(12-03-2020 05:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  Seemed like OU and UT liked Houston last time they looked at it. TCU, Baylor and Texas Tech at least publicly were favorable. It was the old Big 8 schools who didn't want Houston.

The ESPN SWC 25th anniversary article reports that Texas and TAMU didn't really care, but were strong-armed by the Statehouse in to taking Baylor and Texas Tech. At the time, the Governor of Texas was a Baylor graduate, the Lt. Governor had degrees from Baylor and Texas Tech, and the Speaker of the Texas House of Reps was a Texas Tech graduate.

That doomed Houston.

At USF, we have long felt that sting. Historically, we have had little representation or influence at the state house in Tallahassee. Guess which two schools have always had loads of it? Hint - one of them is the flagship university of the state, the other is located about a 10 minute walk from the capitol building.

(12-03-2020 06:13 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 09:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 08:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 06:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. Deloss Dodds is out of the limelight and this is a fluff piece, as the Big 12 has already compared vital statistics with the best of the G5 and found them lacking it hardly serves a purpose. They don't add to the bottom line.

2. The monetary difference between the SEC and Big 10 and the Big 12 is vast enough there isn't a practical motivation for movement of Arkansas and/or Nebraska to justify the move. The ACC is too remote and under GOR until 2036-7. The PAC's GOR and that of the Big 12 expire within months of each other. So logic and opportunity say that if the Big 12 is not to be picked apart, and if Texas is to keep its fiefdom, some form of consolidation with the PAC is the only way for that to happen. So if the Big 12 expands it will be from the PAC. And since both have expiring GOR's they can rebuild as they see fit without having to pay damages to those they choose to exclude from their present ranks. So much of what is suggested is possible.

3. However, a PAC merged with the Big 12 will not catch Texas or Oklahoma up to Big 10 and SEC new contract levels let alone to their present levels of remuneration. Therefore the risk that either, or both, Texas and Oklahoma could make other plans remains viable as well, no matter what anyone thinks. SEC payouts starting at least by 2024, and quite likely sooner, will begin at 68 million per school in annual distributions. That eclipses what Texas currently makes with the LHN deal added to Big 12 payouts by almost 14 million a year, escalators being relatively equal.

4. If the Big 12 expands with a PAC merger then Texas will obviously be forgoing the revenue boost for control. That may not satisfy Oklahoma and Kansas.

5. If the Big 12 does merge with the PAC that will put significant pressure upon ACC because the merged Big 12 will get a moderate boost and they already lead the ACC in revenue and that moderate boost would elevate the participating PAC schools well above current ACC payouts as well. IMO this will set up a very interesting time in 2034-5, if not sooner.

But, if Oklahoma and Kansas were to head to the Big 10 and Texas and perhaps Tech headed to the SEC both the Big 10 and SEC would see around a 3 million bump over and above their new raises further distancing their in state rivals of Louisville, Clemson, Florida State, Miami and Georgia Tech which will also put immense pressure upon the ACC.

6. What I consider possible, if not the more likely, is that top brands flee the Big 12 and ACC, and a new conference is formed out of the best of the rest. It is in the nature of top brands to reward themselves before considering others and if the monetary difference is massive, as it looks it may well be, then such considerations by these schools would be seen as prudent in light of the current losses suffered due to COVID and declining contributions from dying Boomers, and a concerted effort not to be too beholden to Corporate grants which frequently have major strings attached.

7. None of this takes into consideration legal changes which could alter the composition of any or all P5 conferences should pay for play become reality. In that event they all may be looking to consolidate to gain by increased branding, streamlined and shared overhead, and by creating conferences decidedly more appealing to the market demands that clearly demand more competitive games among the familiar and oldest brands and the elimination of weak sisters and buy games.

8. It is in #7 where Deloss hits the mark. There is more realignment coming. To know what form that takes depends upon whether there is pay for play or not. If not realignment will be based upon what is best for the top brands which are tired of lagging their peer schools in the SEC or Big 10. If we have pay for play it will be because of the need to maximize revenue by meeting network demands. And the latter could also include part of the former.

Point 6 piques my curiosity, mostly because I’ve tossed that possibility around before and didn’t get much traction with it from other posters.

I’ve said Texas, TTU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Louisville, WVU, Clemson, FSU, and Miami could be a compelling line up.

Who do you have as your ACC-Big 12 super league?

How do you get past the ACC GOR?

All GOR's are opened with departures of any kind and must be re-signed. Should we move to pay for play this will come into play in a major way. If anyone bows out of a P5 conference because they can't afford or their philosophy won't permit it, then that conference has an open window from which others may leap. In the ACC that could be any of several schools. In the SEC it would be Vanderbilt. In the Big 10 it could be one of several schools due to philosophy more than money and in the PAC you have both those who might not be able to afford it and those who would demure due to philosophical reasons. That's what happens to the GOR's.

Should that happen Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Miami, Florida State, and Louisville might all find better paying digs, but certainly not to the same conferences. Notre Dame would join after the fray settled and they knew the lay of the land required it for participation in the CFP.

There's no telling what happens then but I had in mind something more along these lines:

Stanford, Oregon, Washington, and Southern Cal join the Big 10 with possibly Colorado.

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Miami join the SEC possibly with Georgia Tech.

Neither the SEC nor Big 10 get large super brands in football. The Big 10 does quite well academically and market wise, as does the SEC and the SEC gains the 2nd Florida school, and in a region of the state they don't currently reach well.

Texas and Oklahoma are used to anchor the rest. But remember the PAC and Big 12 have expiring GOR's so there is no compulsion to include anyone.

Now the trick is to form another conference out of the rest that will pay all of them more than they were making previously.

So a hypothetical set of moves listed above might result in a new conference like this one:

Arizona, Arizona State, California, California Los Angeles, Utah
Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Texas Christian

So the Big 10 might look something like this:

Colorado, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

The SEC loses Vanderbilt and looks like this:

Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia
Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

Out are Vanderbilt, Boston College and Wake Forest likely by choice and Oregon State and Washington State by expiring GOR.

If all the rest make more than they did before there are no lawsuits. And even if B.C. and Wake didn't leave voluntarily it takes 12 votes to dissolve the ACC so it could still be accomplished.

Now you have an assortment of kings in the new conference. Stronger branding in the Big 10 with an addition of one of the top 10 schools available in Notre Dame which would be compelled to join somewhere and with the acquisitions of Stanford and USC and with Purdue and exposure in the Northeast would have reason to put more than just hockey in the Big 10.. The SEC picks up Clemson as a football power to offset the academic and hoops adds, and can only hope that Florida State finds its footing again.

This keeps things very regional moving forward.

The three champs would be in the CFP and the best at large.

Now this is just a hypothetical but a plausible one in which both expiration of GOR's and the fact that a majority of schools could earn more in a time when deficits are mounting, and in which regional play becomes more important, at least at the divisional level. And it's an example of how it might happen.

But who is going to be the one(s) to dare try and leave the ACC first?

I don’t envision a Big 12/ACC partial merger that doesn’t include the very best of both leagues. I don’t see there there are pieces and parts of the ACC valuable enough for the Big Ten/SEC to want to take.

Schools like Florida St, Miami, Louisville, and Clemson could move without instate entanglements slowing them down. These would be the ones I’d expect to see interested in putting together a higher dollar value conference.

NC and VA schools aren’t going to be able to move unless either their little brothers (or is it big brother if you’re the flashy athletic program but there’s an older, snootier school in your state that doesn’t invest in sports?) are taken care of our the conference is so obviously sinking that they can get away with jumping ship.

If there is to be a new upper tier then having pre-worked 12 ACC schools having a better (economically speaking) landing spot is all that is needed. Twelve votes dissolves the conference and ends the GOR. And if those schools remain under ESPN fully or partially the network won't be a problem either. It's workable.

As to their value to the new conferences, if we bargain as one for our rights as an upper tier, and if we all get more, even if it is a little for some, then it is workable.

If we bargain as separate conferences within the upper tier and each one earns more even though there are differences in revenue, it is still workable.

There are many ways to divide things. The key to your first query is that the Big 12 and PAC have expiring GOR's in 2024-5. The Big 10 and SEC are free to add so long as it gives them more revenue. The ACC is divisible if 12 schools find more profit in doing so. How you work it from there is merely academic.

Pay for play will have a large influence on how things break and who it is that participates and is the single largest wild card for which all must account.

Remember also if we lose 2 conferences we gain the salaries of all of their employees, the revenue from the sale of all of their property, and the reduction of overhead by the number of schools bound together in a new conference making annual operating costs for all involved less.

Right now the P5 has way too much duplicated overhead.

Expansion provides revenue by addition: markets and branding which enhance advertising rates. But it also adds by subtraction: reduction of overhead and revenue tied up in duplicated real estate.

That said, play must be kept ever more regional to reduce travel expenses for the schools and to increase travel likelihood by the alumni. Ticket interest and donations depend upon it. Therefore how the PAC and the ACC are included is particularly tricky.

