree with this. Texas and Oklahoma like being the 900 and 800 pound gorillas of the Big 12. Even Texas would not have nearly as much power in the B1G or SEC.

They will stay where they are unless circumstances compel them. What are compelling circumstances? We saw one of them emerge in 2015, when Oklahoma was convinced that without a CCG, the Big 12 was at a structural disadvantage in making the playoffs. That was solved by getting the rules changed to allow them a CCG. So access to playoffs is one thing.

The other of course would be money. If the dust settles on a new round of TV deals in 2025 and it is clear that the Big 12 is and will continue to fall dramatically behind the B1G and SEC, that could prompt them to move as well, either to one of those conferences, the PAC, or to go independent.

If UT was in the SEC, what will magically disappear that they have right now in the Big12? The only difference is the path to the CFP.

Is it because the Big12 title game is in Dallas? And they would be playing in GA for the SEC CCG?

I think it's an overrated narrative tbh.

Other than in 2018, and prior to 2010, Texas has been a second tier FB school in the Big 12. The Longhorns would rarely - if ever - be able to contend with Alabama, LSU, and Auburn for the SEC West Division championship.

Texas would probably be a lower-to-middle tier SEC West Division school. Over time, this would do a great deal of harm to their program and its earning potential through the Longhorn Network.

Oh no... I'm pretty sure everyone is shaking at the thought of playing those teams..luckily we can play the arkansas, aggys, mizzus plus the occasional TN, Vandy, SC, msu and 3 non conf fcs schools to make us look better than that, no?

Again i still don't see the power angle, yes I get that the "little 8" would support and do almost anything to keep UT and ou in the Big12.

But what is UT or ou really missing out on? LHN? That will go down to negotiations between UT, the SEC commish and ESPN. Maybe they flip it to an SEC West or SEC2 or SECSW channel which features a majority of the division UT resides in tier 3 content (ark,lsu,tech/ou, aggy, ole miss,msu, mizzu?) Or they do away with it completely and ESPN pays UT the difference in money they lose, or they just completely buy out the LHN.. who knows but it's not something hard to figure out.

I bet if you asked Larry Scott today if he would have agreed to let UT bring LHN with them along with ou,osu, and tech...he'd say yes in an instant. PAC network would have been carried from coast to coast. If UT was that close to heading west with CAL/Stanford.. why think they wouldn't come to the SEC if the right deal was in order? Because of 'Power"?

(10-21-2020 06:38 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 01:26 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 11:21 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 10:02 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  It's very doubtful that Texas and Oklahoma could do much better in the SEC or Big Ten.

They're sitting pretty, right where they are.

Texas, in particular, has a great arrangement, since they're generating a lot of revenue through the Longhorn network.

I agree with this. Texas and Oklahoma like being the 900 and 800 pound gorillas of the Big 12. Even Texas would not have nearly as much power in the B1G or SEC.

They will stay where they are unless circumstances compel them. What are compelling circumstances? We saw one of them emerge in 2015, when Oklahoma was convinced that without a CCG, the Big 12 was at a structural disadvantage in making the playoffs. That was solved by getting the rules changed to allow them a CCG. So access to playoffs is one thing.

The other of course would be money. If the dust settles on a new round of TV deals in 2025 and it is clear that the Big 12 is and will continue to fall dramatically behind the B1G and SEC, that could prompt them to move as well, either to one of those conferences, the PAC, or to go independent.

If UT was in the SEC, what will magically disappear that they have right now in the Big12? The only difference is the path to the CFP.

Is it because the Big12 title game is in Dallas? And they would be playing in GA for the SEC CCG?

I think it's an overrated narrative tbh.

Other than in 2018, and prior to 2010, Texas has been a second tier FB school in the Big 12. The Longhorns would rarely - if ever - be able to contend with Alabama, LSU, and Auburn for the SEC West Division championship.

Texas would probably be a lower-to-middle tier SEC West Division school. Over time, this would do a great deal of harm to their program and its earning potential through the Longhorn Network.

Oh no... I'm pretty sure everyone is shaking at the thought of playing those teams..luckily we can play the arkansas, aggys, mizzus plus the occasional TN, Vandy, SC, msu and 3 non conf fcs schools to make us look better than that, no?

The Aggies (currently 3-1) are no pushover. As I recall, A&M was every bit the equal of UT over the decade or two before they split to the SEC.

