(03-24-2021 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Plus, as I mentioned above, I think Texas is saddled with tagalongs. I don't think they can make a solo move without taking Baylor and Texas Tech with them. That's a lot of baggage. Neither the SEC nor B1G needs that.

Baylor was a tagalong for the Big12 ... shouldering out Houston ... but IIRC, that was a very particular combination of both a very highly placed Baylor grad in the state ledge ("where hope goes when it is considering killing itself"), and a Baylor grad in the governor's mansion. There's no reason to expect lightning to strike twice for Baylor.

(03-24-2021 10:13 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Texas will not follow his little brother A&M to the SEC. Their ego won’t let it happen.

As I wrote many times on this board. Texas has power issues not monetary ones. Texas has money, tons of it so you don’t get a deal with Texas if money is the only thing you’re offering.

Oklahoma might be tempted but they only have to look at Nebraska and Texas A&M (I’m still not sold on one good season they had in 2020) to see if they want to become that type of program in the B1G and SEC. 8-4 seasons will get old really fast in Norman. They won’t move without Texas and only people who live in Texas, especially DFW understand how intertwined those two are.

And where is the evidence of your claims besides in assertions that business decisions are based upon, ego. Texas didn't acquire the #1 business model in college sports by making irrational decisions. So what rationale would they make these decisions upon?

I contend that heretofore it has not been about money per se, nor has it been about academics as indicated by their indifference to conference mates' departures and their cadre of friends in the SWC and the Big II 2.0. Everything they have done has been to preserve a business model that plays the majority of its games in state whether home or away, and neighbors within a reasonable driving distance for fans.

My money is that if forced to choose they will do whatever best preserves that model and who went where previously won't make a bit of difference. No emotion, no ego, just preservation of what works for them.

(03-24-2021 10:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 10:13 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Texas will not follow his little brother A&M to the SEC. Their ego won’t let it happen.

As I wrote many times on this board. Texas has power issues not monetary ones. Texas has money, tons of it so you don’t get a deal with Texas if money is the only thing you’re offering.

Oklahoma might be tempted but they only have to look at Nebraska and Texas A&M (I’m still not sold on one good season they had in 2020) to see if they want to become that type of program in the B1G and SEC. 8-4 seasons will get old really fast in Norman. They won’t move without Texas and only people who live in Texas, especially DFW understand how intertwined those two are.

And where is the evidence of your claims besides in assertions that business decisions are based upon, ego. Texas didn't acquire the #1 business model in college sports by making irrational decisions. So what rationale would they make these decisions upon?

I contend that heretofore it has not been about money per se, nor has it been about academics as indicated by their indifference to conference mates' departures and their cadre of friends in the SWC and the Big II 2.0. Everything they have done has been to preserve a business model that plays the majority of its games in state whether home or away, and neighbors within a reasonable driving distance for fans.

My money is that if forced to choose they will do whatever best preserves that model and who went where previously won't make a bit of difference. No emotion, no ego, just preservation of what works for them.

utep dallas is correct jrsec but he has understated , iam very familiar with UT and whoa you need to know that ego is an understatement and UT as a business doesn’t even need football or any other sport , look UT football is like racing stripes on a hot rod but they don’t help it to go faster and UT made big time bad financial decisions ( UT campus at houston ) recently comes to mind and that was a 300 million dollar state tax payer fraud
last A5 comment, texas will not leave where they are and they sure as heck will not follow aggie
listen to utepdallas what he is say is VERY true and then some, just my two educated cents
poor globalist Mc Ravens now a shill on cnn...

(03-24-2021 10:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And where is the evidence of your claims besides in assertions that business decisions are based upon, ego. Texas didn't acquire the #1 business model in college sports by making irrational decisions. So what rationale would they make these decisions upon?

I contend that heretofore it has not been about money per se, nor has it been about academics as indicated by their indifference to conference mates' departures and their cadre of friends in the SWC and the Big II 2.0. Everything they have done has been to preserve a business model that plays the majority of its games in state whether home or away, and neighbors within a reasonable driving distance for fans.

My money is that if forced to choose they will do whatever best preserves that model and who went where previously won't make a bit of difference. No emotion, no ego, just preservation of what works for them.

I would amend that slightly to say that Texas is not solely interested in "preserving" their business model; they are interested in both preserving it and "expanding" it. Back in 1994, when they first started orchestrating the break-up of the SWC, they were the most profitable college sports program, but now, not only have they remained that, they have also vastly widened the gap between themselves and scores of others, who used to be closer. And the original deal was for just them and A&M to merge with the Big8, so they were at least initially contemplating not having so many in-state games and conference mates. Being "forced" to take Baylor and Tech with them actually turned out well for them though.