(12-03-2020 06:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 05:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  Seemed like OU and UT liked Houston last time they looked at it. TCU, Baylor and Texas Tech at least publicly were favorable. It was the old Big 8 schools who didn't want Houston.

The ESPN SWC 25th anniversary article reports that Texas and TAMU didn't really care, but were strong-armed by the Statehouse in to taking Baylor and Texas Tech. At the time, the Governor of Texas was a Baylor graduate, the Lt. Governor had degrees from Baylor and Texas Tech, and the Speaker of the Texas House of Reps was a Texas Tech graduate.

That doomed Houston.

At USF, we have long felt that sting. Historically, we have had little representation or influence at the state house in Tallahassee. Guess which two schools have always had loads of it? Hint - one of them is the flagship university of the state, the other is located about a 10 minute walk from the capitol building.

But it makes sense for the state house of Florida to go to bat for the two most influential schools in Florida. It doesn't make as much sense for the Texas big ups to go for the 3rd most influential, especially at the expense of the top two. It's not only nonsensical but if I lived in Texas I'd be outraged for them to be politically pushing to benefit a PRIVATE university, especially at the expense of another public university, Houston. Why is the state government choosing sides as to who gets into the Big 12? I expect Pennsylvania if they are taking sides to take care of Penn State first and then Pittsburgh and Temple next. I love Villanova but Pennsylvania shouldn't be taking care of them over the public universities.

BYU is a no go. They still need to stop booting rape victims from school and shaming them like they did something bad. It takes time to clean up that culture there. Big 12 does not want another Baylor scandal right now.

So if we are going to try to re-home 12 ACC schools (are you sure they need 12 or can they dissolve with 2/3rds or 10?) unless you have Disney playing A Beautiful Mind’s John Nash behind the scenes telling the SEC and Big 10 to let the prettiest girls go to the Big 12, I don’t see the SEC and Big Ten playing along. Why disassemble the ACC if all you’re going to get is a Virginia school, a North Carolina school, and maybe a couple of leftover pieces? if you’re the SEC you want Clemson, Florida St and maybe a VT. If you’re the Big 10 ND is the only real prize.

The SEC is going to have to give those conferences a pay bump to take less valuable schools.

I think the PAC 12, Big 12, and ACC all have enough weaker sisters in those leagues to make it tough to break a GOR without a lot of expensive lawyering unless they’ve got a super fan at a high power law firm willing to do pro bono.

(12-03-2020 08:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  So if we are going to try to re-home 12 ACC schools (are you sure they need 12 or can they dissolve with 2/3rds or 10?) unless you have Disney playing A Beautiful Mind’s John Nash behind the scenes telling the SEC and Big 10 to let the prettiest girls go to the Big 12, I don’t see the SEC and Big Ten playing along. Why disassemble the ACC if all you’re going to get is a Virginia school, a North Carolina school, and maybe a couple of leftover pieces? if you’re the SEC you want Clemson, Florida St and maybe a VT. If you’re the Big 10 ND is the only real prize.

The SEC is going to have to give those conferences a pay bump to take less valuable schools.

I think the PAC 12, Big 12, and ACC all have enough weaker sisters in those leagues to make it tough to break a GOR without a lot of expensive lawyering unless they’ve got a super fan at a high power law firm willing to do pro bono.

Let's see, per my breakdown you are calling the prettiest girls Arizona, Arizona State, California, U.C.L.A., Utah, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, N.C. State, and Virginia Tech?

And you are finding fault with Stanford, Southern Cal, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Notre Dame to the Big 10?

And you are finding fault with UVa, Duke, North Carolina, Clemson, F.S.U. Miami, and possibly Georgia Tech to the SEC (if Vandy drops out)?

I've already posted this but you add revenue through branding which 4 of the 5 most profitable PAC schools do for the Big 10 and which Notre Dame does in spades. You add value when brands play brands so you've added brands to play brands and enhanced the value. You add revenue when you add markets. You've added California, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado and a team with national appeal and pedigree in sports. You add value when you split the overhead by more members because it reduces the per school cost of the conference.

So carefully explain to me, without irrelevantly dragging Nash into this, just how the Big 10 fails to profit? You substantially enhance branding and reduce overhead with those additions, not to mention vastly expanding your market reach.

The SEC adds 20 million in North Carolina and Virginia, adds branding with Clemson, F.S.U. and Miami and gains the highest add rates in Florida and South Carolina in the process. The SEC also boosts its hoops standing tremendously.

Texas and Oklahoma get to stay together with their core and add markets.

If they negotiate as a whole or severely as conferences as long as they all make more, even a little more, and cut overhead, and play more regionally, they all come out ahead.

As to the ACC it takes 3/4's of the members to vote to dissolve. 3/4's of 15 comes to 12.

JR—I take it you saw the PM. I wasn’t calculating all the PAC 12 schools being distributed and was had ACC assets distributed differently than your proposal. The Big 10 would both be adding some nice inventory to their ranks.

Nash is relevant though. The Big 12, Big 10, and SEC would all have to be heavily cooperative and in communication with one another. That sort of coordination is going to make the conferences vulnerable to anti-trust suits.

Also, would the schools going to be destined for the Big 12 consider that conference equitable to the conferences their mates would be joining? There might be some reluctance in letting the old conferences go.

(12-03-2020 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 06:13 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 09:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 08:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 06:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. Deloss Dodds is out of the limelight and this is a fluff piece, as the Big 12 has already compared vital statistics with the best of the G5 and found them lacking it hardly serves a purpose. They don't add to the bottom line.

2. The monetary difference between the SEC and Big 10 and the Big 12 is vast enough there isn't a practical motivation for movement of Arkansas and/or Nebraska to justify the move. The ACC is too remote and under GOR until 2036-7. The PAC's GOR and that of the Big 12 expire within months of each other. So logic and opportunity say that if the Big 12 is not to be picked apart, and if Texas is to keep its fiefdom, some form of consolidation with the PAC is the only way for that to happen. So if the Big 12 expands it will be from the PAC. And since both have expiring GOR's they can rebuild as they see fit without having to pay damages to those they choose to exclude from their present ranks. So much of what is suggested is possible.

3. However, a PAC merged with the Big 12 will not catch Texas or Oklahoma up to Big 10 and SEC new contract levels let alone to their present levels of remuneration. Therefore the risk that either, or both, Texas and Oklahoma could make other plans remains viable as well, no matter what anyone thinks. SEC payouts starting at least by 2024, and quite likely sooner, will begin at 68 million per school in annual distributions. That eclipses what Texas currently makes with the LHN deal added to Big 12 payouts by almost 14 million a year, escalators being relatively equal.

4. If the Big 12 expands with a PAC merger then Texas will obviously be forgoing the revenue boost for control. That may not satisfy Oklahoma and Kansas.

5. If the Big 12 does merge with the PAC that will put significant pressure upon ACC because the merged Big 12 will get a moderate boost and they already lead the ACC in revenue and that moderate boost would elevate the participating PAC schools well above current ACC payouts as well. IMO this will set up a very interesting time in 2034-5, if not sooner.

But, if Oklahoma and Kansas were to head to the Big 10 and Texas and perhaps Tech headed to the SEC both the Big 10 and SEC would see around a 3 million bump over and above their new raises further distancing their in state rivals of Louisville, Clemson, Florida State, Miami and Georgia Tech which will also put immense pressure upon the ACC.

6. What I consider possible, if not the more likely, is that top brands flee the Big 12 and ACC, and a new conference is formed out of the best of the rest. It is in the nature of top brands to reward themselves before considering others and if the monetary difference is massive, as it looks it may well be, then such considerations by these schools would be seen as prudent in light of the current losses suffered due to COVID and declining contributions from dying Boomers, and a concerted effort not to be too beholden to Corporate grants which frequently have major strings attached.

7. None of this takes into consideration legal changes which could alter the composition of any or all P5 conferences should pay for play become reality. In that event they all may be looking to consolidate to gain by increased branding, streamlined and shared overhead, and by creating conferences decidedly more appealing to the market demands that clearly demand more competitive games among the familiar and oldest brands and the elimination of weak sisters and buy games.

8. It is in #7 where Deloss hits the mark. There is more realignment coming. To know what form that takes depends upon whether there is pay for play or not. If not realignment will be based upon what is best for the top brands which are tired of lagging their peer schools in the SEC or Big 10. If we have pay for play it will be because of the need to maximize revenue by meeting network demands. And the latter could also include part of the former.

Point 6 piques my curiosity, mostly because I’ve tossed that possibility around before and didn’t get much traction with it from other posters.

I’ve said Texas, TTU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Louisville, WVU, Clemson, FSU, and Miami could be a compelling line up.

Who do you have as your ACC-Big 12 super league?

How do you get past the ACC GOR?