Not only would Texas have to play Alabama, Auburn, LSU, & A&M; they would also have to play Georgia and Florida and some pretty good second-tier SEC teams, as well. They would have trouble finishing with better than a 5-3 conference record, most years.

They might have a harder time becoming bowl eligible in the SEC, unless they were to play a bunch of cupcakes in their OOC schedule. Even then, they'd hardly ever play in a bowl game that multiple millions would be interested in watching.

From UT's perspective, who needs the SEC when they're sitting in the catbird's seat in the Big 12?

(10-21-2020 07:10 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  From UT's perspective, who needs the SEC when they're sitting in the catbird's seat in the Big 12?

Again, you don't have to convince me that Texas would rather stay in the Big 12 than move to the SEC. I know that. Everyone knows that.

The goal of the networks is to make the Big 12 a "G5" conference in terms of revenue, Playoff access, and autonomy. Then Texas will have to join one of the other "P4" conferences if it wants a "seat" at the "big boy's table". We all know Texas wants to have its cake and eat it too. If Penn State could join the MAC, get the same $ they get now, and the MAC champion gets a berth in the Orange Bowl every year, Penn State would be in the MAC right now. Do you think anyone is going to let PSU do that? They wouldn't let Ohio State do that. The MAC + PSU + OSU isn't a major conference. It's the job of the networks to stand up to Texas/Oklahoma and push them around rather than the other way around. Give the fans what we want to see, Texas and Oklahoma playing Texas A&M, Alabama, and LSU instead of Kansas State, West Virginia, and Texas Tech.

(10-21-2020 07:10 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 06:38 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 01:26 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 11:21 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with this. Texas and Oklahoma like being the 900 and 800 pound gorillas of the Big 12. Even Texas would not have nearly as much power in the B1G or SEC.

They will stay where they are unless circumstances compel them. What are compelling circumstances? We saw one of them emerge in 2015, when Oklahoma was convinced that without a CCG, the Big 12 was at a structural disadvantage in making the playoffs. That was solved by getting the rules changed to allow them a CCG. So access to playoffs is one thing.

The other of course would be money. If the dust settles on a new round of TV deals in 2025 and it is clear that the Big 12 is and will continue to fall dramatically behind the B1G and SEC, that could prompt them to move as well, either to one of those conferences, the PAC, or to go independent.

If UT was in the SEC, what will magically disappear that they have right now in the Big12? The only difference is the path to the CFP.

Is it because the Big12 title game is in Dallas? And they would be playing in GA for the SEC CCG?

I think it's an overrated narrative tbh.

Other than in 2018, and prior to 2010, Texas has been a second tier FB school in the Big 12. The Longhorns would rarely - if ever - be able to contend with Alabama, LSU, and Auburn for the SEC West Division championship.

Texas would probably be a lower-to-middle tier SEC West Division school. Over time, this would do a great deal of harm to their program and its earning potential through the Longhorn Network.

Oh no... I'm pretty sure everyone is shaking at the thought of playing those teams..luckily we can play the arkansas, aggys, mizzus plus the occasional TN, Vandy, SC, msu and 3 non conf fcs schools to make us look better than that, no?

The Aggies (currently 3-1) are no pushover. As I recall, A&M was every bit the equal of UT over the decade or two before they split to the SEC.

Not only would Texas have to play Alabama, Auburn, LSU, & A&M; they would also have to play Georgia and Florida and some pretty good second-tier SEC teams, as well. They would have trouble finishing with better than a 5-3 conference record, most years.

They might have a harder time becoming bowl eligible in the SEC, unless they were to play a bunch of cupcakes in their OOC schedule. Even then, they'd hardly ever play in a bowl game that multiple millions would be interested in watching.

From UT's perspective, who needs the SEC when they're sitting in the catbird's seat in the Big 12?

yeah you may want to recall harder when comparing a&m and UT. a&m cheated and still couldn't get a title in the late 80's and early 90's. They won ONE whopping Conference title in 98.. have never won a NY6 bowl since the beginning of the Big12 and including it's time in the SEC.

For UT playing it's worst football last decade, they still have more wins than them and have played in a CCG and won a NY6 bowl game. I get that my horns are a punchline.. but what makes you really think that they would sink even lower than they have?

Yes they are off to a bad start this season, but if you think this is going to be the standard, your mistaken..Herman is gone barring this team running the table and winning the conference. We already know who is lined up, if he chooses to return (AND HE IS LISTENING).