I think in the run-up to 2024, they will once again contemplate a changed model and I think they will flirt with and investigate all possible options. But I agree with you that they will stay with what works if they possibly can. And the fact that they are tied to the ESPN LHN deal until 2031 limits the range of choices that they will really seriously consider.

As for tagalongs, OU is the main one. They aren't tied to Baylor or TCU at all. There will be some political pressure to not hurt Tech and to ensure that, if they are separated, Tech has a soft landing. But they do like having local in-state games (the RRR; the frequent Rice games) and the Frogs and Bears do provide that. So it's not like 1994 when they really did want to separate from the "privates;" now, they'd do it if the deal they negotiate calls for it, but it's not such a driving force.

What I think is that they'll preen and they'll flirt and they'll talk and then they'll end up staying put until at least 2031. They like being the center of attention. It's kind of amazing that they haven't really been nationally relevant in football since 2009 (and TCU is 7-2 against the Longhorns in the Big12), but they are still #1 in money, revenue and business model despite Bama, Clemson and Ohio State (and OU) being massively better in actual performance over the last decade.

(03-24-2021 11:02 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 10:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And where is the evidence of your claims besides in assertions that business decisions are based upon, ego. Texas didn't acquire the #1 business model in college sports by making irrational decisions. So what rationale would they make these decisions upon?

I contend that heretofore it has not been about money per se, nor has it been about academics as indicated by their indifference to conference mates' departures and their cadre of friends in the SWC and the Big II 2.0. Everything they have done has been to preserve a business model that plays the majority of its games in state whether home or away, and neighbors within a reasonable driving distance for fans.

My money is that if forced to choose they will do whatever best preserves that model and who went where previously won't make a bit of difference. No emotion, no ego, just preservation of what works for them.

I would amend that slightly to say that Texas is not solely interested in "preserving" their business model; they are interested in both preserving it and "expanding" it. Back in 1994, when they first started orchestrating the break-up of the SWC, they were the most profitable college sports program, but now, not only have they remained that, they have also vastly widened the gap between themselves and scores of others, who used to be closer. And the original deal was for just them and A&M to merge with the Big8, so they were at least initially contemplating not having so many in-state games and conference mates. Being "forced" to take Baylor and Tech with them actually turned out well for them though.

I think in the run-up to 2024, they will once again contemplate a changed model and I think they will flirt with and investigate all possible options. But I agree with you that they will stay with what works if they possibly can. And the fact that they are tied to the ESPN LHN deal until 2031 limits the range of choices that they will really seriously consider.

As for tagalongs, OU is the main one. They aren't tied to Baylor or TCU at all. There will be some political pressure to not hurt Tech and to ensure that, if they are separated, Tech has a soft landing. But they do like having local in-state games (the RRR; the frequent Rice games) and the Frogs and Bears do provide that. So it's not like 1994 when they really did want to separate from the "privates;" now, they'd do it if the deal they negotiate calls for it, but it's not such a driving force.

What I think is that they'll preen and they'll flirt and they'll talk and then they'll end up staying put until at least 2031. They like being the center of attention. It's kind of amazing that they haven't really been nationally relevant in football since 2009 (and TCU is 7-2 against the Longhorns in the Big12), but they are still #1 in money, revenue and business model despite Bama, Clemson and Ohio State (and OU) being massively better in actual performance over the last decade.

This I can see. Everything they have done has been about keeping as many options before them as possible but when they do make a decision it will be the one that best preserves what they have. They've been in talks with the SEC (and I'm sure everyone else) since 1987. They understood from the beginning that the schools who choose last will get the best deals. Oklahoma has ridden that philosophy with them. Over a year ago Wilner thought that if the SEC cashed in on their T1 they would ultimately land Texas and Oklahoma.

I don't think it will be that simple. The deals will be over the schools Texas wants to keep on their permanent schedule. Oklahoma will try to leverage the Pokes but ultimately will do what they have to for themselves.

We'll see but there are so many factors this time everyone will be operating in self interest mode and much will depend upon court rulings yet to come.

The little-8 have to feel terribly vulnerable as we approach June 2025, and decision time for Oklahoma and Texas a year before that.

I see Oklahoma moving in 2025 and Texas moving as we get close to 2031. Oklahoma can't wait. Staying 5 or 6 more years will cost their athletic department at a minimum $150m in revenue.