All GOR's are opened with departures of any kind and must be re-signed. Should we move to pay for play this will come into play in a major way. If anyone bows out of a P5 conference because they can't afford or their philosophy won't permit it, then that conference has an open window from which others may leap. In the ACC that could be any of several schools. In the SEC it would be Vanderbilt. In the Big 10 it could be one of several schools due to philosophy more than money and in the PAC you have both those who might not be able to afford it and those who would demure due to philosophical reasons. That's what happens to the GOR's.

Should that happen Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Miami, Florida State, and Louisville might all find better paying digs, but certainly not to the same conferences. Notre Dame would join after the fray settled and they knew the lay of the land required it for participation in the CFP.

There's no telling what happens then but I had in mind something more along these lines:

Stanford, Oregon, Washington, and Southern Cal join the Big 10 with possibly Colorado.

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Miami join the SEC possibly with Georgia Tech.

Neither the SEC nor Big 10 get large super brands in football. The Big 10 does quite well academically and market wise, as does the SEC and the SEC gains the 2nd Florida school, and in a region of the state they don't currently reach well.

Texas and Oklahoma are used to anchor the rest. But remember the PAC and Big 12 have expiring GOR's so there is no compulsion to include anyone.

Now the trick is to form another conference out of the rest that will pay all of them more than they were making previously.

So a hypothetical set of moves listed above might result in a new conference like this one:

Arizona, Arizona State, California, California Los Angeles, Utah
Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Texas Christian

So the Big 10 might look something like this:

Colorado, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

The SEC loses Vanderbilt and looks like this:

Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia
Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

Out are Vanderbilt, Boston College and Wake Forest likely by choice and Oregon State and Washington State by expiring GOR.

If all the rest make more than they did before there are no lawsuits. And even if B.C. and Wake didn't leave voluntarily it takes 12 votes to dissolve the ACC so it could still be accomplished.

Now you have an assortment of kings in the new conference. Stronger branding in the Big 10 with an addition of one of the top 10 schools available in Notre Dame which would be compelled to join somewhere and with the acquisitions of Stanford and USC and with Purdue and exposure in the Northeast would have reason to put more than just hockey in the Big 10.. The SEC picks up Clemson as a football power to offset the academic and hoops adds, and can only hope that Florida State finds its footing again.

This keeps things very regional moving forward.

The three champs would be in the CFP and the best at large.

Now this is just a hypothetical but a plausible one in which both expiration of GOR's and the fact that a majority of schools could earn more in a time when deficits are mounting, and in which regional play becomes more important, at least at the divisional level. And it's an example of how it might happen.

But who is going to be the one(s) to dare try and leave the ACC first?

I don’t envision a Big 12/ACC partial merger that doesn’t include the very best of both leagues. I don’t see there there are pieces and parts of the ACC valuable enough for the Big Ten/SEC to want to take.

Schools like Florida St, Miami, Louisville, and Clemson could move without instate entanglements slowing them down. These would be the ones I’d expect to see interested in putting together a higher dollar value conference.

NC and VA schools aren’t going to be able to move unless either their little brothers (or is it big brother if you’re the flashy athletic program but there’s an older, snootier school in your state that doesn’t invest in sports?) are taken care of our the conference is so obviously sinking that they can get away with jumping ship.

If there is to be a new upper tier then having pre-worked 12 ACC schools having a better (economically speaking) landing spot is all that is needed. Twelve votes dissolves the conference and ends the GOR. And if those schools remain under ESPN fully or partially the network won't be a problem either. It's workable.

As to their value to the new conferences, if we bargain as one for our rights as an upper tier, and if we all get more, even if it is a little for some, then it is workable.

If we bargain as separate conferences within the upper tier and each one earns more even though there are differences in revenue, it is still workable.

There are many ways to divide things. The key to your first query is that the Big 12 and PAC have expiring GOR's in 2024-5. The Big 10 and SEC are free to add so long as it gives them more revenue. The ACC is divisible if 12 schools find more profit in doing so. How you work it from there is merely academic.

Pay for play will have a large influence on how things break and who it is that participates and is the single largest wild card for which all must account.

Remember also if we lose 2 conferences we gain the salaries of all of their employees, the revenue from the sale of all of their property, and the reduction of overhead by the number of schools bound together in a new conference making annual operating costs for all involved less.

Right now the P5 has way too much duplicated overhead.

Expansion provides revenue by addition: markets and branding which enhance advertising rates. But it also adds by subtraction: reduction of overhead and revenue tied up in duplicated real estate.

That said, play must be kept ever more regional to reduce travel expenses for the schools and to increase travel likelihood by the alumni. Ticket interest and donations depend upon it. Therefore how the PAC and the ACC are included is particularly tricky.

Duplicate overhead doesn't need to be eliminated by a sports merger. You can simply merge conference offices.

A hypothetical----Pac 12 becomes the Pac 14 by admitting SMU and Houston. It then merges with the Big 10 with one conference office in Chicago. San Francisco, New York and Washington DC keep their subsidiary offices for meeting space. But one commissioner, one chief of referees, one conference Chief Marketing Officer, one Chief Financial Officer, one staff. The two conferences split the cost evenly while remaining separate NCAA conferences.

(12-03-2020 09:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR—I take it you saw the PM. I wasn’t calculating all the PAC 12 schools being distributed and was had ACC assets distributed differently than your proposal. The Big 10 would both be adding some nice inventory to their ranks.

Nash is relevant though. The Big 12, Big 10, and SEC would all have to be heavily cooperative and in communication with one another. That sort of coordination is going to make the conferences vulnerable to anti-trust suits.

Also, would the schools going to be destined for the Big 12 consider that conference equitable to the conferences their mates would be joining? There might be some reluctance in letting the old conferences go.

Drop Nash period. There is no anti-trust suit with a breakaway happening because the NCAA refused to render services for that which they keep our proceeds to pay for. No court is going to force the taxpayers of one state to suffer higher demands upon their budgets because another state benefitted from the profits earned by their schools. That's pure socialism that the NCAA is trying to get away with.

So those impacted have every right to leave and form their own associations. And those associations will be open to other schools who earn enough in proceeds to cover the cost of their sports. As long as that is true there will be no damned anti Trust suits as David and others love to say without any basis in reality upon which to make such claims. These are paper daggers that long ago should have been roundly dismissed. We are talking about mostly State schools here, and schools which are still largely funded by the taxpayers of those states. Therefore, I seriously doubt that there is any teeth in these assertions. If, as has been claimed, the schools earning enough to eclipse their expenses are essentially taxed by the NCAA to keep schools who can't cover the cost of athletics in the athletics business then it essentially amounts to theft from the states whose schools do make enough to have sports. There is no law to back this practice. Let this gibberish pass until such time we've all lost our minds to believe otherwise. Schools are funded to educate. If they can make enough to cover sports that is an enhancement to the education experience. But sports are not a right of a school which can't afford them. They are, and remain, extracurricular.

As for those going to the Big 12, if there is no corporate media contract there will not be equitable distributions, but their distributions, along with all in the Big 12, would be larger.

More is the aphrodisiac that makes such unions not only profitable, but lasting.

(12-03-2020 07:54 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 06:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 05:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  Seemed like OU and UT liked Houston last time they looked at it. TCU, Baylor and Texas Tech at least publicly were favorable. It was the old Big 8 schools who didn't want Houston.

The ESPN SWC 25th anniversary article reports that Texas and TAMU didn't really care, but were strong-armed by the Statehouse in to taking Baylor and Texas Tech. At the time, the Governor of Texas was a Baylor graduate, the Lt. Governor had degrees from Baylor and Texas Tech, and the Speaker of the Texas House of Reps was a Texas Tech graduate.

That doomed Houston.

At USF, we have long felt that sting. Historically, we have had little representation or influence at the state house in Tallahassee. Guess which two schools have always had loads of it? Hint - one of them is the flagship university of the state, the other is located about a 10 minute walk from the capitol building.

But it makes sense for the state house of Florida to go to bat for the two most influential schools in Florida. It doesn't make as much sense for the Texas big ups to go for the 3rd most influential, especially at the expense of the top two. It's not only nonsensical but if I lived in Texas I'd be outraged for them to be politically pushing to benefit a PRIVATE university, especially at the expense of another public university, Houston.

You have to remember that in Texas, a school like Baylor is viewed as "more Texas" than a school like Houston, even though the former is private and the latter public. Baylor was founded in 1845, not only before the Civil War, but before Texas became a USA state, when Texas was an independent Republic, so it is older than the state of Texas itself, older than UT-Austin. It was issued a charter by the republic of Texas's congress. So its roots run far deeper in the culture and fabric of the state than do Houston's, which wasn't created until 85 years later. More "old money" Texans, Cattlemen and Oil men and political families have ties to Baylor, and they run generationally deeper.

Also, while Baylor being a Baptist school and getting public support would rile the anger of northern secular liberals concerned about "separation of church and state", in conservative Texas there is no such concern with supporting a religious, at least not a Christian, institution publicly. Baylor's motto, "For Church, For Texas" is not viewed by the mass of Texans as contradictory.