So take the competition stuff out, UT will be ok in that.. and they still bring in the most revenue in NCAA schools period, so yes they walk with a stick, but it's not about power, it's about maximizing the most money. SEC would be a good fit, with or without ou because of arkansas, aggy, LSU already in the SEC. Have somewhat history with Mizzu as well. Texas alone will bring millions more into the pocket of everyone in the conference.

(10-21-2020 08:05 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 07:10 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  From UT's perspective, who needs the SEC when they're sitting in the catbird's seat in the Big 12?

Again, you don't have to convince me that Texas would rather stay in the Big 12 than move to the SEC. I know that. Everyone knows that.

The goal of the networks is to make the Big 12 a "G5" conference in terms of revenue, Playoff access, and autonomy. Then Texas will have to join one of the other "P4" conferences if it wants a "seat" at the "big boy's table". We all know Texas wants to have its cake and eat it too. If Penn State could join the MAC, get the same $ they get now, and the MAC champion gets a berth in the Orange Bowl every year, Penn State would be in the MAC right now. Do you think anyone is going to let PSU do that? They wouldn't let Ohio State do that. The MAC + PSU + OSU isn't a major conference. It's the job of the networks to stand up to Texas/Oklahoma and push them around rather than the other way around. Give the fans what we want to see, Texas and Oklahoma playing Texas A&M, Alabama, and LSU instead of Kansas State, West Virginia, and Texas Tech.

LOL what is this all about?!? UT and ou are bullying the TV networks now too? Is UT all of a sudden Suge Knight running through the music industry like it's 1992 all over again? C'mon man.

Texas just played LSU last season, canceled this season..play Arkansas, Bama, tosu, UM, FL, and GA to close out the decade.. Texas is doing it's part besides being a consistent winner.

TV negotiations will be interesting to say the least in 2022/2023.. What will make it more interesting is if UT starts winning 9/10 games a season and begins to play in CCG games more consistently.. will that have an effect with TV ratings? Who knows, guess we'll all have to wait.

(10-21-2020 06:47 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Again i still don't see the power angle, yes I get that the "little 8" would support and do almost anything to keep UT and ou in the Big12.

At this point, I'm a bit dumbfounded. If you asked me if I'd like to be President, I'd say "sure", even if I didn't have any specific laws I want implemented. Just having that power at my disposal would be enough for me to want it badly. Even if at any given moment Texas doesn't have a specific project it wants enacted at the conference level, having the power to do so should something come to mind is immensely desirable.

You seem to have an agenda to push your school towards the SEC and so don't like to think about potential obstacles?

FWIW, I don't see money as a big issue for Texas, in the sense of worrying about not having enough. It can out-earn the Big 12 easily, as it is doing now. Plus, Texas generally has money to burn, always does.

(10-21-2020 08:52 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 07:10 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 06:38 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 01:26 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 11:21 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  If UT was in the SEC, what will magically disappear that they have right now in the Big12? The only difference is the path to the CFP.

Is it because the Big12 title game is in Dallas? And they would be playing in GA for the SEC CCG?

I think it's an overrated narrative tbh.

Other than in 2018, and prior to 2010, Texas has been a second tier FB school in the Big 12. The Longhorns would rarely - if ever - be able to contend with Alabama, LSU, and Auburn for the SEC West Division championship.

Texas would probably be a lower-to-middle tier SEC West Division school. Over time, this would do a great deal of harm to their program and its earning potential through the Longhorn Network.

Oh no... I'm pretty sure everyone is shaking at the thought of playing those teams..luckily we can play the arkansas, aggys, mizzus plus the occasional TN, Vandy, SC, msu and 3 non conf fcs schools to make us look better than that, no?

The Aggies (currently 3-1) are no pushover. As I recall, A&M was every bit the equal of UT over the decade or two before they split to the SEC.

Not only would Texas have to play Alabama, Auburn, LSU, & A&M; they would also have to play Georgia and Florida and some pretty good second-tier SEC teams, as well. They would have trouble finishing with better than a 5-3 conference record, most years.

They might have a harder time becoming bowl eligible in the SEC, unless they were to play a bunch of cupcakes in their OOC schedule. Even then, they'd hardly ever play in a bowl game that multiple millions would be interested in watching.