If I'm in the little-8, I probably suggest each of the little-8 take $5m less in the next media deal every year, so that Texas and OU can get $20m in exchange for their signing long GORs. That haircut is considerably less than they will take if they don't make that deal only to see Texas and Oklahoma move to another conference and the media money crater.

It's amazing how a thread about the AAC being a power conference got derailed and now it's about Texas.

People can believe what they want but all they have to do is look how Texas operates since the death of the SWC. I've been saying for years on this board Texas wants power not money. They have money, tons of it. Part of that power and ego is not going to a conference where people will make the assumption they're following their little brother. Frank said it better in this thread than I could ever said it for years: Texas wants to have the impression is leading not being led. Texas was leading half the SWC in merging with the Big Eight and create the Big XII. Texas was leading the Big XII South minus Baylor to the Pac-10. Texas changing its mind at the last minute and saving the Big XII was leading the conference for stability. Going to the SEC is not going to create the impression for Texas.

The Big XII offers Texas everything they want and in return, it gives seven or eight schools a power conference they can call home. Texas knows those schools don't have any realistic options outside the Big XII so they will not get on the way. Those schools (especially West Virginia) only need to look at Cincinnati, UConn and South Florida on what happens when you're suddenly outside the cartel and in the case of TCU, their nomad days from the WAC to C-USA to the MWC are still a recent memory. In the B1G and SEC, schools Texas might see as beneath them such as the Mississippi and Indiana schools do not have to worry about losing their status like K-State, Baylor and Iowa State do so they won't tolerate being bullied by Texas. In the Big XII, Oklahoma is the only heavyweight.....in the B1G and SEC, there's at least four Oklahomas. So a school that operates from a position of power since the 90's and with a big ego will not risk having that power being diluted by joining a conference where everybody is on the same page like the Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12.

(03-24-2021 11:46 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The little-8 have to feel terribly vulnerable as we approach June 2025, and decision time for Oklahoma and Texas a year before that.

I see Oklahoma moving in 2025 and Texas moving as we get close to 2031. Oklahoma can't wait. Staying 5 or 6 more years will cost their athletic department at a minimum $150m in revenue.

If I'm in the little-8, I probably suggest each of the little-8 take $5m less in the next media deal every year, so that Texas and OU can get $20m in exchange for their signing long GORs. That haircut is considerably less than they will take if they don't make that deal only to see Texas and Oklahoma move to another conference and the media money crater.

Oklahoma has options. They know it and they'll use it as leverage in the next tv negotiations.

The choice for Oklahoma is, do they stay in the Big XII where it's easier to make it to the CFP and if they don't, a NY6 bowl? Or do they run the risk in becoming another Nebraska and Arkansas? At best, they could become a Texas A&M which is not terrible if you're a mid-level and bottom P5 program but I doubt Oklahoma fans want to become a mediocre program like the Aggieland cult whose ceiling is having one or two good seasons every decade and never win its division.

(03-25-2021 12:46 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-24-2021 11:46 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The little-8 have to feel terribly vulnerable as we approach June 2025, and decision time for Oklahoma and Texas a year before that.

I see Oklahoma moving in 2025 and Texas moving as we get close to 2031. Oklahoma can't wait. Staying 5 or 6 more years will cost their athletic department at a minimum $150m in revenue.

If I'm in the little-8, I probably suggest each of the little-8 take $5m less in the next media deal every year, so that Texas and OU can get $20m in exchange for their signing long GORs. That haircut is considerably less than they will take if they don't make that deal only to see Texas and Oklahoma move to another conference and the media money crater.

Oklahoma has options. They know it and they'll use it as leverage in the next tv negotiations.

The choice for Oklahoma is, do they stay in the Big XII where it's easier to make it to the CFP and if they don't, a NY6 bowl? Or do they run the risk in becoming another Nebraska and Arkansas? At best, they could become a Texas A&M which is not terrible if you're a mid-level and bottom P5 program but I doubt Oklahoma fans want to become a mediocre program like the Aggieland cult whose ceiling is having one or two good seasons every decade and never win its division.

But they are not going to stay 10 extra years at the cost of $300m to the athletic department. That is way too much money. And to be honest I am probably being too conservative with how much money they would be leaving on the table by not jumping. It could well be over $400m given the growth in B1G and SEC earnings.

I’m curious as to where the Big 12’s tv valuation would be today, relative to the Big 10 and SEC, had they not lost 4 members in the 2010-2014 realignment