So while to an outsider your POV might make sense, from the POV of generational Texans, there was/is zero unnatural about Baylor having a more-favored profile in the halls of the legislature than Houston.

(12-03-2020 10:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 07:54 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 06:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 05:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  Seemed like OU and UT liked Houston last time they looked at it. TCU, Baylor and Texas Tech at least publicly were favorable. It was the old Big 8 schools who didn't want Houston.

The ESPN SWC 25th anniversary article reports that Texas and TAMU didn't really care, but were strong-armed by the Statehouse in to taking Baylor and Texas Tech. At the time, the Governor of Texas was a Baylor graduate, the Lt. Governor had degrees from Baylor and Texas Tech, and the Speaker of the Texas House of Reps was a Texas Tech graduate.

That doomed Houston.

At USF, we have long felt that sting. Historically, we have had little representation or influence at the state house in Tallahassee. Guess which two schools have always had loads of it? Hint - one of them is the flagship university of the state, the other is located about a 10 minute walk from the capitol building.

But it makes sense for the state house of Florida to go to bat for the two most influential schools in Florida. It doesn't make as much sense for the Texas big ups to go for the 3rd most influential, especially at the expense of the top two. It's not only nonsensical but if I lived in Texas I'd be outraged for them to be politically pushing to benefit a PRIVATE university, especially at the expense of another public university, Houston.

You have to remember that in Texas, a school like Baylor is viewed as "more Texas" than a school like Houston, even though the former is private and the latter public. Baylor was founded in 1845, not only before the Civil War, but before Texas became a USA state, when Texas was an independent Republic, so it is older than the state of Texas itself, older than UT-Austin. It was issued a charter by the republic of Texas's congress. So its roots run far deeper in the culture and fabric of the state than do Houston's, which wasn't created until 85 years later. More "old money" Texans, Cattlemen and Oil men and political families have ties to Baylor, and they run generationally deeper.

Also, while Baylor being a Baptist school and getting public support would rile the anger of northern secular liberals concerned about "separation of church and state", in conservative Texas there is no such concern with supporting a religious, at least not a Christian, institution publicly. Baylor's motto, "For Church, For Texas" is not viewed by the mass of Texans as contradictory.

So while to an outsider your POV might make sense, from the POV of generational Texans, there was/is zero unnatural about Baylor having a more-favored profile in the halls of the legislature than Houston.

Then why Baylor and not SMU or TCU who are in a relevant city rather than an irrelevant speck of dust like Waco? Only reason is because of Bullock.

(12-03-2020 10:42 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 10:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 07:54 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 06:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 05:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  Seemed like OU and UT liked Houston last time they looked at it. TCU, Baylor and Texas Tech at least publicly were favorable. It was the old Big 8 schools who didn't want Houston.

The ESPN SWC 25th anniversary article reports that Texas and TAMU didn't really care, but were strong-armed by the Statehouse in to taking Baylor and Texas Tech. At the time, the Governor of Texas was a Baylor graduate, the Lt. Governor had degrees from Baylor and Texas Tech, and the Speaker of the Texas House of Reps was a Texas Tech graduate.

That doomed Houston.

At USF, we have long felt that sting. Historically, we have had little representation or influence at the state house in Tallahassee. Guess which two schools have always had loads of it? Hint - one of them is the flagship university of the state, the other is located about a 10 minute walk from the capitol building.

But it makes sense for the state house of Florida to go to bat for the two most influential schools in Florida. It doesn't make as much sense for the Texas big ups to go for the 3rd most influential, especially at the expense of the top two. It's not only nonsensical but if I lived in Texas I'd be outraged for them to be politically pushing to benefit a PRIVATE university, especially at the expense of another public university, Houston.

You have to remember that in Texas, a school like Baylor is viewed as "more Texas" than a school like Houston, even though the former is private and the latter public. Baylor was founded in 1845, not only before the Civil War, but before Texas became a USA state, when Texas was an independent Republic, so it is older than the state of Texas itself, older than UT-Austin. It was issued a charter by the republic of Texas's congress. So its roots run far deeper in the culture and fabric of the state than do Houston's, which wasn't created until 85 years later. More "old money" Texans, Cattlemen and Oil men and political families have ties to Baylor, and they run generationally deeper.

Also, while Baylor being a Baptist school and getting public support would rile the anger of northern secular liberals concerned about "separation of church and state", in conservative Texas there is no such concern with supporting a religious, at least not a Christian, institution publicly. Baylor's motto, "For Church, For Texas" is not viewed by the mass of Texans as contradictory.

So while to an outsider your POV might make sense, from the POV of generational Texans, there was/is zero unnatural about Baylor having a more-favored profile in the halls of the legislature than Houston.

Then why Baylor and not SMU or TCU who are in a relevant city rather than an irrelevant speck of dust like Waco? Only reason is because of Bullock.

Are you really so limited in scope that you fail to realize what the Republic of Texas was like in 1845? It was a few settlements that would later grow into cities and some that wouldn't. Most of the land was either unsettled to the West or large ranches. I'm sure the University was set up on somebody's grant of land to the school. In those days it was easier to transfer goods by barge on water than by wagon on land. Waco, Houston, and San Antonio were all on waterways. With technological advancement that changed and inland water travel was less advantageous. So in 1845 Waco was a good as anywhere. In 2020 it's not. But none of that changes its significance in higher education within Texas.

Dallas was roughly 5 years old as a settlement when Baylor was founded. TCU was founded in 1873 and SMU in 1911.

(12-03-2020 11:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 10:42 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 10:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 07:54 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 06:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The ESPN SWC 25th anniversary article reports that Texas and TAMU didn't really care, but were strong-armed by the Statehouse in to taking Baylor and Texas Tech. At the time, the Governor of Texas was a Baylor graduate, the Lt. Governor had degrees from Baylor and Texas Tech, and the Speaker of the Texas House of Reps was a Texas Tech graduate.

That doomed Houston.

At USF, we have long felt that sting. Historically, we have had little representation or influence at the state house in Tallahassee. Guess which two schools have always had loads of it? Hint - one of them is the flagship university of the state, the other is located about a 10 minute walk from the capitol building.

But it makes sense for the state house of Florida to go to bat for the two most influential schools in Florida. It doesn't make as much sense for the Texas big ups to go for the 3rd most influential, especially at the expense of the top two. It's not only nonsensical but if I lived in Texas I'd be outraged for them to be politically pushing to benefit a PRIVATE university, especially at the expense of another public university, Houston.

You have to remember that in Texas, a school like Baylor is viewed as "more Texas" than a school like Houston, even though the former is private and the latter public. Baylor was founded in 1845, not only before the Civil War, but before Texas became a USA state, when Texas was an independent Republic, so it is older than the state of Texas itself, older than UT-Austin. It was issued a charter by the republic of Texas's congress. So its roots run far deeper in the culture and fabric of the state than do Houston's, which wasn't created until 85 years later. More "old money" Texans, Cattlemen and Oil men and political families have ties to Baylor, and they run generationally deeper.

Also, while Baylor being a Baptist school and getting public support would rile the anger of northern secular liberals concerned about "separation of church and state", in conservative Texas there is no such concern with supporting a religious, at least not a Christian, institution publicly. Baylor's motto, "For Church, For Texas" is not viewed by the mass of Texans as contradictory.

So while to an outsider your POV might make sense, from the POV of generational Texans, there was/is zero unnatural about Baylor having a more-favored profile in the halls of the legislature than Houston.

Then why Baylor and not SMU or TCU who are in a relevant city rather than an irrelevant speck of dust like Waco? Only reason is because of Bullock.

Are you really so limited in scope that you fail to realize what the Republic of Texas was like in 1845? It was a few settlements that would later grow into cities and some that wouldn't. Most of the land was either unsettled to the West or large ranches. I'm sure the University was set up on somebody's grant of land to the school. In those days it was easier to transfer goods by barge on water than by wagon on land. Waco, Houston, and San Antonio were all on waterways. With technological advancement that changed and inland water travel was less advantageous. So in 1845 Waco was a good as anywhere. In 2020 it's not. But none of that changes its significance in higher education within Texas.

Dallas was roughly 5 years old as a settlement when Baylor was founded. TCU was founded in 1873 and SMU in 1911.

Baylor was chartered by the Republic of Texas in 1845, and was founded in Independence, Texas (near Brenham). Independence is near Washington-on-the-Brazos, where the Texas Declaration of Independence was signed in 1836. Baylor was not founded by Baptists, but affiliated with Baptists early in its history. It moved to Waco in 1886 as a result of a merger with Waco University. Baylor was originally a coed institution, but would split into men's and women's divisions. When the school moved, the men's division went to Waco. The women's division had already relocated to Belton (now the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor).

https://www.baylor.edu/independence/index.php?id=83295

The Baylor College of Medicine began in Dallas, and relocated to Houston in 1943. It separated from Baylor University in 1969.

https://www.bcm.edu/about-us/mission-vis...es/history

Baylor is not a public school, and is not controlled or funded by the state. Quo explained it well, though: the stature of Baylor goes back to the days of the Republic of Texas. It is best known for its schools of law and business, and has trained a large number of political and business leaders in the state. In the state of Texas, Baylor holds its own in the halls of power.