From UT's perspective, who needs the SEC when they're sitting in the catbird's seat in the Big 12?

yeah you may want to recall harder when comparing a&m and UT. a&m cheated and still couldn't get a title in the late 80's and early 90's. They won ONE whopping Conference title in 98.. have never won a NY6 bowl since the beginning of the Big12 and including it's time in the SEC.

For UT playing it's worst football last decade, they still have more wins than them and have played in a CCG and won a NY6 bowl game. I get that my horns are a punchline.. but what makes you really think that they would sink even lower than they have?

Yes they are off to a bad start this season, but if you think this is going to be the standard, your mistaken..Herman is gone barring this team running the table and winning the conference. We already know who is lined up, if he chooses to return (AND HE IS LISTENING).

So take the competition stuff out, UT will be ok in that.. and they still bring in the most revenue in NCAA schools period, so yes they walk with a stick, but it's not about power, it's about maximizing the most money. SEC would be a good fit, with or without ou because of arkansas, aggy, LSU already in the SEC. Have somewhat history with Mizzu as well. Texas alone will bring millions more into the pocket of everyone in the conference.

That comes across "tough talk," perhaps even false bravado, considering that the statistics aren't there to back up such claims.

However, let's shift the focus to Oklahoma. They would certainly be likely to be one of the top tier teams in the SEC, but there's no guarantee that Oklahoma would win the SEC [b]West Division Championship on a regular or even semi-regular basis,[/b] against the likes of Alabama, LSU, and Auburn.

Oklahoma benefits just as much as Texas does by remaining in the Big 12.

.

Besides, there have been no signs that the SEC has been champing at the bit to grab hold of OU and/or UT.

(10-22-2020 12:22 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  That comes across "tough talk," perhaps even false bravado, considering that the statistics aren't there to back up such claims.

However, let's shift the focus to Oklahoma. They would certainly be likely to be one of the top tier teams in the SEC, but there's no guarantee that Oklahoma would win the SEC [b]West Division Championship on a regular or even semi-regular basis,[/b] against the likes of Alabama, LSU, and Auburn.

Oklahoma benefits just as much as Texas does by remaining in the Big 12.

.

Besides, there have been no signs that the SEC has been champing at the bit to grab hold of OU and/or UT.

If Oklahoma were to go to the SEC and they kept divisions, I would assume Alabama and Auburn go to the SEC East so that would help OU in the SEC West.

(10-22-2020 02:21 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-22-2020 12:22 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  ...let's shift the focus to Oklahoma. They would certainly be likely to be one of the top tier teams in the SEC, but there's no guarantee that Oklahoma would win the SEC [b]West Division Championship on a regular or even semi-regular basis,[/b] against the likes of Alabama, LSU, and Auburn.

Oklahoma benefits just as much as Texas does by remaining in the Big 12.

.

Besides, there have been no signs that the SEC has been champing at the bit to grab hold of OU and/or UT.

If Oklahoma were to go to the SEC and they kept divisions, I would assume Alabama and Auburn go to the SEC East so that would help OU in the SEC West.

Yes, something like that might be possible. Perhaps one or two strong SEC West teams would shift to the SEC East.

But, even if Alabama and Auburn were both to move to SEC East, Oklahoma might still have as hard of a time trying to win the SEC West Division Championship versus LSU and Texas A&M as they have now trying to win the Big 12 Championship, don't you think?

Not only that, but do you think that Oklahoma's fans would be willing to settle for winning as few as 2 or 3 Conference championships per decade in the SEC?

(10-22-2020 12:22 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 08:52 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 07:10 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 06:38 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 01:26 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  Other than in 2018, and prior to 2010, Texas has been a second tier FB school in the Big 12. The Longhorns would rarely - if ever - be able to contend with Alabama, LSU, and Auburn for the SEC West Division championship.

Texas would probably be a lower-to-middle tier SEC West Division school. Over time, this would do a great deal of harm to their program and its earning potential through the Longhorn Network.

Oh no... I'm pretty sure everyone is shaking at the thought of playing those teams..luckily we can play the arkansas, aggys, mizzus plus the occasional TN, Vandy, SC, msu and 3 non conf fcs schools to make us look better than that, no?

The Aggies (currently 3-1) are no pushover. As I recall, A&M was every bit the equal of UT over the decade or two before they split to the SEC.

Not only would Texas have to play Alabama, Auburn, LSU, & A&M; they would also have to play Georgia and Florida and some pretty good second-tier SEC teams, as well. They would have trouble finishing with better than a 5-3 conference record, most years.

They might have a harder time becoming bowl eligible in the SEC, unless they were to play a bunch of cupcakes in their OOC schedule. Even then, they'd hardly ever play in a bowl game that multiple millions would be interested in watching.

From UT's perspective, who needs the SEC when they're sitting in the catbird's seat in the Big 12?

yeah you may want to recall harder when comparing a&m and UT. a&m cheated and still couldn't get a title in the late 80's and early 90's. They won ONE whopping Conference title in 98.. have never won a NY6 bowl since the beginning of the Big12 and including it's time in the SEC.

For UT playing it's worst football last decade, they still have more wins than them and have played in a CCG and won a NY6 bowl game. I get that my horns are a punchline.. but what makes you really think that they would sink even lower than they have?

Yes they are off to a bad start this season, but if you think this is going to be the standard, your mistaken..Herman is gone barring this team running the table and winning the conference. We already know who is lined up, if he chooses to return (AND HE IS LISTENING).

So take the competition stuff out, UT will be ok in that.. and they still bring in the most revenue in NCAA schools period, so yes they walk with a stick, but it's not about power, it's about maximizing the most money. SEC would be a good fit, with or without ou because of arkansas, aggy, LSU already in the SEC. Have somewhat history with Mizzu as well. Texas alone will bring millions more into the pocket of everyone in the conference.

That comes across "tough talk," perhaps even false bravado, considering that the statistics aren't there to back up such claims.

However, let's shift the focus to Oklahoma. They would certainly be likely to be one of the top tier teams in the SEC, but there's no guarantee that Oklahoma would win the SEC [b]West Division Championship on a regular or even semi-regular basis,[/b] against the likes of Alabama, LSU, and Auburn.

Oklahoma benefits just as much as Texas does by remaining in the Big 12.

.

Besides, there have been no signs that the SEC has been champing at the bit to grab hold of OU and/or UT.

What exactly did I say that was false bravado? That UT will figure out as far as the competitive portion? Mizzu walked into the SEC and won an East Division ..twice maybe, right?
But this wasn't about competition, it was about maximizing money.. the field stuff will take care of itself.
I'm not steering UT towards the SEC, I was simply giving my opinion that Texas could go to the SEC if the Big12 for whatever reasons cannot be sustained. I was just asking why the narrative of UT wanting power was really coming from, as if they weren't close to heading west back in 2011.
Since realignment, UT hasn't hurt the conference outside the performance in the Big 3 sports. I have never heard of them bullying networks around either.
BTW with the bama and GA and FL talk.. The way the SEC conf games work.. UT wouldn't have to worry about playing them because they play once every 7 seasons? or close to that?

(10-22-2020 12:22 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 08:52 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 07:10 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 06:38 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-21-2020 01:26 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  Other than in 2018, and prior to 2010, Texas has been a second tier FB school in the Big 12. The Longhorns would rarely - if ever - be able to contend with Alabama, LSU, and Auburn for the SEC West Division championship.

Texas would probably be a lower-to-middle tier SEC West Division school. Over time, this would do a great deal of harm to their program and its earning potential through the Longhorn Network.

Oh no... I'm pretty sure everyone is shaking at the thought of playing those teams..luckily we can play the arkansas, aggys, mizzus plus the occasional TN, Vandy, SC, msu and 3 non conf fcs schools to make us look better than that, no?

The Aggies (currently 3-1) are no pushover. As I recall, A&M was every bit the equal of UT over the decade or two before they split to the SEC.

Not only would Texas have to play Alabama, Auburn, LSU, & A&M; they would also have to play Georgia and Florida and some pretty good second-tier SEC teams, as well. They would have trouble finishing with better than a 5-3 conference record, most years.

They might have a harder time becoming bowl eligible in the SEC, unless they were to play a bunch of cupcakes in their OOC schedule. Even then, they'd hardly ever play in a bowl game that multiple millions would be interested in watching.

From UT's perspective, who needs the SEC when they're sitting in the catbird's seat in the Big 12?

yeah you may want to recall harder when comparing a&m and UT. a&m cheated and still couldn't get a title in the late 80's and early 90's. They won ONE whopping Conference title in 98.. have never won a NY6 bowl since the beginning of the Big12 and including it's time in the SEC.