Waco is not an ideal location compared to Fort Worth (TCU) or Dallas (SMU). However, with its size, scope, and location, Baylor is still strongly connected to DFW, Houston, and the entire state. Rather than a "Dallas", a "Fort Worth", or "Houston" school, Baylor is a "Texas" school. Baylor alums are throughout the state, are visible, and are influential.

There is no place like Baylor, and I haven't even touched on the Christian dynamic of it (hint: it's not Liberty). My wife has a niece there, and I have many friends that have gone there. I'm not a fan of the school or the athletic department. But, I can vouch for the scope and the influence of Baylor within Texas.

(12-04-2020 12:02 AM)johnintx Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 11:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 10:42 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 10:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 07:54 PM)schmolik Wrote:  But it makes sense for the state house of Florida to go to bat for the two most influential schools in Florida. It doesn't make as much sense for the Texas big ups to go for the 3rd most influential, especially at the expense of the top two. It's not only nonsensical but if I lived in Texas I'd be outraged for them to be politically pushing to benefit a PRIVATE university, especially at the expense of another public university, Houston.

You have to remember that in Texas, a school like Baylor is viewed as "more Texas" than a school like Houston, even though the former is private and the latter public. Baylor was founded in 1845, not only before the Civil War, but before Texas became a USA state, when Texas was an independent Republic, so it is older than the state of Texas itself, older than UT-Austin. It was issued a charter by the republic of Texas's congress. So its roots run far deeper in the culture and fabric of the state than do Houston's, which wasn't created until 85 years later. More "old money" Texans, Cattlemen and Oil men and political families have ties to Baylor, and they run generationally deeper.

Also, while Baylor being a Baptist school and getting public support would rile the anger of northern secular liberals concerned about "separation of church and state", in conservative Texas there is no such concern with supporting a religious, at least not a Christian, institution publicly. Baylor's motto, "For Church, For Texas" is not viewed by the mass of Texans as contradictory.

So while to an outsider your POV might make sense, from the POV of generational Texans, there was/is zero unnatural about Baylor having a more-favored profile in the halls of the legislature than Houston.

Then why Baylor and not SMU or TCU who are in a relevant city rather than an irrelevant speck of dust like Waco? Only reason is because of Bullock.

Are you really so limited in scope that you fail to realize what the Republic of Texas was like in 1845? It was a few settlements that would later grow into cities and some that wouldn't. Most of the land was either unsettled to the West or large ranches. I'm sure the University was set up on somebody's grant of land to the school. In those days it was easier to transfer goods by barge on water than by wagon on land. Waco, Houston, and San Antonio were all on waterways. With technological advancement that changed and inland water travel was less advantageous. So in 1845 Waco was a good as anywhere. In 2020 it's not. But none of that changes its significance in higher education within Texas.

Dallas was roughly 5 years old as a settlement when Baylor was founded. TCU was founded in 1873 and SMU in 1911.

Baylor was chartered by the Republic of Texas in 1845, and was founded in Independence, Texas (near Brenham). Independence is near Washington-on-the-Brazos, where the Texas Declaration of Independence was signed in 1836. Baylor was not founded by Baptists, but affiliated with Baptists early in its history. It moved to Waco in 1886 as a result of a merger with Waco University. Baylor was originally a coed institution, but would split into men's and women's divisions. When the school moved, the men's division went to Waco. The women's division had already relocated to Belton (now the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor).

https://www.baylor.edu/independence/index.php?id=83295

The Baylor College of Medicine began in Dallas, and relocated to Houston in 1943. It separated from Baylor University in 1969.

https://www.bcm.edu/about-us/mission-vis...es/history

Baylor is not a public school, and is not controlled or funded by the state. Quo explained it well, though: the stature of Baylor goes back to the days of the Republic of Texas. It is best known for its schools of law and business, and has trained a large number of political and business leaders in the state. In the state of Texas, Baylor holds its own in the halls of power.

Waco is not an ideal location compared to Fort Worth (TCU) or Dallas (SMU). However, with its size, scope, and location, Baylor is still strongly connected to DFW, Houston, and the entire state. Rather than a "Dallas", a "Fort Worth", or "Houston" school, Baylor is a "Texas" school. Baylor alums are throughout the state, are visible, and are influential.

There is no place like Baylor, and I haven't even touched on the Christian dynamic of it (hint: it's not Liberty). My wife has a niece there, and I have many friends that have gone there. I'm not a fan of the school or the athletic department. But, I can vouch for the scope and the influence of Baylor within Texas.

I wasn't trying to be so specific but rather was replying to the implication that in 1845 locating a school, whether it relocated or not, had nothing to do with where modern large cities are located today. The same phenomenon happened everywhere. People in the early 19th century navigated by river much as they did in the late 18th century. Wagon trails were an innovation where waterways were sparse. Railroads changed most of that. Then highways with the introduction of the steam powered auto. And then interstates. In the end cities that became a hub for these grew the fastest. Air travel today creates international hubs.

In Alabama the first Capital is now a small forgotten town, replaced by Montgomery which is less than an hour away. As technology changes we may find that the new hubs one day will be space ports.

I have a friend who is highly successful as a treasure hunter. He travels rivers and uses his metal detectors on the highest bluffs because people in the 17 and 18 hundreds who traveled by river slept on the highest bluffs for fear of storms upstream swelling the banks at night. He's found gold coins, slave collars, the metallic pieces of flintlocks, and in Florida uniform buttons of the English that date to the time of Spanish possession of Florida along with a cannon of the same period. He turned the excavation and artifacts over to F.S.U.

How removed we are from our roots.

(12-03-2020 10:42 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 10:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 07:54 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 06:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 05:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  Seemed like OU and UT liked Houston last time they looked at it. TCU, Baylor and Texas Tech at least publicly were favorable. It was the old Big 8 schools who didn't want Houston.

The ESPN SWC 25th anniversary article reports that Texas and TAMU didn't really care, but were strong-armed by the Statehouse in to taking Baylor and Texas Tech. At the time, the Governor of Texas was a Baylor graduate, the Lt. Governor had degrees from Baylor and Texas Tech, and the Speaker of the Texas House of Reps was a Texas Tech graduate.

That doomed Houston.

At USF, we have long felt that sting. Historically, we have had little representation or influence at the state house in Tallahassee. Guess which two schools have always had loads of it? Hint - one of them is the flagship university of the state, the other is located about a 10 minute walk from the capitol building.

But it makes sense for the state house of Florida to go to bat for the two most influential schools in Florida. It doesn't make as much sense for the Texas big ups to go for the 3rd most influential, especially at the expense of the top two. It's not only nonsensical but if I lived in Texas I'd be outraged for them to be politically pushing to benefit a PRIVATE university, especially at the expense of another public university, Houston.

You have to remember that in Texas, a school like Baylor is viewed as "more Texas" than a school like Houston, even though the former is private and the latter public. Baylor was founded in 1845, not only before the Civil War, but before Texas became a USA state, when Texas was an independent Republic, so it is older than the state of Texas itself, older than UT-Austin. It was issued a charter by the republic of Texas's congress. So its roots run far deeper in the culture and fabric of the state than do Houston's, which wasn't created until 85 years later. More "old money" Texans, Cattlemen and Oil men and political families have ties to Baylor, and they run generationally deeper.

Also, while Baylor being a Baptist school and getting public support would rile the anger of northern secular liberals concerned about "separation of church and state", in conservative Texas there is no such concern with supporting a religious, at least not a Christian, institution publicly. Baylor's motto, "For Church, For Texas" is not viewed by the mass of Texans as contradictory.

So while to an outsider your POV might make sense, from the POV of generational Texans, there was/is zero unnatural about Baylor having a more-favored profile in the halls of the legislature than Houston.

Then why Baylor and not SMU or TCU who are in a relevant city rather than an irrelevant speck of dust like Waco? Only reason is because of Bullock.

Baylor had double the football attendance of TCU and SMU and a much larger student body as well. Baylor had a few conference championships in the 70s/80s/90s. They were competitively probably #3 after Arkansas left. TCU had a piece of the 5 way tie in 94 and none since 1959. TCU was really bad most years. SMU had done nothing since the Pony Express years and was just off the death penalty.

As the SWC ended, Texas was coming off a 28 year win streak vs. Rice and 26 year vs. TCU. With Baylor, Texas lost 8 out of 10 in Waco starting with 1974 and was .500 over a 20 year period. Tech gave Texas fits, but rarely won.

(12-04-2020 01:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 12:02 AM)johnintx Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 11:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 10:42 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 10:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You have to remember that in Texas, a school like Baylor is viewed as "more Texas" than a school like Houston, even though the former is private and the latter public. Baylor was founded in 1845, not only before the Civil War, but before Texas became a USA state, when Texas was an independent Republic, so it is older than the state of Texas itself, older than UT-Austin. It was issued a charter by the republic of Texas's congress. So its roots run far deeper in the culture and fabric of the state than do Houston's, which wasn't created until 85 years later. More "old money" Texans, Cattlemen and Oil men and political families have ties to Baylor, and they run generationally deeper.

Also, while Baylor being a Baptist school and getting public support would rile the anger of northern secular liberals concerned about "separation of church and state", in conservative Texas there is no such concern with supporting a religious, at least not a Christian, institution publicly. Baylor's motto, "For Church, For Texas" is not viewed by the mass of Texans as contradictory.

So while to an outsider your POV might make sense, from the POV of generational Texans, there was/is zero unnatural about Baylor having a more-favored profile in the halls of the legislature than Houston.

Then why Baylor and not SMU or TCU who are in a relevant city rather than an irrelevant speck of dust like Waco? Only reason is because of Bullock.

Are you really so limited in scope that you fail to realize what the Republic of Texas was like in 1845? It was a few settlements that would later grow into cities and some that wouldn't. Most of the land was either unsettled to the West or large ranches. I'm sure the University was set up on somebody's grant of land to the school. In those days it was easier to transfer goods by barge on water than by wagon on land. Waco, Houston, and San Antonio were all on waterways. With technological advancement that changed and inland water travel was less advantageous. So in 1845 Waco was a good as anywhere. In 2020 it's not. But none of that changes its significance in higher education within Texas.

Dallas was roughly 5 years old as a settlement when Baylor was founded. TCU was founded in 1873 and SMU in 1911.

Baylor was chartered by the Republic of Texas in 1845, and was founded in Independence, Texas (near Brenham). Independence is near Washington-on-the-Brazos, where the Texas Declaration of Independence was signed in 1836. Baylor was not founded by Baptists, but affiliated with Baptists early in its history. It moved to Waco in 1886 as a result of a merger with Waco University. Baylor was originally a coed institution, but would split into men's and women's divisions. When the school moved, the men's division went to Waco. The women's division had already relocated to Belton (now the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor).

https://www.baylor.edu/independence/index.php?id=83295

The Baylor College of Medicine began in Dallas, and relocated to Houston in 1943. It separated from Baylor University in 1969.

https://www.bcm.edu/about-us/mission-vis...es/history

Baylor is not a public school, and is not controlled or funded by the state. Quo explained it well, though: the stature of Baylor goes back to the days of the Republic of Texas. It is best known for its schools of law and business, and has trained a large number of political and business leaders in the state. In the state of Texas, Baylor holds its own in the halls of power.

Waco is not an ideal location compared to Fort Worth (TCU) or Dallas (SMU). However, with its size, scope, and location, Baylor is still strongly connected to DFW, Houston, and the entire state. Rather than a "Dallas", a "Fort Worth", or "Houston" school, Baylor is a "Texas" school. Baylor alums are throughout the state, are visible, and are influential.

There is no place like Baylor, and I haven't even touched on the Christian dynamic of it (hint: it's not Liberty). My wife has a niece there, and I have many friends that have gone there. I'm not a fan of the school or the athletic department. But, I can vouch for the scope and the influence of Baylor within Texas.

I wasn't trying to be so specific but rather was replying to the implication that in 1845 locating a school, whether it relocated or not, had nothing to do with where modern large cities are located today. The same phenomenon happened everywhere. People in the early 19th century navigated by river much as they did in the late 18th century. Wagon trails were an innovation where waterways were sparse. Railroads changed most of that. Then highways with the introduction of the steam powered auto. And then interstates. In the end cities that became a hub for these grew the fastest. Air travel today creates international hubs.

In Alabama the first Capital is now a small forgotten town, replaced by Montgomery which is less than an hour away. As technology changes we may find that the new hubs one day will be space ports.

I have a friend who is highly successful as a treasure hunter. He travels rivers and uses his metal detectors on the highest bluffs because people in the 17 and 18 hundreds who traveled by river slept on the highest bluffs for fear of storms upstream swelling the banks at night. He's found gold coins, slave collars, the metallic pieces of flintlocks, and in Florida uniform buttons of the English that date to the time of Spanish possession of Florida along with a cannon of the same period. He turned the excavation and artifacts over to F.S.U.

How removed we are from our roots.

And its not widely known, but part of the reason the Baylor-TCU rivalry is so big is that TCU was once in Waco. It was there from 1895-1910.

(12-02-2020 09:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 08:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 06:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. Deloss Dodds is out of the limelight and this is a fluff piece, as the Big 12 has already compared vital statistics with the best of the G5 and found them lacking it hardly serves a purpose. They don't add to the bottom line.

2. The monetary difference between the SEC and Big 10 and the Big 12 is vast enough there isn't a practical motivation for movement of Arkansas and/or Nebraska to justify the move. The ACC is too remote and under GOR until 2036-7. The PAC's GOR and that of the Big 12 expire within months of each other. So logic and opportunity say that if the Big 12 is not to be picked apart, and if Texas is to keep its fiefdom, some form of consolidation with the PAC is the only way for that to happen. So if the Big 12 expands it will be from the PAC. And since both have expiring GOR's they can rebuild as they see fit without having to pay damages to those they choose to exclude from their present ranks. So much of what is suggested is possible.

3. However, a PAC merged with the Big 12 will not catch Texas or Oklahoma up to Big 10 and SEC new contract levels let alone to their present levels of remuneration. Therefore the risk that either, or both, Texas and Oklahoma could make other plans remains viable as well, no matter what anyone thinks. SEC payouts starting at least by 2024, and quite likely sooner, will begin at 68 million per school in annual distributions. That eclipses what Texas currently makes with the LHN deal added to Big 12 payouts by almost 14 million a year, escalators being relatively equal.

4. If the Big 12 expands with a PAC merger then Texas will obviously be forgoing the revenue boost for control. That may not satisfy Oklahoma and Kansas.

5. If the Big 12 does merge with the PAC that will put significant pressure upon ACC because the merged Big 12 will get a moderate boost and they already lead the ACC in revenue and that moderate boost would elevate the participating PAC schools well above current ACC payouts as well. IMO this will set up a very interesting time in 2034-5, if not sooner.

But, if Oklahoma and Kansas were to head to the Big 10 and Texas and perhaps Tech headed to the SEC both the Big 10 and SEC would see around a 3 million bump over and above their new raises further distancing their in state rivals of Louisville, Clemson, Florida State, Miami and Georgia Tech which will also put immense pressure upon the ACC.

6. What I consider possible, if not the more likely, is that top brands flee the Big 12 and ACC, and a new conference is formed out of the best of the rest. It is in the nature of top brands to reward themselves before considering others and if the monetary difference is massive, as it looks it may well be, then such considerations by these schools would be seen as prudent in light of the current losses suffered due to COVID and declining contributions from dying Boomers, and a concerted effort not to be too beholden to Corporate grants which frequently have major strings attached.

7. None of this takes into consideration legal changes which could alter the composition of any or all P5 conferences should pay for play become reality. In that event they all may be looking to consolidate to gain by increased branding, streamlined and shared overhead, and by creating conferences decidedly more appealing to the market demands that clearly demand more competitive games among the familiar and oldest brands and the elimination of weak sisters and buy games.

8. It is in #7 where Deloss hits the mark. There is more realignment coming. To know what form that takes depends upon whether there is pay for play or not. If not realignment will be based upon what is best for the top brands which are tired of lagging their peer schools in the SEC or Big 10. If we have pay for play it will be because of the need to maximize revenue by meeting network demands. And the latter could also include part of the former.

Point 6 piques my curiosity, mostly because I’ve tossed that possibility around before and didn’t get much traction with it from other posters.

I’ve said Texas, TTU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Louisville, WVU, Clemson, FSU, and Miami could be a compelling line up.

Who do you have as your ACC-Big 12 super league?

How do you get past the ACC GOR?

All GOR's are opened with departures of any kind and must be re-signed. Should we move to pay for play this will come into play in a major way. If anyone bows out of a P5 conference because they can't afford or their philosophy won't permit it, then that conference has an open window from which others may leap. In the ACC that could be any of several schools. In the SEC it would be Vanderbilt. In the Big 10 it could be one of several schools due to philosophy more than money and in the PAC you have both those who might not be able to afford it and those who would demure due to philosophical reasons. That's what happens to the GOR's.

Should that happen Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Miami, Florida State, and Louisville might all find better paying digs, but certainly not to the same conferences. Notre Dame would join after the fray settled and they knew the lay of the land required it for participation in the CFP.

There's no telling what happens then but I had in mind something more along these lines:

Stanford, Oregon, Washington, and Southern Cal join the Big 10 with possibly Colorado.

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Miami join the SEC possibly with Georgia Tech.

Neither the SEC nor Big 10 get large super brands in football. The Big 10 does quite well academically and market wise, as does the SEC and the SEC gains the 2nd Florida school, and in a region of the state they don't currently reach well.