For UT playing it's worst football last decade, they still have more wins than them and have played in a CCG and won a NY6 bowl game. I get that my horns are a punchline.. but what makes you really think that they would sink even lower than they have?

Yes they are off to a bad start this season, but if you think this is going to be the standard, your mistaken..Herman is gone barring this team running the table and winning the conference. We already know who is lined up, if he chooses to return (AND HE IS LISTENING).

So take the competition stuff out, UT will be ok in that.. and they still bring in the most revenue in NCAA schools period, so yes they walk with a stick, but it's not about power, it's about maximizing the most money. SEC would be a good fit, with or without ou because of arkansas, aggy, LSU already in the SEC. Have somewhat history with Mizzu as well. Texas alone will bring millions more into the pocket of everyone in the conference.

That comes across "tough talk," perhaps even false bravado, considering that the statistics aren't there to back up such claims.

However, let's shift the focus to Oklahoma. They would certainly be likely to be one of the top tier teams in the SEC, but there's no guarantee that Oklahoma would win the SEC [b]West Division Championship on a regular or even semi-regular basis,[/b] against the likes of Alabama, LSU, and Auburn.

Oklahoma benefits just as much as Texas does by remaining in the Big 12.

.

Besides, there have been no signs that the SEC has been champing at the bit to grab hold of OU and/or UT.

What exactly did I say that was false bravado? That UT will figure out as far as the competitive portion? Mizzu walked into the SEC and won an East Division ..twice maybe, right?
But this wasn't about competition, it was about maximizing money.. the field stuff will take care of itself.
I'm not steering UT towards the SEC, I was simply giving my opinion that Texas could go to the SEC if the Big12 for whatever reasons cannot be sustained. I was just asking why the narrative of UT wanting power was really coming from, as if they weren't close to heading west back in 2011.
Since realignment, UT hasn't hurt the conference outside the performance in the Big 3 sports. I have never heard of them bullying networks around either.
BTW with the bama and GA and FL talk.. The way the SEC conf games work.. UT wouldn't have to worry about playing them because they play once every 7 seasons? or close to that?

For UT or OU to move each would have to receive benefits that they would never get by remaining in the Big 12. It's not all that complicated.

Right now I expect all the parties involved to take a conservative position for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure I necessarily buy the idea that changes need to be made for the next thirty years when we don't know what the next five years would be like. Pay-for-play could have effects not foreseen by the powers-that-be. But without that variable presidents could find ample reason to dig in. And dig in they will do first.

(10-22-2020 10:55 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(10-22-2020 12:22 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

Besides, there have been no signs that the SEC has been champing at the bit to grab hold of OU and/or UT.

What exactly did I say that was false bravado? That UT will figure out as far as the competitive portion? Mizzu walked into the SEC and won an East Division ..twice maybe, right?
But this wasn't about competition, it was about maximizing money.. the field stuff will take care of itself.
I'm not steering UT towards the SEC, I was simply giving my opinion that Texas could go to the SEC if the Big12 for whatever reasons cannot be sustained. I was just asking why the narrative of UT wanting power was really coming from, as if they weren't close to heading west back in 2011.
Since realignment, UT hasn't hurt the conference outside the performance in the Big 3 sports. I have never heard of them bullying networks around either.
BTW with the bama and GA and FL talk.. The way the SEC conf games work.. UT wouldn't have to worry about playing them because they play once every 7 seasons? or close to that?

I take it back. "False bravado" was not the right term. What I should have said was that I thought you were must have been kidding or bluffing when you wrote that you thought Texas could compete for the championship of the SEC West against Alabama, LSU, and Auburn.

You're right that Missouri was able to do it, but somehow it feels like 'bama and LSU have become the absolute masters of the SEC West now, and that Auburn is right behind them.

I mentioned GA and FL because, if TX or OK were able to get by Alabama, LSU, and Auburn, they would have to beat a team such as GA or FL to win the SEC championship.

LIke you, I've never heard of TX or OK "bullying networks." However, I have read scuttlebutt (rumors) on the internet suggesting that Arkansas left the SWC because they were fed up with UT's dominance of the SWC, and that Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and TAMU had similar issues with UT and OU that motivated them to leave the Big 12.

From what I heard.. UT gave Arkansas it's blessing to join the SEC. UT knew the SWC days were numbered, I'm not sure how UT was being a bully in the SWC.. I do think they got tired of the cheating that got way out of hand and left a black eye.. From SMU to the FedEx a&m scandal.