Texas and Oklahoma are used to anchor the rest. But remember the PAC and Big 12 have expiring GOR's so there is no compulsion to include anyone.

Now the trick is to form another conference out of the rest that will pay all of them more than they were making previously.

So a hypothetical set of moves listed above might result in a new conference like this one:

Arizona, Arizona State, California, California Los Angeles, Utah
Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Texas Christian

So the Big 10 might look something like this:

Colorado, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

The SEC loses Vanderbilt and looks like this:

Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia
Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

Out are Vanderbilt, Boston College and Wake Forest likely by choice and Oregon State and Washington State by expiring GOR.

If all the rest make more than they did before there are no lawsuits. And even if B.C. and Wake didn't leave voluntarily it takes 12 votes to dissolve the ACC so it could still be accomplished.

Now you have an assortment of kings in the new conference. Stronger branding in the Big 10 with an addition of one of the top 10 schools available in Notre Dame which would be compelled to join somewhere and with the acquisitions of Stanford and USC and with Purdue and exposure in the Northeast would have reason to put more than just hockey in the Big 10.. The SEC picks up Clemson as a football power to offset the academic and hoops adds, and can only hope that Florida State finds its footing again.

This keeps things very regional moving forward.

The three champs would be in the CFP and the best at large.

Now this is just a hypothetical but a plausible one in which both expiration of GOR's and the fact that a majority of schools could earn more in a time when deficits are mounting, and in which regional play becomes more important, at least at the divisional level. And it's an example of how it might happen.

Jr once again putting up scenarios where the ACC is pulled apart and dissolved as a conference.
It's interesting though:
First pay for play has to pass
then one or more schools have to decide not to participate in pay for play (or one or two decide to pay and the others do not)
then the real kicker is that all GOR's have to be re-signed (which assumes the original GOR can't hold any school in the first place)
and because of these events the ACC will be scattered like dust.

Typical

(12-04-2020 01:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 10:42 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 10:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 07:54 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 06:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The ESPN SWC 25th anniversary article reports that Texas and TAMU didn't really care, but were strong-armed by the Statehouse in to taking Baylor and Texas Tech. At the time, the Governor of Texas was a Baylor graduate, the Lt. Governor had degrees from Baylor and Texas Tech, and the Speaker of the Texas House of Reps was a Texas Tech graduate.

That doomed Houston.

At USF, we have long felt that sting. Historically, we have had little representation or influence at the state house in Tallahassee. Guess which two schools have always had loads of it? Hint - one of them is the flagship university of the state, the other is located about a 10 minute walk from the capitol building.

But it makes sense for the state house of Florida to go to bat for the two most influential schools in Florida. It doesn't make as much sense for the Texas big ups to go for the 3rd most influential, especially at the expense of the top two. It's not only nonsensical but if I lived in Texas I'd be outraged for them to be politically pushing to benefit a PRIVATE university, especially at the expense of another public university, Houston.

You have to remember that in Texas, a school like Baylor is viewed as "more Texas" than a school like Houston, even though the former is private and the latter public. Baylor was founded in 1845, not only before the Civil War, but before Texas became a USA state, when Texas was an independent Republic, so it is older than the state of Texas itself, older than UT-Austin. It was issued a charter by the republic of Texas's congress. So its roots run far deeper in the culture and fabric of the state than do Houston's, which wasn't created until 85 years later. More "old money" Texans, Cattlemen and Oil men and political families have ties to Baylor, and they run generationally deeper.

Also, while Baylor being a Baptist school and getting public support would rile the anger of northern secular liberals concerned about "separation of church and state", in conservative Texas there is no such concern with supporting a religious, at least not a Christian, institution publicly. Baylor's motto, "For Church, For Texas" is not viewed by the mass of Texans as contradictory.

So while to an outsider your POV might make sense, from the POV of generational Texans, there was/is zero unnatural about Baylor having a more-favored profile in the halls of the legislature than Houston.

Then why Baylor and not SMU or TCU who are in a relevant city rather than an irrelevant speck of dust like Waco? Only reason is because of Bullock.

Baylor had double the football attendance of TCU and SMU and a much larger student body as well. Baylor had a few conference championships in the 70s/80s/90s. They were competitively probably #3 after Arkansas left. TCU had a piece of the 5 way tie in 94 and none since 1959. TCU was really bad most years. SMU had done nothing since the Pony Express years and was just off the death penalty.

As the SWC ended, Texas was coming off a 28 year win streak vs. Rice and 26 year vs. TCU. With Baylor, Texas lost 8 out of 10 in Waco starting with 1974 and was .500 over a 20 year period. Tech gave Texas fits, but rarely won.

Maybe Baylor was a better athletic school than SMU/TCU/Houston back then, I don't know. Obvious Rice was always pathetic in athletics, even John F. Kennedy ripped them. But it's clear Baylor got the golden ticket because of nepotism and not because of merit.

Did the Big 8 really want 12 and not just 10? I'm sure Nebraska would have liked it a lot more to have kept it 10 and had it round robin so they could have maintained the annual game with Oklahoma instead of have Oklahoma become a number for Texas. Maybe they wanted a conference championship game but back then the only conference to have it was the SEC and it probably wasn't the money maker it is today. If I was the Big 8and I wanted to add 2 more teams in addition to Texas and Texas A&M and I wasn't forced to add two extra mouths I probably would have gone for Utah and BYU or maybe some of the Metro Conference teams like Louisville, Cincinnati, and Memphis, why add two more from the same state? It seemed to me that Texas Tech and Baylor were forced on the Big 8 to get Texas and Texas A&M the way people talk about Texas Tech being part of a package to get Texas today. I highly doubt the Big 8 wanted Texas Tech and Baylor.

(12-04-2020 05:50 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 09:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 08:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 06:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. Deloss Dodds is out of the limelight and this is a fluff piece, as the Big 12 has already compared vital statistics with the best of the G5 and found them lacking it hardly serves a purpose. They don't add to the bottom line.

2. The monetary difference between the SEC and Big 10 and the Big 12 is vast enough there isn't a practical motivation for movement of Arkansas and/or Nebraska to justify the move. The ACC is too remote and under GOR until 2036-7. The PAC's GOR and that of the Big 12 expire within months of each other. So logic and opportunity say that if the Big 12 is not to be picked apart, and if Texas is to keep its fiefdom, some form of consolidation with the PAC is the only way for that to happen. So if the Big 12 expands it will be from the PAC. And since both have expiring GOR's they can rebuild as they see fit without having to pay damages to those they choose to exclude from their present ranks. So much of what is suggested is possible.

3. However, a PAC merged with the Big 12 will not catch Texas or Oklahoma up to Big 10 and SEC new contract levels let alone to their present levels of remuneration. Therefore the risk that either, or both, Texas and Oklahoma could make other plans remains viable as well, no matter what anyone thinks. SEC payouts starting at least by 2024, and quite likely sooner, will begin at 68 million per school in annual distributions. That eclipses what Texas currently makes with the LHN deal added to Big 12 payouts by almost 14 million a year, escalators being relatively equal.

4. If the Big 12 expands with a PAC merger then Texas will obviously be forgoing the revenue boost for control. That may not satisfy Oklahoma and Kansas.

5. If the Big 12 does merge with the PAC that will put significant pressure upon ACC because the merged Big 12 will get a moderate boost and they already lead the ACC in revenue and that moderate boost would elevate the participating PAC schools well above current ACC payouts as well. IMO this will set up a very interesting time in 2034-5, if not sooner.

But, if Oklahoma and Kansas were to head to the Big 10 and Texas and perhaps Tech headed to the SEC both the Big 10 and SEC would see around a 3 million bump over and above their new raises further distancing their in state rivals of Louisville, Clemson, Florida State, Miami and Georgia Tech which will also put immense pressure upon the ACC.

6. What I consider possible, if not the more likely, is that top brands flee the Big 12 and ACC, and a new conference is formed out of the best of the rest. It is in the nature of top brands to reward themselves before considering others and if the monetary difference is massive, as it looks it may well be, then such considerations by these schools would be seen as prudent in light of the current losses suffered due to COVID and declining contributions from dying Boomers, and a concerted effort not to be too beholden to Corporate grants which frequently have major strings attached.

7. None of this takes into consideration legal changes which could alter the composition of any or all P5 conferences should pay for play become reality. In that event they all may be looking to consolidate to gain by increased branding, streamlined and shared overhead, and by creating conferences decidedly more appealing to the market demands that clearly demand more competitive games among the familiar and oldest brands and the elimination of weak sisters and buy games.

8. It is in #7 where Deloss hits the mark. There is more realignment coming. To know what form that takes depends upon whether there is pay for play or not. If not realignment will be based upon what is best for the top brands which are tired of lagging their peer schools in the SEC or Big 10. If we have pay for play it will be because of the need to maximize revenue by meeting network demands. And the latter could also include part of the former.

Point 6 piques my curiosity, mostly because I’ve tossed that possibility around before and didn’t get much traction with it from other posters.

I’ve said Texas, TTU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Louisville, WVU, Clemson, FSU, and Miami could be a compelling line up.

Who do you have as your ACC-Big 12 super league?

How do you get past the ACC GOR?

All GOR's are opened with departures of any kind and must be re-signed. Should we move to pay for play this will come into play in a major way. If anyone bows out of a P5 conference because they can't afford or their philosophy won't permit it, then that conference has an open window from which others may leap. In the ACC that could be any of several schools. In the SEC it would be Vanderbilt. In the Big 10 it could be one of several schools due to philosophy more than money and in the PAC you have both those who might not be able to afford it and those who would demure due to philosophical reasons. That's what happens to the GOR's.

Should that happen Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Miami, Florida State, and Louisville might all find better paying digs, but certainly not to the same conferences. Notre Dame would join after the fray settled and they knew the lay of the land required it for participation in the CFP.

There's no telling what happens then but I had in mind something more along these lines:

Stanford, Oregon, Washington, and Southern Cal join the Big 10 with possibly Colorado.

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Miami join the SEC possibly with Georgia Tech.

Neither the SEC nor Big 10 get large super brands in football. The Big 10 does quite well academically and market wise, as does the SEC and the SEC gains the 2nd Florida school, and in a region of the state they don't currently reach well.

Texas and Oklahoma are used to anchor the rest. But remember the PAC and Big 12 have expiring GOR's so there is no compulsion to include anyone.

Now the trick is to form another conference out of the rest that will pay all of them more than they were making previously.

So a hypothetical set of moves listed above might result in a new conference like this one:

Arizona, Arizona State, California, California Los Angeles, Utah
Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Texas Christian

So the Big 10 might look something like this:

Colorado, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

The SEC loses Vanderbilt and looks like this:

Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia
Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

Out are Vanderbilt, Boston College and Wake Forest likely by choice and Oregon State and Washington State by expiring GOR.

If all the rest make more than they did before there are no lawsuits. And even if B.C. and Wake didn't leave voluntarily it takes 12 votes to dissolve the ACC so it could still be accomplished.

Now you have an assortment of kings in the new conference. Stronger branding in the Big 10 with an addition of one of the top 10 schools available in Notre Dame which would be compelled to join somewhere and with the acquisitions of Stanford and USC and with Purdue and exposure in the Northeast would have reason to put more than just hockey in the Big 10.. The SEC picks up Clemson as a football power to offset the academic and hoops adds, and can only hope that Florida State finds its footing again.

This keeps things very regional moving forward.

The three champs would be in the CFP and the best at large.

Now this is just a hypothetical but a plausible one in which both expiration of GOR's and the fact that a majority of schools could earn more in a time when deficits are mounting, and in which regional play becomes more important, at least at the divisional level. And it's an example of how it might happen.

Jr once again putting up scenarios where the ACC is pulled apart and dissolved as a conference.
It's interesting though:
First pay for play has to pass
then one or more schools have to decide not to participate in pay for play (or one or two decide to pay and the others doe not)
then the real kicker is that all GOR's have to be re-signed (which assumes the original GOR can't hold any school in the first place)
and because of these events the ACC will be scattered like dust.

Typical

Yep, JRSec wavers between trying to tear apart the Big Ten and trying to tear apart the ACC. He also doesn't seem to be very fond of the Pac 12 either. Ironically the easiest conference to tear apart is the Big 12, just take two of its members and it's history (or it's the new AAC).

If you really want a 3x20 with the ACC having enough teams that will want out of the GOR (not saying I want this but I'll play JRSec's game),

Merge the Pac 12 and Big 12 minus Oregon State and Washington State (West Virginia would be on an island but they are now anyway).

The Big Ten adds Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke.

The SEC dumps Vanderbilt (another JRSec theme for some reason) and adds Florida State, Louisville, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, NC State, and Virginia Tech.

The Big Ten adds no more western crap than they already have and instead of traveling to Washington and Oregon they travel only as far as the Carolinas.

All 12 ACC members will "upgrade" to either the Big Ten or SEC and none will enter a conference with a majority of members west of the Mississippi and some as far as California and Arizona. I highly doubt many of them will voluntarily agree to leave the ACC for that unless they throw a ton of $ their way. The "3rd" conference as proposed by JRSec is still going to be the 3rd conference. The Big 12/Pac 12 combo is still going to be the 3rd conference but it contains all of the California schools and the Pacific Northwest schools so it will still have that going for it. Plus nobody is leaving a GOR for it. Having those schools in the Big Ten hurts its identity and their travel budget and hurts the 3rd conference's identity. Also, why break up UCLA and USC, Cal and Stanford? Why not give the Big Ten all four California schools then and dump Washington and Oregon to the 3rd conference?

If having the West Coast schools in the Big Ten are such an asset, why does JRSec never add West Coast schools to the SEC? He doesn't want them. So he dumps them on us. You don't think we in the Big Ten wouldn't want Florida State? But no, we can't have them, the SEC gets to have them. We have to settle for schools twice as far away from Happy Valley/Columbus and in states with half the population (Washington and Oregon, not Stanford and USC). The SEC doesn't have to settle for western crap, the Big Ten does. I'm glad we at least got Notre Dame in his plan. Then again, I'm glad we're still a conference in his plan as opposed to his other plan when Ohio State joins the SEC.

(12-04-2020 07:17 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 01:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 10:42 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 10:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 07:54 PM)schmolik Wrote:  But it makes sense for the state house of Florida to go to bat for the two most influential schools in Florida. It doesn't make as much sense for the Texas big ups to go for the 3rd most influential, especially at the expense of the top two. It's not only nonsensical but if I lived in Texas I'd be outraged for them to be politically pushing to benefit a PRIVATE university, especially at the expense of another public university, Houston.

You have to remember that in Texas, a school like Baylor is viewed as "more Texas" than a school like Houston, even though the former is private and the latter public. Baylor was founded in 1845, not only before the Civil War, but before Texas became a USA state, when Texas was an independent Republic, so it is older than the state of Texas itself, older than UT-Austin. It was issued a charter by the republic of Texas's congress. So its roots run far deeper in the culture and fabric of the state than do Houston's, which wasn't created until 85 years later. More "old money" Texans, Cattlemen and Oil men and political families have ties to Baylor, and they run generationally deeper.

Also, while Baylor being a Baptist school and getting public support would rile the anger of northern secular liberals concerned about "separation of church and state", in conservative Texas there is no such concern with supporting a religious, at least not a Christian, institution publicly. Baylor's motto, "For Church, For Texas" is not viewed by the mass of Texans as contradictory.

So while to an outsider your POV might make sense, from the POV of generational Texans, there was/is zero unnatural about Baylor having a more-favored profile in the halls of the legislature than Houston.

Then why Baylor and not SMU or TCU who are in a relevant city rather than an irrelevant speck of dust like Waco? Only reason is because of Bullock.

Baylor had double the football attendance of TCU and SMU and a much larger student body as well. Baylor had a few conference championships in the 70s/80s/90s. They were competitively probably #3 after Arkansas left. TCU had a piece of the 5 way tie in 94 and none since 1959. TCU was really bad most years. SMU had done nothing since the Pony Express years and was just off the death penalty.

As the SWC ended, Texas was coming off a 28 year win streak vs. Rice and 26 year vs. TCU. With Baylor, Texas lost 8 out of 10 in Waco starting with 1974 and was .500 over a 20 year period. Tech gave Texas fits, but rarely won.

Maybe Baylor was a better athletic school than SMU/TCU/Houston back then, I don't know. Obvious Rice was always pathetic in athletics, even John F. Kennedy ripped them. But it's clear Baylor got the golden ticket because of nepotism and not because of merit.

Did the Big 8 really want 12 and not just 10? I'm sure Nebraska would have liked it a lot more to have kept it 10 and had it round robin so they could have maintained the annual game with Oklahoma instead of have Oklahoma become a number for Texas. Maybe they wanted a conference championship game but back then the only conference to have it was the SEC and it probably wasn't the money maker it is today. If I was the Big 8and I wanted to add 2 more teams in addition to Texas and Texas A&M and I wasn't forced to add two extra mouths I probably would have gone for Utah and BYU or maybe some of the Metro Conference teams like Louisville, Cincinnati, and Memphis, why add two more from the same state? It seemed to me that Texas Tech and Baylor were forced on the Big 8 to get Texas and Texas A&M the way people talk about Texas Tech being part of a package to get Texas today. I highly doubt the Big 8 wanted Texas Tech and Baylor.

There was actually a proposal to merge all 16. Part of the reason the left behind 4 were so caught off guard. But yes, the Big 8 would have been fine with just Texas and Texas A&M. Its just that Texas Tech and Baylor were the clear #3 and #4 at the time and had the political backing. Houston was in a slump and suffering from probation and SMU had just had the death penalty. TCU and Rice were at the bottom. Still, I guess TCU had enough well heeled backers that the Texas president at the time said that TCU was Baylor's competition for the #12 spot.